2 New Clubs , minimising the player drain from clubs.

[saintsRrising]

How can 2 new clubs be commenced in 2012 so that they can be "reasonably" competitive without plundering most of their players from the existing AFL Clubs??

Now some will come from existing clubs, and no doubt any players who transfer will see draft picks going to their existing clubs. Perhaps with a cap as well of say no more than one player per AFL Club.

Well the answer to me is twofold:

1/ By not obtaining the players in just one year
2/ By giving the quality players.....by the means of giving them quality kids (which is not as painful as getting existing players).


My system recognises that most kids draft actually take several years to become AFL ready. There are few that can play good enough football in their first year.

The same can be said with rookies who need some form of develop.


So for 2012 kick off of the new teams I would envisage something like this.

*The two clubs participate in each of the 2009, 2010 and 2011 drafts
* They flip a coin for who gets first pick in 2009, the other gets second but then gets pick first pick in 2010. The existing clubs get their 16 picks and then the cycle repeats with the new clubs included.

The two new clubs also get an expanded selection of rookies.

So what happens with these players?

The two teams will field a team in a state based competition such as the VFL for Western Sydney.

This gives both teams 2 seasons to develop these kids into players ready to play ok football at AFL level in 2012 from their first two years of selections with the 2011 draftees to provide new blood the following year.

The two seasons will also allow an extensive pool of rookies to be tried out and developed.

Three draft periods of getting early picks will also see them with a good spread of talented kids ina variety of positions.

To these two pools is then added upto 8 AFL players per team team.

Now by AFL players I mean players who are on AFL lists.

Any player who has been delisted by an AFL club can be a rookie selection by the two clubs who will have special "mature" rookie provisions. This will allow them to take a large number as well as to pay them AFL level pay packets rather than the normal rookie pay packet.


So entering in 2012 this would see each team with say:

*8 transferred AFL players
* 18-21 draft kids of which two thirds will have played for up to 2 seasons.
*10 or so normal rookies (though over the two years there would have been some churn here)
*5 or so delisted AFL players.


The above should give the two teams a reasonably competitive team without "raping and pillaging" the existing 16 AFL clubs.

The large number of young draft picks combined with the normal influx of draft picks from 2012 on based on ladder finish should also see the two new clubs ona reasonably sound footing for he future. But a footing which is also not too unfair on existing clubs.


The onus will be on the two new clubs to select well and to them develop their talent well.

The two clubs would need to appoint their inaugural coaches by mid 2009 who would oversee selection with recruiting mangers and then ongoing player development.

For the young drafted players as they will denied the ability to take senior appearance's (except in say a NAB Cup) for two years there should be some financial compensation with a higher than normal salary being paid. This woud also be stop then being poached by the other clubs with a longer than normal committment period as well.



Your thoughts?

[casey scorp]

I understand where you're coming from, but I think that the big hole in the plan is that Draft picks 1 & 2 from 2009 & 2010 (as well as some lesser picks who might also happen to be good players) won't get to play AFL footy until 2012.

Imagine Riewoldt & Koschitzke taken as #1 and #2 in the 2000 draft not being able to play until 2003. Rooey would have missed 28 games and Kosi 24 games (and they both had one great year and one injured yewar each - if they had both stayed fit in 2001 and 2002 they would have realistically entered 2003 with around 40 games each).

I don't think you can possibly expect to hold back the development of elite players by having them play for up to 2 years in a state-based competition.

I think your proposal makes sense in terms of fairness on the new clubs, and in not raping the existing clubs, but unfortunately not for the young players drafted.

[saintsRrising]

I understand where you're coming from, but I think that the big hole in the plan is that Draft picks 1 & 2 from 2009 & 2010 (as .

Remember that the draft is at the end of the year..

So 2009 draftees have to wait 2 seasons and 2010 only one.

But most draftees are not really ready to play for 1 to 2 years.


But yes it a bit less fair in that group...and hence my compenastion to them.


however it is about the only way that I can see that the new teams get some quality players without adversly affecting several existing clubs.

[saintsRrising]

I don't think you can possibly expect to hold back the development of elite players by having them play for up to 2 years in a state-based competition.

.

Perhaps in the first year then the two clubs enter after the first round???

[Enrico_Misso]

Explain to me how the competition standard will be better ?

It must mean a depletion of standards
It must mean that the existing clubs will lose good players
It must mean that the existing clubs will be pushed back in the draft whilst the new clubs get priority picks
It must mean that North, Bulldogs, and Melb will sink slowly into further debt with less prospects of ever recovering


Despite these self-evident truths our "Me-Too" Board were too insipid to stand up to Emperor Dimwit and point out the obvious.

[saintsRrising]

Explain to me how the competition standard will be better ?

:

Not disagreeing with your post...but that is not what this string is about.

I have taken it as a done deal for the purpose of this string....and given that assumption have then written the OP as a suggestion on how to minimise the pain on the xisting clubs.

So I will not try and answer your question as that should be for another string.

Cheers sRr

[Enrico_Misso]

Explain to me how the competition standard will be better ?

:

Not disagreeing with your post...but that is not what this string is about.

I have taken it as a done deal for the purpose of this string....and given that assumption have then written the OP as a suggestion on how to minimise the pain on the xisting clubs.

So I will not try and answer your question as that should be for another string.

Cheers sRr

Fair enough sRs.
But I am too angry about the stupidity of the decision and the gutlessness of our board to be bothered thinking about the nitty-gritty of how the resourcing of the new clubs will work.

But I'll take my rage to another thread

[saintsRrising]

Thank you....

