-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Can we create another Hawthorn era?
- Thread starter Bennnny
- Start date
Agree Richo, and that very often results in the party in debt being forced by their creditors into liquidation, and being unable to trade... read play footy. The fact is that our beloved game is going into this with probably more than half of the teams owing more than they own. Its a mess.
The sad thing about cutting list sizes is that guys like Soldo would never get a list spot let a Premiership medal...
Not sure how cutting it to 35 works as Clubs use that amount of players & more every yr as it is, we used 39 last yr alone....
Not sure how cutting it to 35 works as Clubs use that amount of players & more every yr as it is, we used 39 last yr alone....
If the AFL wants to reduce the list sizes then they should do the following:
- Lift the draft age to 20. Meaning there would not be a draft for 2020 nor 2021
- Do away with rookies adding them to the main list
- Reduce the 2021 list size to 40
- There would still be a trade period both years
- For 2022 the list size would reduce further to 36
- There would need to be a restructure of the VFL and some system where a club could promote a VFL listed player to the AFL list for Long Term Injury/Retirement
- Most of the kids under consideration for a draft would get games at VFL level and all become free agents available to be drafted in the year they turn 20
- Retain the category B player concept for players like Soldo or international players
- at the end of 2022 the draft and trade reume normal transmission and clubs need to find a minimum of 3 players to delist to make 3 or more selections at the draft
- Lift the draft age to 20. Meaning there would not be a draft for 2020 nor 2021
- Do away with rookies adding them to the main list
- Reduce the 2021 list size to 40
- There would still be a trade period both years
- For 2022 the list size would reduce further to 36
- There would need to be a restructure of the VFL and some system where a club could promote a VFL listed player to the AFL list for Long Term Injury/Retirement
- Most of the kids under consideration for a draft would get games at VFL level and all become free agents available to be drafted in the year they turn 20
- Retain the category B player concept for players like Soldo or international players
- at the end of 2022 the draft and trade reume normal transmission and clubs need to find a minimum of 3 players to delist to make 3 or more selections at the draft
Which is precisely why they should not cut lists to 35, what a stupid idea.
What if some clubs can pay the existing contracts, assuming a reduction in the salary cap? How do they resolve this if a club says they can pay, they have signed the contracts and cannot renege and therefore cannot stay under an adjusted salary cap? I know players are paid by the AFL and clubs can't fiddle the books but surely this would encourage brown paper bags (Carlton would do well out of that).
DS
Not sure how they can get around it, the already signed contracts will be legally binding & i can't see the AFLPA budging on that fact.
From T of O, I understand we have 13 of 44 players unsigned for the 2021 season. It also seems likely that the AFL will go ahead with a draft. The game loves the publicity around the annual draft!
It would be interesting to know how many, and who are the unsigned players, other teams have on their roster?
It would be interesting to know how many, and who are the unsigned players, other teams have on their roster?
My guess is that the AFL are not / never were concerned about penalizing a club for doing a good job.
And taking the ground that it is for the greater good
Its not that headquarters has it in for Richmond, just that they must serve their TV masters
This scenario could turn horrible, if there were many players changing teams.
I wouldnt want a situation where the teams were significantly mixed up from the current list.
Even if Richmond were largely unaffected, it makes a mockery of the club based competition
I may be wrong but I expect the the Banks would have insisted the AFL reduce expenses as a condition of the recent loan agreement.The AFL can’t tear up exiting contracts and tell all contracted players to renegotiate. The players and the Association would say no and if the AFL simply reduced payments there would be a massive court action for contract breach, which the AFL would lose.
The only legitimate way the AFL can save money on salaries to players is to reduce the TPP and require the clubs to fit all new contracts within that limit. To do so while requiring clubs to continue to meet the minimum payment requirements, the AFL is proposing a reduction in list size, which, as David and Richo point out, may leave the clubs in trouble. If there are only 35 on the list and more than 13 are injured or trying to recover fitness at any one time, then?
As suggested above such a dramatic cut into the list will also harm us because we have over time, built up such a strong list.
However there will be a cut in player payments and eventually most players will have to take a haircut. Those on longer contracts may voluntarily contribute, but asking and getting are not the same. Forcing these issues is going to create even more chaos.
Any cut in list size and reduction in TPP should only be introduced gradually.
