The Future of Our Game

[Secret Kiel]

How much of a paycut did Gil take and how much of a paycut did 12 of his staff who are on a $1 million dollars per year salary take.

Who are the 12 AFL employees who are all on $1M plus salary per annum?

I know one of them personally. Hey a side question, were you a Halo member back in the late 80s early 90s?

[sunsaint]

The debate about the quality and spectacle of AFL football today has been going on forever, and over the past 20 years there have been a lot of rules changes, both tried and eventually implemented, in order to make the game more attractive to fans.

It is generally agreed that the main instigators in the style of play have been the senior coaches - they ultimately live or die by their win/loss ratios, and have often introduced tactics calculated to win games, and to hell with what the football "product" looks like.

As St Kilda supporters we well understand Ross Lyon's philosophy of "team defence", originally devised I think by Rodney Eade and then refined by Paul Roos, who mentored Ross Lyon. It was a style of play that eliminated a lot of the natural talents and skills of players, and free flowing attacking styles that resulted in high scores by both teams. We are reminded of this with all of the games from the '90s that FoxFooty has been screening in recent weeks.

Earlier this week the Chairman of the NRL, Peter V'landys, spoke about this very thing in the context of Rugby League, and what he had to say applies equally to AFL:

<snip>

Peter V'landys is obviously not universally admired, but you have to admit that he has been an exceptionally strong leader - his declaration over a month ago that NRL would restart their 2020 season on May 28 was mostly ridiculed by many commentators, but he has pulled it off. He had no hesitation in getting rid of NRL CEO Todd Greenberg when it became evident Greenberg had lost the support of club presidents, and in essence he wasn't really needed as V'landys assumed the role of Executive Chairman.

I am not suggesting that the AFL should do the same, quite the opposite, I believe the AFL Commission and CEO Gil McLachlan are doing a great job, and this structure is far superior to that of the NRL.

But I do have a strong belief that the AFL should become a lot more assertive in directing the future of our game, and make it absolutely clear to all stakeholders, especially the coaches: “Our job is to make the game entertaining. Their job is to win.

the trouble that NRL has is very simple - the rules that they set up to make them unique from Union was a game style deliberately slower than union.
TO change the 5 stoppage kick rule would be to bring the game back to Union rules - so in effect why be different at all? Just join em. A bit of a catch 22

And yes you're correct to point out the Sydney derived game style of Eadde/Roos/Lyon which was a simple observation from soccer where the game starts in defence. Watching a Swans vs Saints game was like pouring treacle in the antarctic (read soccer)
But I do believe that has mostly changed now with todays game style
I would like to see one of the experimental rules brought back where the ball hitting a post and comes back in play is not a score but play on ( my take is the ball has not crossed any line of play so therefore not out of bounds)

[St Plugger]

You make some good points St Plugger, the only problem is that what you propose may be regarded as too radical for implementation in the short term.

They may seem radical to the group of welded on "leave the game alone" group who are not aware of the changes in the the sport of "Australian Football" beyond AFL that are in place These are already making the game more attractive to watch than the rolling mauls we have seen in the recent past.
In these instances it's the concept rather than the effect. I recall the out on the full and the centre square introduction being railed against but who would call for them to be changed back now?

The idea floated in the past couple of months to reduce player lists to 35 or 36 is going to face considerable opposition from the AFLPA so there's going to be plenty of argy-bargy to bring this about.

I agree that there will be plenty of discussion at this level, as I said above, the players association have a responsibility to represent their members interests.

This question is of course linked to the proposal under consideration by the AFL to reduce the costs of the 22 round season, and one of the few ways to achieve this is to pay players less.

Agreed, but by having less players per team, total game payments would be reduced, allowing those players selected to maintain something similar to their current salary levels.

It may well be impossible for the AFL to renegotiate the current CBA down, unless the players decide that this is in the overall best interests of the future of the game, but that's a long stretch....

In reality It's either work something out or no AFL and Job!

A lot of this debate hinges on the financial status of the AFL beyond 2022, and what sort of broadcast rights deal the AFL can negotiate with the broadcasters. I would not dismiss the possibility that the new deal will be substantially higher than what exists currently, the pandemic will by then have well and truly passed on and history tells us that the economic recovery should be strong.

An optimistic view, given the historic outcomes from the depression and past deep recessions, with a reality that consistently show a long period of economic hardship before better times return.

[Ghost Like]

How much of a paycut did Gil take and how much of a paycut did 12 of his staff who are on a $1 million dollars per year salary take.

Who are the 12 AFL employees who are all on $1M plus salary per annum?

I know one of them personally. Hey a side question, were you a Halo member back in the late 80s early 90s?

If this is true, I'm guessing I'm related to one of them but we don't discuss our respective salaries. I do doubt the validity of the claim. Another question where the answer is multiplied by two plus X to get attention.

[Ghost Like]

I'm quite bemused by this "future" talk. It seems those with agendas, whether to remain relevant, are trying to take advantage of the situation. All self fulfilling and indulgent. A game, prior to CV19 was in total control, now those that wish change have their in.
Seriously, I was beginning to lose interest in a game I grew up with before this & altering it even further would not be the game I love, besides golf, I'd happily walk away from a ridiculously changed product.

[Joffa Burns]

How much of a paycut did Gil take and how much of a paycut did 12 of his staff who are on a $1 million dollars per year salary take.

Who are the 12 AFL employees who are all on $1M plus salary per annum?

I know one of them personally. Hey a side question, were you a Halo member back in the late 80s early 90s?

Never a halo member.

Was a minor sponsor for many years and been member of Presidents Club, Bayside Lounge and the B2B club, can’t recall the name of it right now.

[St Plugger]

Seriously, I was beginning to lose interest in a game I grew up with before this & altering it even further would not be the game I love, besides golf, I'd happily walk away from a ridiculously changed product.

