Dale Thomas of Collingwood marks over Daniel jackson of Richmond during the AFL Round 04 match between the Richmond Tigers and the Collingwood Magpies at the MCG, Melbourne. Slattery Images
When Mark Robinson compared Jack Watts and Michael Hurley in his Herald Sun piece this week, perhaps the question he should’ve asked was would the former number one draft pick have developed quicker as a player somewhere else than he has at Melbourne?
The topic of player development is becoming more pertinent in AFL circles these days.
Collingwood’s 2010 premiership success has given great credence to a school of thought that their unrivalled resources in player development has enabled them a leg-up on the rest.
After all, this is a club who’ve turned a long list of rookie-listed players into seasoned AFL stars, such as captain Nick Maxwell along with five others from their 2010 Grand Final team including All-Australian defender Harry O’Brien.
We also shouldn’t forget Dane Swan, arguably their best player, went at pick 58 in 2001. The Pies are clearly doing something right.
Resources certainly play their part in hiring the best people for the job to develop young talent but there’s also cultural elements inside footy clubs which encourage youngsters to get the best out of themselves.
Some clubs don’t seem to have this, and in the past Richmond and Fremantle have been accused of this. We’ve certainly seen a lot of Tigers or Dockers head to other AFL clubs and do well.
It was only last week, Collingwood president Eddie Maguire poked a jibe at Richmond on radio when he said troubled Tigers youngster Troy Taylor would probably end up playing good footy somewhere else if Richmond delisted him.
It was a cheap shot but it points to this whole issue of player development and how some clubs get it right and some don’t.
At the moment, it appears Collingwood are leading the field in getting it right.
Only last week AFL columnist Garry Lyon wrote a piece pointing to the fact Collingwood have a VFL side as being crucial to the club’s ability to develop players into their system.
Lyon also wrote: “It’s no coincidence the two dominant teams of recent years (Collingwood and Geelong who’ve won three of the past four flags) field their own VFL teams.”
Personally I think there is an element of coincidence to that fact, but there’s no denying having those ‘reserves’ teams in the VFL has benefitted both clubs. I think that’s clear when you look at the depth of Collingwood’s list.
As a result, we’ve seen a push from West Australia’s two AFL clubs to introduce ‘reserves’ teams in the WAFL.
There’s also been more recent talk about South Australia’s two AFL clubs doing the same in the SANFL, even if Adelaide coach Neil Craig strangely poured cold water on the idea this week.
In WA, the WAFL clubs aren’t particularly keen on the idea as there’s little in it for them but they are willing to listen to what the AFL clubs have to offer.
If West Coast and Freo – who are two of the financially-stronger AFL clubs – put a significant financial incentive on the table to the WAFL clubs, then who knows?
Collingwood used their financial resources to their benefit in 2008 when they created their ‘reserves’ side in the VFL. Arguably, we’re now seeing the benefit of their investment.
The fact Collingwood have those resources at their disposal disturbs the natural equalisation of a salarp cap in some respects.
They can only spend so much on player wages, but they are spending more on their footy department. The clubs in a weaker financial position don’t have the option to do the same and are falling behind.
So when you hear clubs like Port Adelaide or the Western Bulldogs organising drives to wipe out debt, you begin to realise how uneven the playing field is.
Richmond recently acknowledged this recent trend, with their research stating no club that has been in the bottom four of AFL clubs on football department spending has played in a grand final let alone won a premiership in the past decade.
It’s a modern trend as it’s arguably a way around the salary cap’s (which was introduced in 1987) equalising effects for the financially-stronger clubs.
For what it’s worth Richmond have initiated a fund to eradicate their debt and begin investing in their football department. But they are a long way behind.
So does the AFL leave each club to their devices and let the financially stronger build on their advantage, or is it time for intervention?
dfgdfh
Guest
eddie there has only been 1 player in the last 10 years that richmond let go and have become good players at other clubs and thats rodan , we traded ottens for a first round pick and not even hawthorn could could handle peterson
SEANO
Guest
Rubbish!!!! All the vic teams have been around for 60 - 100 years, why are some richer than others? because they have good managment and invest in these things long ago. ie hawtorn nearly folded and was a basket case but put heaps of money into the footy department, got a great spruker as prez (copying collingwood) and now they are rich! They also moved out to where there supporter base is and as such got more members. Has north melbourne looked into there growth corridor? Have they been out to broadmedows or craigiburn to set up supporter bases? Doubtfull so why should essendon and collingwood be stopped sucedding because of crappy mangment of other clubs? The clubs that are in debt have been a long time, get some professional managment and whacth your team fly.
PaddyBoy
Guest
Luxury tax like Major League Baseball? Everyone saying evening the playing field out is a bad thing, the more chance each team has of winning on any given day, the bigger the cowds will get, and each game becomes more exciting.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I agree. Although he is far from perfect, Ed has done a superb job. Which is why I'm wary of proposals to cap football department spending. Although I remember reading an opinion piece by Ed in which he talked of plans to help the poorer clubs, plans that he supported. Nothing seems to be done of it though.
