By Paddy Higgs
April 17th 2009 @ 2:25am
Related coverage
AFL’s concessions for Gold Coast create unease
David Hale of the Kangaroos (L), Nick Riewoldt of the St Kilda Saints and Daniel Merrett of the Brisbane Lions on the beach during the AFL Season Launch on the Gold Coast. Slattery Images
A curious article appeared on the AFL’s website on Thursday. In it, the AFL defended its draft concessions to 2011 entrant Gold Coast. Virtually unprompted, the timing of the article is decidedly strange.
But at least it gives us another chance to debate the generous allowance afforded to Guy McKenna’s side.
The AFL’s seventh side will receive picks 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 in the 2010 NAB AFL Draft, as well as access to a dozen 17 year-olds not eligible for the draft.
In addition to access to already-established uncontracted players at AFL clubs, it makes for a charitable welcoming gift for the Gold Coast’s debut year.
Concessions for new and developing sides are hardly a new concept.
After all, extra room in the salary cap afforded to Brisbane and Sydney helped them establish premiership sides.
But the Gold Coast’s nest egg is something else.
Led by recruiting manager Shane Clayton, the club is already beginning to stake out potential recruits from AFL sides that will be out of contract.
And who can blame it?
Carlton showed that AFL captains can be enticed from rival clubs, and to great effect.
That alone will spur Gold Coast into a vigorous pursuit of the likes of St Kilda skipper Nick Riewoldt, who is of course a Queenslander.
It was also intriguing to read this week of Collingwood’s Dayne Beams, originally from Southport, who snubbed a three-year deal to sign a standard two-year contract. It’s a term that will put him out of contract when the Gold Coast would be able to pounce.
Still, the concessions have failed to completely satisfy the new club, with committee member Graeme Downie famously labelling the deal “skinny” back in September.
Most existing AFL clubs have been just as unhappy, if for completely different reasons.
“Within five years, they’ll be a super team,” mused Melbourne football operations manager Chris Connolly last year.
Connolly has a point.
The Gold Coast may not be a force in its debut year, but Hawthorn has shown the benefit of intelligent drafting and allowing youth to foster.
The potential for the club to dominate the league for some seasons is real.
That the AFL has felt compelled to defend the concessions again is curious. But all the press releases in the world still won’t appease its existing clubs.
The current system designed by the AFL encourages an even competition.
Perhaps in working to ensure Gold Coast does not struggle, thus failing to attract new fans, the AFL has over-compensated.
Time, as they say in the classics, will tell.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(12)
Michael C said | April 17th 2009 @ 6:32am | Report comment
The thing that has to be remembered, is that the Gold Coast will most likely be trading a good number of those draft picks – for established players. So, the existing clubs will have the capacity to access the draft, if they’re willing to give up something for it.
The access to uncontracted players is of little guarrantee. Most clubs are going to ensure their best players are securely signed away.
Reality is that the article reference to Brisbane and Sydney ignores to a degree the first 10 years of each ‘franchise’. (obviously the draft and salary cap weren’t in place in 1981-2 for the Swannees. But, for the bad news Bears – they got stuff all early on and were an exercise is mis-management as a bunch of rejects were thrown together and attempted to be packages as an AFL team!! Further down the track the AFL got serious, and probably we can look at the Wayne Jackson tenure as a AFL boss NOT from Victoria and willing to push a more ‘AFL’ approach than ‘VFL’. The flip side is that that administration envisaged about 2 or 3 Melb based teams to have fallen by the wayside by now.
Jake Niall had an excellent article in the Age yesterday on this and stadiums : http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews/afls-ground-rationalisation-costs-clubs/2009/04/15/1239474935832.html
Brett McKay said | April 17th 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
So will the same draft concessions be extended to Western Sydney or Tasmania for the 2011 draft??
Redb said | April 17th 2009 @ 8:28am | Report comment
Brett,
I’d imagine Western Sydney will get similar concessions at some point. It’s a tight fit as you imply when WS are due to start in 2012. Still don’t know why it has to be so soon after the GC enters, 2015 would make more sense on almost every level except TV rights.
Tassie may not get draft concessions other than an exclusive recruiting zone in Tasmania. Curiously both Port Adelaide and Fremantle never recevied draft concessions unlike Adelaide and West Coast whichalso recevied state based exclsuive recruting zones for a number of years which virtualll built state sides in a club competition and gifted them two flags each. In saying that both clubs have been far more sustainable with that success.