[big_mac_evoy5]

i think that the new clubs can have picks 1 and 2 in the 2009,10,11 season but they have to trade a player or players of equal value but they can stay at there club until 2011 then 2012 move over to threre respective clubs but the trades would need to be cofidential so the media don't bag or make up storyies about the player who have agreed to go to other clubs

[casey scorp]

i think that the new clubs can have picks 1 and 2 in the 2009,10,11 season but they have to trade a player or players of equal value but they can stay at there club until 2011 then 2012 move over to threre respective clubs but the trades would need to be cofidential so the media don't bag or make up storyies about the player who have agreed to go to other clubs

Not sure I follow the logic, if you're suggesting that the new clubs would have to trade players of equal value to get back their confidentially drafted players.

Where would the new clubs get those players from?

Besides, there is no such thing as confidentiality in AFL clubs. The only exception seems to have been the mid-year Carlton deal to secure Judd. There must have been very few people in the know because, believe me, AFL clubs leak like sieves as insiders try to curry favour with the multitude of football reporters all trying to justify their existence.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

How can 2 new clubs be commenced in 2012 so that they can be "reasonably" competitive without plundering most of their players from the existing AFL Clubs??

...

Your thoughts?

Simple answer is that they can't.

If you allow the 2 clubs to start drafting early, it's restraint of trade on the draftees. While most players will take some time to reach AFL standard, that's however many years of top draft picks that don't get the media and general opportunities of playing at AFL level... without even touching the contractual implications (draftees are on set salaries which differ between AFL and VFL level). In trying to be fair to the clubs, you're then opening up a can of worms in player contracts.

Given player movement restrictions, remuneration realities, the way that free agency became available and it's immediate impact overseas, the AFL would be ill advised to persue this route without very active involvement of the AFLPA, and even then would be opening the door to losing control of the landscape during a time when the goals appear to planned, and control is crucial.

To build the teams list without leaving them as absolute fodder, there will need to be some sort of expansion draft process. To build them as competitive, the AFL can't be concerned with minimising the drain, they need to incent these players to join the new clubs. While it would be good to see the AFL try and cap the amount of pain any single current club could cope as a result of expansion, the talent pool demands that a large part of the new AFL lists comes from current AFL lists.

Otherwise expansion is just kicking tires, and I have the feeling they're taking this pretty seriously.

[saintsRrising]

Why would it be restraint of trade??

They get an employer and a salary...and indeed my suggestion is extra salary. Perhaps my number of draft periods was generous, but then agin not if you really want the clubs to be competitive.

And yes of course you would involve the AFLPA, and yes there would be special remuneration for the "inaugural" players


However the alternative is to try and do it all in one year.


In such case for the clubs to be resaonablly competitive straight up would mean a plundering of the other 16 clubs and a lot of angst.

They would need a larger pool of good rather than just ok AFL players.
Each AFL club would have to lose say one good player and one ok player to the two new clubs.


I don't think that there is any easy answer, but the model I put up was designed to minimise the angst on eaxisting AFL clubs.

[Richter]

Explain to me how the competition standard will be better ?

You are presumably inferring that this is an example a zero sum game?

It must mean a depletion of standards
It must mean that the existing clubs will lose good players
It must mean that the existing clubs will be pushed back in the draft whilst the new clubs get priority picks

In the short term I agree that there is an existing talent pool for AFL footballers that must be more diluted. However, the whole point of expanding the reach of the game into new areas is so that in time NEW young recruits come in to the game from the areas of the Gold Coast and NSW. Having their own teams can surely only help the expansion of the game into the youth sporting culture of these areas.

It must mean that North, Bulldogs, and Melb will sink slowly into further debt with less prospects of ever recovering

I definitely don't agree with this. More teams may mean more, NEW supporters in these new areas - which translated to more games in front of more people, potentially more to watch on TV, hence higher TV rights etc. etc. - i.e more NEW money coming into the game which can only BENEFIT all existing clubs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a push for NEW support and new revenue-making opportunity. The existing boards are not lemmings and must have been persuaded by the AFL for doing this - look at how Jeff Kennet for one has been turned around on this. The AFL must have done a lot of research and be prepared to more than adequately push the game into these new areas to be able to overcome any reluctance and conservatism on the part of the existing clubs.

[saintsRrising]

Back on Topic..(for this string the 18 Clubs is an accepted reality)

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/s ... 96718.html

Yet, almost bizarrely, it can be revealed that Southport will almost certainly be represented on the new club's board, with a serious financial stake in its operation. Confused? There's more. For 2009 and 2010, Southport is likely to be competing on the field against this new entity.

Mackenzie is unfazed by the prospect. "Any arrangement that brings (the new club) into the AFLQ as early as next year is obviously only an interim thing and I'm sure there wouldn't be any great problems with that, even if we were competing against them."

The reason for an immediate entry to the AFLQ is to ensure that, by 2011, the Gold Coast Football Club will not be full of 18 and 19-year-olds readied for slaughter in the big league. Nor will it be a cobbled-together transplant operation, as the Brisbane Bears were in 1987.
Rather, the best talent on the coast — along with whoever else might be lured by dollars and the temptation to be a part of AFL history — will be given time to find their feet in a lower grade.

One might presume the prospect of priority access to Gold Coast players would antagonise the Brisbane Lions in particular, but the club seems prepared to take the long view for the betterment of the competition and, more immediately, for the marketing opportunities presented by a local rival.

"They've got to start getting players from somewhere," Lions chairman Tony Kelly said. "That might be something we've got to live with, for a short period of time … I think in the medium and longer term the Lions will benefit, absolutely."