Search the Community

GREED AND ALTRUISM RULES THE AFL OVER DRAFT ASSISTANCE by Whispering Jack Last month, Hawthorn's president Andrew Newbold accompanied Andrew Demetriou and others to the US on an AFL-equalisation study tour. On his return, one of his first public comments was to slam the idea that the cash strapped and success-starved Melbourne Football Club should be the recipient of any financial or draft assistance from the AFL. I don't believe he mentioned anything about Melbourne, the Bulldogs or even North Melbourne being offered better fixtures along the lines that his club and the other big boys currently enjoy; no extra Friday night games to attract more sponsorship and supporters and no reduction in dead fixture times such as Sunday twilight and the like. In fact, Newbold offered no solutions in respect of the equalisation problem at all. On that basis, it's not difficult to conclude that Newbold is a hypocrite and that the AFL trip was indeed a junket, as many suggested at the time. Instead of helping clubs in need, we are witnessing a flexing of muscles by the president of one of the stronger clubs seeking to maintain the status quo. All this, despite the fact that we are often told that it's in the AFL's interests for all clubs to be more competitive. The fact that Demetriou himself has highlighted that the clubs oppose Melbourne's application suggests that the AFL constituent clubs are reverting to the selfish, greedy partisan politics that prevailed before the AFL Commission was formed - Clubs oppose priority draft pick for Melbourne . The AFL (then VFL) Commission was created in 1985 to administer the competition and its constitution. In the main, it has retained its independence from the constituent clubs (which was its raison d'être in the first place) but the authority of the Commission and its independence is now under attack over the issue of whether the Melbourne Football Club should receive a priority draft selection as a result of its consistently poor performances over the period 2007-2013. During this seven year period, the club's best efforts have been 8½ wins (twice) and otherwise, there have been five seasons in which it recorded between 2 and 5 wins per year. In the season just completed, the club won two matches and finished with a percentage of 54.07. This would have easily qualified Melbourne for a priority pick under the AFL rules that applied in most years prior to the 2012 season onwards but today, clubs can only receive such draft assistance at the discretion of the AFL Commission. The specific criteria have not been announced but it is understood that "a more complicated formula will be used, which takes into account premiership points, percentage, finals appearances and injury rates for a club over several seasons". - AFL overhauls priority pick system The reaction of the opposition clubs to Melbourne's application for assistance has been worrying. The problem I have with the objectors is that they are based on slanted opinions about Melbourne's recruiting performance and ignore the substantive points which the Commission is supposed to take into account in making its decision on draft assistance. And, they place too much weight on the controversy resulting from the AFL's selective "tanking investigation" into events that took place at one club during 2009 even though several others have had their own practices questioned without any scrutiny or investigation. There is little doubt that the club's recruiting performance over the past decade or so has been disappointing (the application for assistance would be unnecessary if it were otherwise) but these assessments fail to take into account several factors. They ignore serious injuries to early picks - for example, of the 2008 draft crop, both Sam Blease and James Strauss suffered broken legs that kept them out for the length of a season and hindered their development. Tom Scully was headhunted by GWS with a $1m plus bounty which the player could hardly resist and Melbourne was never going to match. They ignore facts such as the information in a recent Herald Sun article that place Melbourne close to the bottom of the list of father/son recruits. Compare this with Geelong, the most successful club of the recent era, which received an enormous boost with its sons of former players. The coaches, boards and recruiting officers in place at the time of the club's "bad" recruiting decisions have now moved on. Why make the task of returning the club to competitiveness more difficult for those now in charge? Surely, the fact that the club is overhauling its coaching and recruiting systems and personnel today should bear more weight on the Commission's decision to help out than the fact that it picked Cale Morton at pick four ahead of Cyril Rioli in 2007? The suggestion that Melbourne must suffer again as a result of the events of 2009 for which it was penalised in February with heavy financial sanctions and penalties for officials is risible. The Demons' application is made because the team needs assistance in the here and now and it is inappropriate that it be penalised twice (or three times if you include the Scully fiasco) to feed the greed and altruism of rival clubs who claim that a priority pick would upset the integrity of the AFL draft. The argument of the so-called "objecting" clubs comes across as rather hypocritical coming from some of them. It was only a year or two ago that the new franchises gained a swag of early draft picks (and not just the one that the Demons are requesting) which pushed struggling clubs like Melbourne off the map when it came to securing good draft picks in those years. Hawthorn faces the prospect of losing free agent Lance Franklin at the end of the year but is it likely that Newbold will knock back a compensation draft pick (most likely in the first round) if Buddy takes the money and runs? The same thing will happen with Collingwood if Dale Thomas heads off to Carlton. Coincidentally, Thomas was a priority pick taken by Collingwood which lost its last eight matches in 2005 to snaffle that pick. The Pies somehow managed to avoid the scrutiny of an AFL investigation into that effort. All of this begs the question of the purpose of the AFL rules relating to draft assistance which are designed to help teams in need to become more competitive. Melbourne is such a team and if the Commission refuses the Demons' request for help then the rule must be scrapped because the AFL would be giving into the greed and altruism of its own clubs as it did in years gone past and, on that basis, no other AFL club will ever qualify again.