Redb
Michael C said | April 17th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Brett & Redb -
yeah, I’ve questioned this too – that if WS18 is still on the one year after GC17 time frame, then,
A. they’d better get cracking,
and
B. will the GC17 draft concessions be repeated therefore the next year for WS18.
At this point – all the hoopla about concessions and the ‘Gold Coast’ draft etc give the impression of it standing in isolation.
Thus far, there’s stuff all to indicate this – which gives greater credence to an assumption that the West Sydney timetable will ’slide’ a fraction.
Kurt said | April 17th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
All this talk about the GC being a ’super team’ is alarmist rubbish. History shows that high draft picks can just as easily turn out to be duds as gems, and a club with good developmental structures and processes can turn lower draft picks into established senior players.
Redb said | April 17th 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
MC,
Yeah Western Sydney start date must slide out. Is relocation still a possibility on the agenda at AFL house? That would solve the draft concession/team building issue. ‘Bullies for Bankstown’ I can see the headlines now (sorry Pip).
Redb
Michael C said | April 17th 2009 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Redb – - Righto, the “Pippinu bait” is dangled….
(I dunno that I could handle it if the Dons do the Rooboys on Sunday, …i.e. getting done by Pip’s mob a fortnight ago and then your lot too………..ah, I couldn’t take it!)
Pippinu said | April 17th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
I’m with Kurt – far, far too early to be labelling GC some sort of super team. West Coast and Adelaide came in to the comp with squads chock full of state reps, sure, they won their first premiership in their 6th and 5th seasons respectively, but they both had their own travails getting their.
GC will have nothing like that quality coming in – they might strike it rich in the draft, then again, they may not.
It’s worth remembering that Port had the least generous of start up concessions of all 7 non-Victorian clubs, and it managed a premiership in its 8th season (after topping the ladder three years running).
I honestly doubt anyone can predict who’ll be doing what in five years time.
Kazama said | April 17th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
I think the quality of the inaugural Gold Coast team will depend on the depth of the 2010 draft. If it is a shallow draft teams won’t be as willing to trade away experienced players for top picks, which would hurt the Gold Coast’s recruitment. Of course if the opposite is true they could have a very competitive team in their first year.
If the Gold Coast have to chase players under contract then I can see that being a problem. I think teams will hold them to ransom and get them to cough up as many picks as they can for their players. If they are out of contract, then the ball is in the Gold Coast’s court as they’ll have top pick in the Pre Season Draft.
Hopefully for once trade week will be interesting. I think some teams could capitalise on the moves the Gold Coast makes. I see a lot of three-way trades happening. The Gold Coast might not be a dominant force as many fear, but their arrival could help to create one if a team trades cunningly off the back of the Gold Coast’s deals. Big chance for teams with sub-standard lists like Freo and Melbourne to turn things around if many players and picks change hands that week.
I believe the Gold Coast will be allowed to have a massive list – I think it is 57 players and 12 rookies, please correct me if I’m mistaken. If that’s the case I can see a few experienced guys in the VFL, WAFL and SANFL getting a second chance at AFL.
By the way Pippinu I’m looking forward to our match in The Roar’s DT league this weekend. Good luck. See you in two weeks Michael C.
Michael C said | April 17th 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Kazama -
defintely agreed – that trade week promises to be one of the most interesting ever.
btw – don’t forget, the GC17 have had access to pluck the 10 best (I think) 17 yr olds. Which effectivley undermines that draft I’d have thought?
Again though, the hope is that a lot of clubs will be looking at NSW and international scholarship opportunities as ways to secure potentially cheap talent via a pathway thus far littered with a fair sprinkling of good value gems.
Brian said | April 17th 2009 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
I agree the GC will still need super managment to be a premiership team. After all Richmond have been getting good picks for all but two of the last 20 years and are still no good. Especially in the last 5 years they seem to have missed out on good player after good player. Buddy Franklin comes to mind. I agree with Michael C that it does not look like W Sydney will come in 2012 but on the other hand I don’t think they would won’t a 17 team competition for too long, its an odd number in terms of fixtures and finals series etc.
Coach said | April 17th 2009 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
It seems a bit unfair to teams that have been in the competition for over 100 years (eg melbourne) that are really struggling. I think its wrong to pump a new team “for the good of the game” when teams with so much history in the game are left to flounder.