In the relativity new world of AFL free agency and seemingly more aggressive trading, any hint of equality previously provided by the salary cap and draft is fast disappearing.
For smaller clubs to compete with their bigger rivals on the field, especially the larger and more successful Victorian clubs who have a distinct advantage in attracting free agents, they must take a different approach off the field in regards to list management. That is, they have to zig when the big clubs zag, and if they don’t, they face a future of irrelevance.
This is why North is wrong to be chasing Dustin Martin, why the Dockers should give up on their quest to lure a big name key forward from the east, why the Saints were right to opt out of Nathan Fyfe discussions and why the Lions can never overpay any homesick youngsters.
At this point in time these clubs, and others like them, can’t hope to emulate a Geelong, who have extend a decade-long run as a contender by bringing in a superstar and a bunch of ready-made players, or a Collingwood, which is seemingly a must-have conversation for any young Victorian-born star looking to return home.
Why? AFL wages and the overall salary cap are still at a point where the majority of players weigh up non-financial factors alongside the final dollar value of their contract. This is not some Jock McHale-era hangover; wages have just not yet passed that tipping point where money rules all else.
That tipping point has long since passed in the major American sports and European football leagues, where the money on offer is the type that sets you, your family and your entourage up for life.
In the context of the AFL these non-financial factors provide the bigger clubs with a sizeable competitive advantage which will only be further exaggerated under extended free agency rules. These differentiating qualities are also largely intangible and so fall outside of the reach of the AFL to regulate, meaning they are here to stay. These factors revolve around:
- a history and culture of success;
- a large supporter base that translates to a more recognisable and valuable brand; and
- location, location, location if not near family and friends, at least somewhere desirable – think Bondi Beach, not the Brisbane River or West Footscray.
Not only do these factors enhance the probability of an enjoyable playing career, they also provide substantial off-field benefits that continue well into a player’s retirement. An illustrative example is that the number of recently retired Geelong players from their premiership era currently employed in the wider AFL industry exceeds that of their former rivals from the Lions, Blues, Port and Tigers combined.
It then follows that in a competitive and efficient AFL labour market small market teams will have to pay a sizeable premium to attract top-level talent to compensate for their shortfalls. This premium represents too great a financial risk – insert your idiom of choice here – but the end result is an unbalanced list and limited future list management options.
(Image: AAP Image/Julian Smith)
Some will jump up and down and point to the Dogs, a historically unfashionable club, trading aggressively for Tom Boyd as an example of a seemingly big deal that has already paid off in the form of the 2016 premiership. I don’t subscribe to that theory; Boyd wasn’t a major contributor throughout the home and away season and I don’t believe he was the difference on grand final day.
What I especially don’t like about this particular deal was that it was seemingly an emotive response driven by a Bulldogs president who was hurting at the loss of his club’s captain, cooked up in a matter of days and not a well-researched list management decision. Small clubs have only so many hands to play, and even if you think this one paid off, this type of ‘all in’ trade is not one that will pay off in the long run.
So is it all doom and gloom for supporters of smaller clubs? Yes and no; things are certainly not going to be easy, but there are options.
First and foremost these clubs must turn their focus towards the draft, never giving up early round picks and only reluctantly trading away picks from the later rounds.
Preference must be given to homegrown talent at every opportunity to avoid the go-home factor and the cost that comes with it. The Brisbane Lions triple premiership team was chock full of talent from the northern states – Voss, Akermanis, White, Ashcroft and Charman – demonstrating premiership quality lists can be assembled from almost anywhere in Australia.
When looking at free agents or mature-age trades clubs must look for bargains: players who haven’t been able to perform at their best due to lack of opportunity or injury.
Regardless of how a player arrives at their club, they then must be provided with an exceptional coaching and player development experience to ensure they have every chance to succeed.
For these clubs it is a simple equation be better at the draft table and player development than your rivals or get used to finishing in the second half of the ladder.
It’s a bleak reality, but there are examples of small market sporting clubs across the world who have achieved this in their respective competitions. Teams that have demonstrated creativity, foresight and dare off the field and in so doing enjoyed success on it.