That's the point of the suggested change to 15/16 aside!

It is to bring back the type of football that was played up until the 90's/turn of the century that you grew up loving.

By having 30 players instead of 36 on the field, there is a lot more space to move and fewer players to swamp contests and as a result, more opportunity for players to show their skills.

That combined with fewer Interchanges and Interchangers and a return to having Substitutes will free up the game.

We'll get to see a better spectacle and a more entertaining product,

We may even only need 2 field umpires like the had "back in the day" and that wouldn't be a bad thing either!

[Secret Kiel]

An optimistic view, given the historic outcomes from the depression and past deep recessions, with a reality that consistently show a long period of economic hardship before better times return.

I'm generally an optimistic person but I'm also a realist and the data does not suggest a strong or quick recovery.

[Secret Kiel]

Seriously, I was beginning to lose interest in a game I grew up with before this & altering it even further would not be the game I love, besides golf, I'd happily walk away from a ridiculously changed product.

That's the point of the suggested change to 15/16 aside!

It is to bring back the type of football that was played up until the 90's/turn of the century that you grew up loving.

By having 30 players instead of 36 on the field, there is a lot more space to move and fewer players to swamp contests and as a result, more opportunity for players to show their skills.

That combined with fewer Interchanges and Interchangers and a return to having Substitutes will free up the game.

We'll get to see a better spectacle and a more entertaining product,

We may even only need 2 field umpires like the had "back in the day" and that wouldn't be a bad thing either!

Brain injury is also going to shape the look of the game dramatically too.

[St Plugger]

Brain injury is also going to shape the look of the game dramatically too.

Agreed!

Having 6 less players on the field has to statistically lower the risk.

By opening up the game, we'll see less of those in close repeated tackles and mauls which should assist in the area of head injury. Having fewer players won't eliminate those that occur in contested marking situations, but again, they'll be more player on player than big packs, lessening the risk.

The mix of substitutes/interchangers should factor in concussion cases as well.

[Secret Kiel]

Brain injury is also going to shape the look of the game dramatically too.

Agreed!

Having 6 less players on the field has to statistically lower the risk.

By opening up the game, we'll see less of those in close repeated tackles and mauls which should assist in the area of head injury. Having fewer players won't eliminate those that occur in contested marking situations, but again, they'll be more player on player than big packs, lessening the risk.

The mix of substitutes/interchangers should factor in concussion cases as well.

I think a standardised ground size and configuration has to be looked at also if we truly want to improve fairness and integrity.

I think less on the field has to also effect a smaller field with smaller goal arcs. The speeding up of the game over the years has meant goal kicking by fatigued players has suffered significantly with most players struggling to kick a goal from 40m out.

[Jacks Back]

I would like to see one of the experimental rules brought back where the ball hitting a post and comes back in play is not a score but play on ( my take is the ball has not crossed any line of play so therefore not out of bounds)

I second this. The game would be more exciting if the ball bounces back into play. What about if the ball hits the goal post and goes through the goals? Is that a goal or a behind (like now)? Same if it hits the behind post but goes through the behinds - 1 behind or on the full (like now)?

If you get 6 points for hitting the post but going through the goals would save some of those stupid reviews.

[Sanctorum]

I would like to see one of the experimental rules brought back where the ball hitting a post and comes back in play is not a score but play on ( my take is the ball has not crossed any line of play so therefore not out of bounds)

I second this. The game would be more exciting if the ball bounces back into play. What about if the ball hits the goal post and goes through the goals? Is that a goal or a behind (like now)? Same if it hits the behind post but goes through the behinds - 1 behind or on the full (like now)?

If you get 6 points for hitting the post but going through the goals would save some of those stupid reviews.

Good thinking, the video review is a blight on the game - and let umpires rule on whether or not a player got a fingernail on the ball before it goes through the posts, like has been the situation for over 100 years!

There are reports that the EPL and other major football leagues in Europe want to dispense with the video review, because the video replays do not always give a clear answer and so remain at the discretion of the referees.

[Secret Kiel]

I would like to see one of the experimental rules brought back where the ball hitting a post and comes back in play is not a score but play on ( my take is the ball has not crossed any line of play so therefore not out of bounds)

I second this. The game would be more exciting if the ball bounces back into play. What about if the ball hits the goal post and goes through the goals? Is that a goal or a behind (like now)? Same if it hits the behind post but goes through the behinds - 1 behind or on the full (like now)?

If you get 6 points for hitting the post but going through the goals would save some of those stupid reviews.

Good thinking, the video review is a blight on the game - and let umpires rule on whether or not a player got a fingernail on the ball before it goes through the posts, like has been the situation for over 100 years!

There are reports that the EPL and other major football leagues in Europe want to dispense with the video review, because the video replays do not always give a clear answer and so remain at the discretion of the referees.

They want to dispense with it because it costs money.

[sunsaint]

I would like to see one of the experimental rules brought back where the ball hitting a post and comes back in play is not a score but play on ( my take is the ball has not crossed any line of play so therefore not out of bounds)

I second this. The game would be more exciting if the ball bounces back into play. What about if the ball hits the goal post and goes through the goals? Is that a goal or a behind (like now)? Same if it hits the behind post but goes through the behinds - 1 behind or on the full (like now)?

If you get 6 points for hitting the post but going through the goals would save some of those stupid reviews.

it has crossed the field of play - so yes
I wonder tho if a slightly triangular shaped goal post would give a better indicator as to which side of the post it goes

[desertsaint]

so a shittier kick (a behind) can score more than one that hits the goal post?
how about we just get rid of the points posts completely? only way the play on from balls bouncing back makes sense.
the goal for ball bouncing off and through makes sense tho. saves on many stupid replays as well.