-
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.
So much for an "even / socialistic" competition!
- Thread starter tigerjoe
- Start date
The AFL's communist erm I mean socialist oops equalisation method is to ensure that every team gets a reasonable chance to compete on an opportunity assisted playing field. As long as the club is reasonably well managed in all facets of it's operations the club should be able to compete n contend for finals in a reasonable time frame. Clubs that get every aspect of their business right will obviously out perform most others for a period n top the ladder n chase flags with a possibility of winning a couple over their successful period.23.21.159 said:
Brisvegas got an abnormal bonus when Fitzroy were pushed into their team but still did a hell of a lot right for years. Cats, Swans, Hawks have done absolutely everything right over the last dozen years. Swans with a COLA bonus, plus all three with the advantage of expansion clubs brutalizing the available talent pool for building clubs, right place right time for them, but again these three clubs have performed brilliantly during this era.
I doubt we're ever going to see anywhere near the disruption n expansion of the comp as we've seen over the last twenty years, with all the equalisation measures that have been rammed in place, there will still be clubs that perform brilliantly n some that walk around with *smile* on their shoes. Still be a need for players to grasp their opportunity when it's presented to them though.
pokey said:
Agree 100%. I get more irked by clubs (eg Melbourne) that ended up where they were through bad coaching, management and the rest, get given extra cash and then allowed to spend $1.5mill a year of it on the most expensive coach in the AFL. Equalisation is fine as a general rule but rewarding failures with extra benefits is not on imo.
Tames said:
20 years ago Hawthorn were on the brink of merging with Melbourne, we were playing in a Preliminary Final after rescuing the club from going bust just a few years earlier.
Hawthorn took their club back and engaged with their members by having a lot of volunteers directly involved with the club, Richmond had an official policy of eventually removing all volunteers to become a more "professional" organisation.
Hawthorn nurtured their "Family Club" culture and have done things like setting up the - apparently - best AFL club museum, Richmond only has a museum now because basically one person fought for it over the past few years when the building development was being done.
These may not sound important to a lot of people but it simply highlights the difference between the two clubs at a non-football level and is probably indicative of a lot of things Hawthorn does better than all the other Melbourne clubs.
If anyone thinks that things like this don't matter in a competitive environment where constantly being 1% better in every single thing that you do makes all the difference, then please explain to me why they are so successful?
I'm exactly on the same page as you TJ. And this era has been compounded by the introduction of free agency while they're on top. Any guy a fair chunk through his career and wanting a crack at a premiership will naturally want to go to a top side. If they water down free agency to the detriment of top sides going forward, will mean no one else gets the same opportunity Hawthorn has during this era. This of course would mean never to be achieved again (outside the two new plastic clubs being given a manufactured leg up).tigerjoe said:
One thing I will say. People often get stuck into our recruiters on this forum. Think about it for a second though. A large portion of our side has been built during the compromised era. Yet they have built a side now threatening top 4 and one which beat all but one of the top 4 sides convincingly this season (Beating Hawthorn being the sweetest. I'm usually a gracious winner. But for Hawthorn, sorry, I was the worst winner you can imagine). To me this seems a Herculean effort. This all said, I'm concerned this generation may top out about where we are at the moment. Would likely of had a much stronger list had our rebuild occured without a compromised draft. Rebuilding during this period put us at a huge disadvantage.
I suspect Hawthorn's decision to sell home games to Tasmania has had an enormous amount to do with their recent success. It has given them another avenue to membership, a shedload of sponsorship dollars, a home fortress where they win most games against interstate clubs in the main, fewer interstate games at their opponent's home ground and no home games at Etihad. There are a lot of 1%ers right there.
Good on them, they had the balls to stand up to their members and embrace the Tasmanian experiment. When our club sold three games to Cairns there was a meltdown amongst the faithful of epic proportions. They have made it work with spectacular results.
They have turned their four worst selling home games each year into a money-spinning bonanza which has helped them get to this point. Let's not underestimate the effect that bringing an extra few million big ones in each year has had.
Btw, this has also set back Tassie's campaign to get their own team by several decades. As long as the Tassie's Gov sponsors the Hawks as generously as they do, the AFL has no incentive to do anything else.
Good on them, they had the balls to stand up to their members and embrace the Tasmanian experiment. When our club sold three games to Cairns there was a meltdown amongst the faithful of epic proportions. They have made it work with spectacular results.
They have turned their four worst selling home games each year into a money-spinning bonanza which has helped them get to this point. Let's not underestimate the effect that bringing an extra few million big ones in each year has had.
Btw, this has also set back Tassie's campaign to get their own team by several decades. As long as the Tassie's Gov sponsors the Hawks as generously as they do, the AFL has no incentive to do anything else.
Yep I was all for us playing in Tassie long ago TOT. As discussed here Good on the Hawks and North. I reckon we could have benefited even more by taking up the initiative. Alas we have all our games in Melbourne but no finals success. To me it would have been an ongoing benefit long after supporters get sick of digging into their pocket$ to help the club out of trouble.