Jack Dyer
Roar Rookie
Thanks for getting involved in the discussion Philthy. Potentially harder to use the stay and sacrifice argument on JJ though when TB is on such big coin and not producing as much on field as JJ at this point in time? As all existing players would have built in adjustments for new CBA, so it won't be as if TBs wage will be relatively less or a smaller percentage of the overall pot. Think every good player manager has had that clause on file since Scottie Pippen got screwed over by Jerry Krause and the Bulls . . .
Larry1950
Guest
An evenly balanced competition is ideal, but that can't ever come about while the major AFL states (you know who you are) use the 'go home' lure to strip quality draft picks from clubs like the Lions and to a lesser extent Suns. I agree they got lucky during that premiership period, but the landscape for drafted kids has changed significantly in the last decade, they've got a lot more say in where they go with player managers being a blight on the game.Just remember, a certain magpie legend & mediocre coach only spent a year in the sun as a draftee until he got back 'where he belonged'. Temporary fixes? 1: extend the first 2 draft pick contract periods to 3 or 4 years with no trade either way before year 4 for the Lions & Suns (GWS were given the world to be successful). 2: where a Qld kid based elsewhere is targeted by the Lions/Suns, add a 10-15% loading to the salary cap with that club where the player is based paying it into a 'development fund' if they want to keepthe player. Taper the % based on how long the player has been in the system. This money will help develop non-core afl states academies or facilities. 3: make NT a Qld priority region so Lions/Suns get first crack at the talent & use the development fund to cover it. Reduce the incentives over a period of 5-10 years, based on how the clubs perform on the ladder. I expect an immediate retort from Eddie McGuire.
Jack Dyer
Roar Rookie
Totally agree Simon. Only the most one eyed of supporters would think that a move towards a more unbalanced competition is a good thing. And yes clubs can transition from being a small club to a big club or vica versa (their have been plenty of examples of that - Hawks being a club ready to merge in 96, Pies being a financial basket case before Eddie took the helm, Blues being a powerhouse before fading the last 15 years before current resurgence). But I would say the Bulldogs were on the way to achieving this by excelling at the draft table and player development. Their list is full of talent picked out from all levels of the draft, their record over past 5-7 years the equal of any club. Their drafting of Boyd was less of a Hawthorn esq move to put a missing piece in place but more of a gamble given the unproved record of Boyd and the price they had to pay to get him. But if you believe Boyd was the difference you can't say that gamble hasn't paid off!
Philthy
Roar Rookie
The Boyd deal has nothing to do with the Dogs keeping JJ. JJ is waiting for the CBA to be finalised which may provide the Dogs the opportunity to pay him more. Simple as that.
Steve
Guest
In addition to the above comments, I think what needs to be considered is that AFL equalisation has gone a long way to making the competition far more exciting and competitive. The Bulldogs premiership surprised the entire AFL world and this season the competitiveness of all sides on any given day is clearly visible. Being daring and creative off the field may mean your club needs to chase that player they know they need and may never develop or draft for certain. Can't knock the smaller clubs for trying. And a smaller club can become a bigger club in much the same way so its not a matter of smaller and bigger clubs. All are subject to the constraints mentioned in this piece, just ask a Hawthorn supporter.
Philthy
Roar Rookie
Apologies. He met Brendan McCartney with Peter Gordon not Luke Beveridge
Jack Dyer
Roar Rookie
Regardless of whether one think's the Boyd deal or his impact on the club I think all agreed that a massive premium was paid to lure away a unproven, although talented junior away from his club. Why did the Bulldogs have to pay such a premium? I would argue that it was because they have historically not been strong in the 3 categories I raised in my article. In the same situation would have Collingwood or Hawthorn has to pay such a price? It is this premium that the Dogs, and other clubs like them. have to pay to lure talent that puts them at a distinct disadvantage, and what I believe makes chasing these trades a long term losing strategy. One of the downsides of this type of trade I raised was list inflexibility, and I believe that is already playing out at the Western Bulldogs. Jason Johannisen has now put a price on his head, one which the Dogs are struggling to match, and its pretty hard for them to put the argument to him now, stay and sacrifice and stay as a group, when someone he is outperforming on the filed regularly is getting paid more. The Dogs got a premiership but I believe this is the exception that will prove the rule. Compare this situation to Geelong, and the way they have handled list negotiations and they power of the 'non-financial' factors they can bring to bare. If the small clubs try to behave like the big clubs off the filed, they will lose to them on the field.