The only legitimate way the AFL can save money on salaries to players is to reduce the TPP and require the clubs to fit all new contracts within that limit. To do so while requiring clubs to continue to meet the minimum payment requirements, the AFL is proposing a reduction in list size, which, as David and Richo point out, may leave the clubs in trouble. If there are only 35 on the list and more than 13 are injured or trying to recover fitness at any one time, then?
As suggested above such a dramatic cut into the list will also harm us because we have over time, built up such a strong list.
However there will be a cut in player payments and eventually most players will have to take a haircut. Those on longer contracts may voluntarily contribute, but asking and getting are not the same. Forcing these issues is going to create even more chaos.
Any cut in list size and reduction in TPP should only be introduced gradually.
You make perfect sense but the AFL are not going to give up on the draft. TV loves the draft.
Agree and in the past all such situations have been dealt with by agreement for adjustment by a reduced contact payment followed by an enhanced contract payment or visa versa. Phew.
Plus the possibility of a bonus in the form of an extended contract, like Jack took when Lynch was signed.
This was workable because like housing, the TPP always trends up.
Here the AFL is seeking a $3,000,000 reduction. And you have a set of existing legally binding contacts.
That is not small change and tinkering with existing contracts won’t be possible, unless you want players contracted to play for ever like Buddy.
Extended contracts might be a solution but combine that with smaller playing lists and it all starts to fall apart.
I would almost be saying let's keep the playing list size as is, and then put a freeze on the salary cap rather than reduce it. A freeze would have quite an impact as clubs have forward planned assuming it will keep rising, but that was an assumption not guaranteed. This would mean a longer transition to a salary cap which fits the revenue in the future and the need to pay back debt, but it should work over time.
Less disruption too.
Tigerdell, I agree this wasn't done with the idea of penalising Richmond, and I understand the greater good argument. But penalising good management of the list and the club is the sort of impact they should try and avoid.
DS
Maybe it will happen as you say and that would be great but it seems like they are intent on reducing expenditure immediately.
Yep, but the AFL are like a football team who are 30 points down at half time and the coach insists that the deficit must be wiped out in the first 15 minutes of the third quarter.
Meanwhile the smart teams know you have a better chance of winning if you wittle the lead down, get close or just ahead (if you are lucky) by 3/4 time and then go for it.
The AFL want a quick fix, they want to go back to pre-COVID 19 as fast as possible. But, it just ain't going to happen. Borrowing money now is the right thing to do and should keep the competition afloat, then you take a longer term perspective when planning the time taken to pay down the debt and spread the load over a longer period. Given that interest rates are so low it makes even less sense to try and rush paying the debt back. Less disruption by freezing the salary cap, paying down the debt over a few years at low interest rates and inflation will also erode some of the debt while you're at it.
DS
Watching Caroline Wilson on Footy Classified last night. She believes team lists will be reduced to 38 for next season and by a further 3 for 2022. There was also a strong consensus that the draft would go ahead.
As I have suggested this would mean a massive shedding of players (from all clubs), at the end of this season.
We may have 1 or 2 retirements but inevitably the remaining 7/8 will come from our present group of uncontracted players.
As I have suggested this would mean a massive shedding of players (from all clubs), at the end of this season.
We may have 1 or 2 retirements but inevitably the remaining 7/8 will come from our present group of uncontracted players.
currently uncontracted on main list
| Nathan | Broad |
| Riley | Collier Dawkins |
| Luke | English |
| Ryan | Garthwaite |
| Jack | Graham |
| Bachar | Houli |
| Oleg | Markov |
| Ben | Miller |
| Toby | Nankervis |
| Fraser | Turner |
This season has hurt us, no doubt in regard to matching them but they won 3 in a row which we are obviously no chance of doing if this season is thrown in the bin.
The RFC more likely chance is emulating the Cats and win flags in 17,19 and 21 as opposed to their run in 07, 09 and 11.
TBH I think most Tiger fans would be very happy with that.
I would be.
Back to back would be a better CV with 3 in 4 years but if I was offered another flag next year with no footy played this year I'd take it.
The RFC more likely chance is emulating the Cats and win flags in 17,19 and 21 as opposed to their run in 07, 09 and 11.
TBH I think most Tiger fans would be very happy with that.
I would be.
Back to back would be a better CV with 3 in 4 years but if I was offered another flag next year with no footy played this year I'd take it.