Tell me about it Rosy. I'm based in Tasmania and have to put up with the whole 'Tassie Hawks' garbage at nauseum jammed down our throats.rosy23 said:
I'd love to have Richmond playing here instead of Hawthorn. Richmond is one of the traditional 'Tasmanian' clubs and has always had a huge following down here (due to strong historical links). In fact when Hawthorn played Richmond in Launceston back in 2006 I think it was. The crowd was 70/30 in Richmond's favour - at a Hawthorn home game.
Interestingly, people forget that in the early years of Hawthorn's Tasmanian arrangement, they were sharing with St.Kilda. Two matches for each club. The Tas Govt one day, bizarrely out of the blue comes out and says they want one club playing four games. Next thing you know St.Kilda's out.
Rumour has it that this was very strongly influenced by Jeff Kennett putting pressure on the govt in the background and can't help thinking, the Sainters got shafted out of it. Never quite sat right with me. Similar to Richmond, St.Kilda are one of the traditionally followed clubs in Tasmania. Very much for historical links from the Bolldock, Stewart era of the 1960s. And were one of the Melbourne clubs that was probably in more need of a deal like this. Genuinely for mutual benefit. Just seemed a far better fit than Hawthorn.
And (given my distain for anything Hawthorn) I could have certainly lived with the Saints being marketed as Tasmania's team far more than *smile* Hawthorn.
To summarise, Richmond and St.Kilda genuinely seem to have the strongest historical links to the state through iconic Tasmanian players donning their colours, so have had disproportionate followings down here and either would have been a great fit for this reason.
people are missing the elephant in the room... the reason why this 'socialist competition' has failed to create an even comp is because of Demetrious's ego driven expansion. not only has 18 teams drained the talent pool, but the growth of other sports in this country means there is far more competition for the hearts and minds of the athletes in this country. footy isn't the only option for kids in the heartland these days. moreover, 18 teams makes it so much harder for teams to rebuild from scratch because they don't get as many good draft picks when they bottom out.
the point of my argument is that this issue isn't about the top teams being strong/rich/powerful enough to stay up the ladder for longer periods... the problem is that its so much harder for the bottom teams to climb the ladder. Richmond is the perfect case in point. we're a strong/rich/powerful club who has been rebuilding for 7 years and still haven't won a final... and we've done most things right when you really thinking about it.
the point of my argument is that this issue isn't about the top teams being strong/rich/powerful enough to stay up the ladder for longer periods... the problem is that its so much harder for the bottom teams to climb the ladder. Richmond is the perfect case in point. we're a strong/rich/powerful club who has been rebuilding for 7 years and still haven't won a final... and we've done most things right when you really thinking about it.
Spot on Ian. The AFL have taken completely the wrong method for expansion (and clubs need to take some blame for it too), to the detriment of the competition as you so correctly point out.Ian4 said:
If intent on spreading the game, the lesser of all evils would have been relocating less sustainable Melbourne clubs. The North Melbourne move to the Gold Coast should have happened. As mentioned in my previous post, St.Kilda should have taken the place of Hawthorn in Tasmania with a view of future relocation (significant historical links between the Saints and Tasmania). And perhaps one of Doggies or Melbourne should have been courted and given incentives to look at becoming GWS?
Now we have the situation where the league is subsidising unsustainable Melbourne clubs AND the new plastic clubs (GCS & GWS) simultaneously, as well as having a more diluted talent pool. This could have been avoided. Eventually we may find some forced marriages are manufactured (ala Brisbane-Fitzroy) between the new plastic clubs and these less sustainable Melbourne clubs, which is far less palatable than a club keeping most of it's identity and relocating - such was the case with South Melbourne to Sydney. Or worse still, we could have some unsustainable Melbourne clubs wound up completely at AFL level, while the plastic clubs remain. Hence creating a situation where a club with a soul and a history is essentially replaced by a new plastic entity devoid of any soul.
Even thinking about it from a business perspective. Sure some supporters of a relocated club would be lost. But a decent number would stay around if treated well by the league and the club (decent Melb membership packages like what the Swans provide). These loss making games that we see with a near empty Docklands or MCG when GWS or GCS come to town would likely not happen. It would be more like when the Swans come to town, where there is a reasonable number of 'away' supporters in the crowd.
Ian4 said:
In regards to your comments about other teams the problem is that its so much harder for the bottom teams to climb the ladder. Richmond is the perfect case in point. we're a strong/rich/powerful club who has been rebuilding for 7 years and still haven't won a final... and we've done most things right when you really thinking about it.
Have they come from further behind than us and overtaken us or were they in some way better set up to climb the ladder than we were?
rosy23 said:
the bulldogs last made the finals in 2010, so it effectively took them 5 years to bounce back and make the finals... which is the same as us under the Hardwick regime. if you wanna make the argument that the dogs didn't start their rebuild until McCartney was appointed in 2011, then it took them 4 years. although it is pretty safe to assume that we we're coming from a far further back point than Footscray.
rosy23 said:
actually i got it wrong. Dimma got us into finals in his 4th year, not 5th... which makes my argument stronger that the bulldogs haven't rebuilt quicker than us. and clearly, there were other underlying factors resulting in their 14th place finish last year (which lead to the coach and captain leaving).
and don't mean to be technical, but we finished above them this year.
Ian4 said:
How do they decide who finishes 7th and 8th?
Do we get 7th because we finished higher after the home-and-away games?