Liam
Guest
Inherited success? In the last 25 years Collingwood have had two periods of existence-threatening financial struggles, they even declared bank-rupcy in 1988 i think it was from memory, the other being in the years prior to McGuire taking over. To say that the people in charge of Collingwood have only turned the club around due to "not being incompetent" is incredibly derogatory. The powers that be at Collingwood obviously realised that a strong club system is the foundation for any sustainable success, and have been incredibly successful in creating that foundation. It wasn't a god-given right that was handed to Collingwood, many people have put in the effort to earn it, and they're now seeing that success transferred into on-field performances.
shaken
Roar Rookie
I would love to know what the Sydney Swans spend on their football department. In my eyes they seem to operate outside the norm. They don't bottom out and rebuild and they seem happy to recruit older players. They also make the finals. A lot. Collingwood do lead the way in some regards. But, don't lose focus on the fact they have only won one flag since 1990. It is hardly as if they are dominating the league.
Bilbo
Guest
Apparently the storm have the biggest football dept spending, along with the broncos. The lowest? The sharks. If you look at the success of these teams, it's no coincidence.
Talisman
Guest
It's already being applied by the Fed Govt - it's called wealth re-distribution!! If you can't compete, we'll take some off the wealthy clubs so some weaker (for whatever reason) club can stay in a competition already over-crowded. I didn't hear any of this talk while Brisbane won 3 in a row.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
This is true to anextent. But its also the case that lot of Collingwood's financial success is due to history, and does not require partiulalrly smart operators at present. (That said, current management has done a good job of building on the strength they inherited.) All it requires to ensure Collingwood is strong off-field is to not have incompetent leadership as Carlton and Richmond have had at times, destroying their financial strength despite history handing them an advantage. That doesn't necessarily equate to on-field success though, Collingwood have only two flags in the last half century or so, much of that time without salary caps and drafts. But as clubs get smarter in using their resources, and AFL fixturing and TV coverage widens the resource gap even more, the wealthier clubs will continue to obtain larger and larger advantages.
Aware
Guest
Jack Watts will be alright. Bigger kids need more time to develop. Look at Cloke for Collingwood, he was hopeless for years and is now coming into his own. Watts is also quite a bit taller than Hurley, therefore not as mobile. As far as equalisation is concerned, I agree with it. Otherwise, smaller clubs will go out of existence. I still believe in socialism in many contexts. Sport, especially, belongs to the fans, not the corporations or TV networks.
BigAl
Guest
Peter Fizsimmons in the SMH makes an intesting point today re this sort of thing. Salary caps only apply to the poor old bone-headed players! - coaches salaries, footy dept. costs etc. are totally free market.
Prasser87
Guest
Penalising spending on football department spending, which is really penalising clubs for being successful & resourceful is a stupid idea. Clubs should not be penalised for their success. Collingwood will not be at the top forever, but they have got to where they are because of good player management, recruiting and being resourceful in trying new ideas. Some clubs are going to be always better than others. If clubs what to reach to the top then they need to look hard at what they are doing wrong and what they are doing right. I really do hope the AFL does not try to intervene in the attempt to impose some sort of sport socialism.
Football United
Guest
ugh more equalization. im sick of this happy league. we already have a system that makes everyone have a go at winning, rubbish teams that dont invest get rewarded with good draft players, success is punished so dynasties dont form, and scouting players is impossible. The AFL might as well say to a team that has just won the premiership, sorry fellas but we're not going to let you win again for another 16 years so the other clubs can have a go at winning.
Talisman
Guest
'although I don’t think they should be penalised for their success' The author of this article seems to think so.. How bloody typical - Collingwood wins a flag & all of a sudden there's a sub on the bench & you want to limit our football dept spending. It's called good recruiting & player management. The comp's never been a level playing field & never will because some clubs manage their resources better than others. This Communist idea of every club having to be equal is no better than the political version - strive for mediocrity. What drivel - if other clubs want to compete, lift your game, don't bring ours down.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
The problem is that in a not-for profit competition, there's not much you can spend your money on. Other than investing to ensure the club's long-term survival, spending on the football department is really the only thing you can spend the profits on. If the clubs are limited on what they can spend on the football department, it will remove the motivation to become as big and as successful as they possibly can. Collingwood will be in a position where it's 60,000+ members will be for nothing as clubs, with half the members, will spend the same amount of money on their football departments. Personally, I think that the more financially successful clubs should be rewarded for their success, and I say that as a Demon supporter. As such, I oppose a cap on football department spending. However it may be possible to find a solution through other ways. Certainly, I don't want Melbourne to fail to win another flag because we can't spend as much as Collingwood, although I don't think they should be penalised for their success.