Paul W
Guest
Obviously this was in May 2014, not 2015.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Apparently it is a big deal for these clubs to do some travel JD - I remember Essendon had to cancel a pre season game at wangaratta in 2012 because they opted to fly there instead of drive 250km and the weather conditions prevented them taking off
Cat
Roar Guru
And yet JD thats the exact thing Melbourne teams complain about when they have to go down the highway. How it it be 'no big deal' for Geelong to go north, but a big deal for Melbourne clubs to head south? The Gabba and Metricon are no further apart than Kardinia Park and Etihad/MCG yet no one expects either of those sides to give up home ground games, same with Spotless and the SCG. Why should Geelong travel (the distance is irrelevant and nothing more than a straw man argument) to play a 'home' game on the oppositions turf and lose money to do so? As Paul pointed out, Geelong already pay the maximum equilisation tax, despite not turning a profit (due to the 4 games they have to play in Melbourne) and receiving the 3rd lowest funding from the AFL.
Paul W
Guest
I was preparing a reply earlier about us not planning the Boyd deal, rather it being forced on us. Anyway, I spoke to a very high profile player manager when I was on the Gold Coast back in May 2015 when he was meeting with the Suns. He asked me who I barracked for and I told him the Dogs. He then proceeded to make unflattering comments about a Dog's player who has since left the club. I then jokingly asked him if he could prise one of the Suns' gun tall forwards away to the Dogs. He winked at me and said don't worry we've got something in the works for you. Now I'm not saying it was specifically Tom Boyd, could have been Patton or someone else, but I'm convinced the recruitment wasn't a last minute panic, circumstances did however fall into place to make it actually happen. I don't care if anyone thinks it was desperation, or overpaying (which has been explained above by Philthy), or that he's had one good game !! Tom Boyd, who is still a Baby Huey in that body and should only keep improving, has played a huge part in me seeing a flag after I've waited nearly 50 years to see it (and it was the best day of my life). The deal will always be extremely satisfying to most Dog's supporters.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Precisely the sort of insufferable Melbourne attitude that makes Geelong one of the most popular clubs amongst interstate fans.
Philthy
Roar Rookie
The Boyd trade was not a knee jerk reaction. They had been speaking to him during the course of the season and he even met Luke Beveridge and Peter Gordon at Peter Gordon's house mid-season well before Griffen walked out. As such it was researched, but nevertheless risky as Boyd was unproven. The Dogs front ended the deal and paid Boyd in the order of $1.8mm in the first season as a sign on bonus so they keep a manageable wage structure in future years. The Dogs hadn't won for 62 years so the ends may well justify the means, but I wouldn't want to see the approach become common. And Boyd was a massive contributor in the Grand Final. He probably should have won the Norm Smith. 9 marks, 6 contested and 3 goals made him a critical contributor.
J.D. Delacroix
Guest
Yeah, those arduous, taxing, 80 minute trips down the road to Melbourne to play at the two shared stadiums there must be a real drag. Not to mention the culture shock.
J.D. Delacroix
Guest
I think you're missing the point. Geelong don't travel an hour or so down the road to play Essendon at Windy Hill or St Kilda at Moorabin anymore, to use but two examples. No Melb club has a true home ground advantage anymore against fellow Vic clubs, yet Geelong still does, despite being a virtual outer suburb of Melbourne time & distance wise.
Cat
Guest
They do have a bigger home ground advantage for 7 games a year ... 4 other games a year they have to travel to Melbourne to play a Melbourne team at the Melbourne teams home ground. Interstate sides get 11 true home ground advantage games a year. Home ground advantage is only good if a team is good enough to take that advantage. GWS had no advantage at home until they became a finals quality side.
J.T. Delacroix
Guest
Geelong enjoys (exploits) the only true home ground advantage of all Vic AFL clubs. It's no great surprise they've prospered since the VFL became the AFL.
Jack Dyer
Roar Rookie
Thanks for your comments, I enjoyed your point of view on the different and unique problems faced by Sydney (and/or sides from non AFL states). The Bondi Beach reference wasn't a crack at the Swans, just part of the Sydney package. I am sure most players in the AFL would choose recovery sessions at Bondi Icebergs over just about pretty much anyone else, but yes, I agree the Bloods culture is the number one selling point.
Cat
Roar Guru
Well said Paul, thank you.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
load comments