2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Nico]

DB sees a lot of things, generally his ‘insights’ miss the mark, sometimes spectacularly. Without watching the video, is he suggesting (like you ) that re-negotiating contracts could lead to players switching clubs if they are unhappy with their new salary ?

I just can’t see how that will work, every club is going to be operating under the new cap so I hardly think anyone is going to have a war chest there to throw overs at players from other clubs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Simple answer: Clubs receive a new cap figure that is say 70% of the current cap. Reduce all contracts by 30%. No need to renegotiate other than look after Rookies outside the cap as their figure might not be sustainable.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Simple answer: Clubs receive a new cap figure that is say 70% of the current cap. Reduce all contracts by 30%. No need to renegotiate other than look after Rookies outside the cap as their figure might not be sustainable.

That’s pretty much what o was getting at, without saying it as plainly. It will be an across the board reduction, and the players will have to take it on the chin. Maybe some allowance for those on the very lower rungs of pay, but not an opportunity for players to tear up their contract and walk to the highest bidder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[707]

That’s pretty much what o was getting at, without saying it as plainly. It will be an across the board reduction, and the players will have to take it on the chin. Maybe some allowance for those on the very lower rungs of pay, but not an opportunity for players to tear up their contract and walk to the highest bidder.

AFL will have total control of this, it will be well thought through and not allowed to be exploited by clubs, players, agents.

Of big concern is the next broadcast deal being a lot less that the current one. At least AFL isn't the shambles that is the NRL, from a distance it looks like they are in dire straits.

[Nico]

Just because it is mooted that contracts will be renegotiated doesn't automatically mean that all players will be free agents. That would be a dead set shambles.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Just because it is mooted that contracts will be renegotiated doesn't automatically mean that all players will be free agents. That would be a dead set shambles.

I know, I agree. It was pondered in another post by Bloodspirit in regard to Papley perhaps walking to Carlton if that were the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[barry]

FWIW, Damien Barrett can foresee 75% of player contracts being renegotiated, especially those recently signed e.g. Brodie Grundy's.


AFL Video - AFL.com.au

I think it comes in a little after the 29 minute mark.

No doubt the AFL will force us to honour 100% of Buddy's contract.

[Bloods05]

No doubt the AFL will force us to honour 100% of Buddy's contract.

Well, we can't have everyone after all.

[SeanM]

The first focus of the plan was to overhaul list sizes. The AFL asks clubs for their preferred list size, what mechanisms they would use for player movement and requests other club innovations on list- size management or composition.

Clubs expect that lists next year will be cut to below 40 and the rookie list is doubtful to be retained, or at least not in its current form.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-planning-a-long-term-overhaul-of-the-game-20200417-p54ksw.html

I worry that if they reduce list sizes. There is less opportunity to take a gamble on a raw player and develop him over a number of seasons. A higher proportion of the list will need to be older experienced players ready for first team football.

B: Aliir, Rampe, O'Riordan
HB: Mills, McCartin, Dawson
C: Cunningham, Kennedy, Lloyd
HF: Hayward, Blakey, Gray
F: Papley, Heeney, Ronke
Foll: Naismith, Parker, Rowbottom
Int: Florent, McInerney, Brand, Taylor

That is our 22 for the round 1 game. Then you have probably got Melican, Fox, Sinclair, Clarke, Hewett, Reid and Franklin as injured first team players or experienced depth players in important positions.

Then you probably will always have 2 developing rucks and maybe 4 first year draftees. That is already 35 players. So there is not much room on the list. Especially for long term players like Barry O'Connor. Or talented 2nd/3rd year players looking to break into the first team this season.

[707]

The problem with a complete restructure of footy is the unproportional impact on NSW & Qld as Academies and the NEAFL are far more necessary for the well being of the four northern clubs than the dodgy NGA's and the VFL.

Smaller lists will mean far far less against the odds stories as clubs won't have the space or staff to nurture long term developers.

An exercise for everyone is to look at our list and reduce it to say 38 for 2020 adding 2 draftees. Who are you cutting, contracts don't matter for this. we have 46 on the list so need 10 off.

[Cosmic Wizard]

We have lots of players who are not best 22 but are still on our list.
There will need to be some major cuts to all AFL lists.
The below list is with an eye on the two academy players we will bring in who are sub 180cm.
Players we can get rid off:
1. Ryan Clark
2. Jackson Thurlow
3. Zac Foot
4. Mathew Ling
5. Sam Reid
6. Ben Ronke
7. Jack Maibium
8. Lewis Taylor
9. Robbie Fox
10 Ryley Stoddart
11 Joe Amarty
12 James Bell
13 Lewis Melican

Most of these players have been on the list for a couple of years but haven't progress far.

[barry]

Any big cut in list size would need a mechanism to be able to train and promote players out of a second tier competition.
For example, from Cosmis Wizards 13 player we could get rid of, Clark, Thurlow, Ronk, Mailbium, Fox, Melican all played at least a few senior games over the past couple of years. So we do need access to this list of 13 by some mechanism.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

The "lets reduce the size of lists" chorus is being lead be the same imbeciles that whinge about the undersized talent pool.
Like most neo-con rationalisations, It's short term self serving, but long term self defeating stupidity,

[SeanM]

If they cut list sizes, it will probably be players on minimum wage at each club that lose their career. So it is offputting to see someone like Jaeger O'Meara one of the high paid players campaigning for list cuts.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

If they cut list sizes, it will probably be players on minimum wage at each club that lose their career. So it is offputting to see someone like Jaeger O'Meara one of the high paid players campaigning for list cuts.

Another odious short term self serving individual, if they get their way, no kids whose game needs development will be able to follow Grundy, Lloyd, Smith, Jack, Rampe, Mumford etc. etc. into the AFL.
The game will be poorer for their absence, but individuals like Jaeger will be richer - some days the AFL is just such a microcosm of the wider world.
It will also do disproportionately greater damage to the development of the game outside the southern states, and almost certainly the women's game.
Such people are clearly the least appropriate to have any say in the future of the game, or come to think of it, the world.

[liz]

Another odious short term self serving individual, if they get their way, no kids whose game needs development will be able to follow Grundy, Lloyd, Smith, Jack, Rampe, Mumford etc. etc. into the AFL.
The game will be poorer for their absence, but individuals like Jaeger will be richer - some days the AFL is just such a microcosm of the wider world.
It will also do disproportionately greater damage to the development of the game outside the southern states, and almost certainly the women's game.
Such people are clearly the least appropriate to have any say in the future of the game, or come to think of it, the world.

Couldn't agree more.

I just went to look at who is currently on the board of the AFLPA. It does include a few players (like Ed Curnow, Jamie MacMillan) who quite possibly wouldn't have got a start in the AFL had lists been smaller when they were drafted. Hopefully their memories are in tact.

Leah Kaslar appointed to the AFLPA board - AFL Players

I'm really struggling to understand the arguments in favour of cutting list sizes - the practical footy reasons, not the how-do-we-distribute-less-money-while-making-sure-the-"stars"- don't-have-to-suffer reasons.

Each year, several clubs use close to their entire list in senior games. How do smaller lists work in that context?

As it is, young players are often thrown into senior football before they are ready for it. If we want to improve the standard, you could argue lists should be expanded so that clubs can continue to hold and develop younger players and only play them when they are ready.

I understand that there are financial pressures facing the competition but, as with the rest of the economy, those who currently make the most money out of the game are the best placed to take proportionately more of the hit.