With all the talk about changes to list sizes and the possible reduction of the lists in the AFL, my thought is to split the list into the following categories: a primary list, a secondary list, and a development list.
The primary list
This would be made up of those considered the top 25 players on the list. This could also be where players have a minimum of 12 months on a contract.
It would have a maximum share of 60 per cent (minimum) to 70 per cent (maximum) of the salary cap. Players could still be traded under the same movement restrictions that currently exists. It could maybe include up to two marquee players, and the AFL contributes to their salary.
The secondary list
These players would share a maximum of 15 to 20 per cent of the salary cap. The secondary list would be made up of those considered the next ten players on the list. Most would be considered to play mainly reserves like the VFL, however, they would be readily called upon to play in the main team.
This could also be where players have a maximum of 24 months on a contract. Players from this list could be approached by other clubs from, say, August onwards in the last year of their contract about transferring to another club.
The player can leave their club to go to the new club in the same sort of manner as restricted free agency. Players can also be given another 24-month contract by their current club again, or if given longer, be upgraded to the primary list.
The players could also be upgraded during their contract as per normal at a draft time when players can be elevated or upgraded to the normal list now, like Dean Cox was at West Coast and Matthew Boyd was at the Bulldogs. The club would get first choice on them at draft time, although other clubs could draft them as long as they are out of contract.
(Photo by Matt King/AFL Photos/Getty Images)
The development list
This would have a minimum of five players and maybe no maximum number. This could also be where players have a minimum of 12 months on a contract. The last five to ten per cent of the salary cap would be distributed between these players.
This is where the old rookie or category B players would be listed. The players on this list could be approached by other clubs if their current club doesn’t want to upgrade them to either the secondary or primary lists.
However, the club also has the first choice on the players on this list. If another club does want to list them, a suitable trade needs to be arranged to counter the cost of developing the player. This could be in the form of a draft pick or money.
In the case of money, it would need to be the agreed cost that the club has spent on the players’ development plus maybe 15 per cent on top to discourage clubs from playing games with the lists. The approaching club would also need to put this player on the maximum contract on offer for the secondary listed players (i.e. you can’t go from one development list to another). So to approach a player on this list, the approaching club would need to be serious in their approach.
The number could be different from each list, and the percentage of the salary caps may be different to what I’ve suggested as well. The salary cap should just be the maximum amount that can be paid over a year. The minimum should be more towards 80 per cent of the cap, not 95 per cent. This would allow more room for bonuses to be paid as well. Each list just needs to be in the ranges given.
Seymorebutts
Guest
Cheers buddy, it was a nice article and you have clearly spent a lot of time thinking about it. I understand players dont want a reduction in list sizes.... but every organisation has to confront economic realities, not just footy teams. It just seems now things are getting overly complicated. Teams trading this years draft pick for future picks.. different categories of lists, rookie lists, supplementary lists etc, category B rookie lists (whatever that is) and on it goes... . I think its easier just to let the clubs handle it how they want.. one size never fits all. For example, a Club like Collingwood who went within a whisker of winning a flag decided Dayne Beams would give them that slight edge that they were missing.. so they recruited him. That seemed like a rationale decision to make. So your top clubs might want smaller lists, but pay their players more ... A club near the bottom might decided on a complete rebuild, and might want to recruit as many youngsters as possible, throw them in the deep end and see how they go... the ones that go alright they will sign to longer , more lucrative contracts, the rest they will let go. For example, Gold Coast might want to draw on a list of 50, pay them all the minimum, and let a lot of them play in the VFL , WAFL or SANFL if it turns out they can play, GREAT the club can then amend their contract , sign them up longer term on more money and they can go into the ''firsts'' side. They can then build a competitive side over three or so years.. knowing that everyone on the list can play. As it stands, plenty of No 1 draft picks havent done much, and a bunch of guys listed at 40 or so have turned out to be guns, Jeremy McGovern for one. The draft is like a box of chocolates... you never know what you are going to get ;-) Clubs are all at different levels of the business cycle or premiership clock (forget who coined that phrase, Mick Malthouse?) so they all have different needs and should be free to engage in whatever strategy works best for them. Gold Coast and Richmond are at completely different ends of the AFL talent ladder, and it stands to reason they will have different needs looking toward the future. Like I said, one size does not fit all. IMO Every time the AFL introduces a new rule, I think they stifle the creative ability of clubs to come up with novel ideas themselves. So thats it from me, hope ANZAC day went well, stay healthy and let me reiterate what a well written article you produced ;-)
AJ73
Roar Rookie
Hi Seymorebutts, thanks for your comment, yes that could work. I was just thinking of structuring the lists with similar numbers as the comments I've heard from the players mainly is that they don't want a reduction in list sizes. This keeps about the same numbers as now and allows movement as well.
Seymorebutts
Guest
It should be left up to the clubs.. they have a salary cap of a certain amount, and whether or not they have 35 or 45 guys on the list its up them.