So, trade period is over, which thankfully means a 348-day respite from trade radio, but also means that the instant assessment of the trade period kicks into overdrive.
It’s easy to come to quick, simple judgements. Geelong won the trade period with almost the same level of ruthlessness with which they won the Grand Final, GWS and Hawthorn decided on a full rebuild, Richmond went all-in and St Kilda went on holiday.
This all distracts from the real story behind the 2022 edition of trade period: the system is broken, and it means the distance from the bottom to relevance is as substantial as it has been in the draft era.
Take North Melbourne, who have essentially been the worst team in the AFL for three consecutive seasons. Their pick 2 in 2020 meant they should have had whoever fell out of a two-man key-forward duo between Jamarra Ugle-Hagan and Riley Thilthorpe.
Only they end up with neither when the Grand Final-bound Western Bulldogs jumped up to pick 1 to snare Ugle-Hagan through academy rights.
The next year proved even more difficult for North Melbourne to secure the best talent long term. If one assumes Jason Horne-Francis was never going to stay at Arden St, then three of the top four players in the draft were essentially unavailable to the Kangaroos.
Sam Darcy went to the aforementioned Western Bulldogs with the second pick under father-son, extending their period of incredible luck, and Nick Daicos followed his brother Josh to Collingwood with pick 4.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/AFL Photos/via Getty Images)
After finishing last again in 2022, North Melbourne’s reward will be to see the best youngster in the land, Will Ashcroft, go to preliminary finalists Brisbane rather than be available to them. Rather predictably, North Melbourne traded the first pick in the draft to understandably pursue quantity rather than quality.
At the other end of the table, Geelong managed to absorb a salary dump from the Gold Coast Suns that came with pick 7 in the draft.
The recently retired Joel Selwood was probably on good money, but Jack Bowes was reputed to be owed $1.6 million over the next two seasons at the Suns, and Geelong also acquired Ollie Henry and Tanner Bruhn, both about to come off cheap rookie contracts, while keeping pick 7. How they can do this and stay under the salary cap is anyone’s guess.
It is clear the AFL has an equalisation problem. One only has to look at this year’s final series to see that: the two Grand Finalists were Geelong and Sydney.
Geelong have missed two finals series out of the last 19, Sydney five in the last 27. Four other teams in the finals had players who had played in a premiership at their current club: Collingwood, Melbourne, Richmond and the Western Bulldogs.
On the other hand, of the teams that missed the finals, only Hawthorn and West Coast had won a premiership since 2004, two of the teams had never won a premiership, and five had a current premiership drought lasting over 20 years.
What is also clear is that the AFL doesn’t think there is a problem at all. If they did, they would be addressing it by re-introducing automatic priority picks for poorly performing team (and ignoring the pearl-clutching from the clattering commentariat about “tanking”), and considering more drastic measures like abolishing academies and the father-son rule.
During the golden era of the AFL, between 1997 and 2010, priority picks were automatic, and every team made a preliminary final. Coincidence?
If we want teams to climb up the ladder, they need access to the best talent, and the father-son rule in particular prevents that, and confirms our game’s status as a regional game filled with anachronisms that get in the way of genuine fairness and professionalism.
So, congratulations to Geelong for backing up their actual premiership with a trade period premiership. As for North Melbourne, maybe next year.
Andrew Lewis
Roar Rookie
They don't get first pick. Adelaide didn't get Ugle-Hagan in 2020. He was unavailable to them. Similarly Ashcroft this year, which is why North traded the pick.
Andrew Lewis
Roar Rookie
Firstly, two of your misses played in premierships. And the point is, the risk was only available for Geelong to take on those players. This is something only we do - everyone else in the world would (rightly) consider it ridiculous. Not every club gets the opportunity because it is entirely down to dumb luck. If you support the father-son rule, why support a draft? To make things slightly fairer, possibly? The entire point of my piece is that the AFL isn't doing enough to make the competition fairer, and are actually doing less than they did 20 years ago. As clearly demonstrated by the teams near the top of the ladder (the preliminary finalists were all replete with players no other club had access to, between F/S and academies) and the long standing premiership droughts of most of the teams that didn't make the finals.
Simoc
Roar Rookie
But it wasn't Gale that did it.
Bangkokpussey
Roar Rookie
Geelong hasn't had a pick in the top 10 since Selwood and had the no 1 pick only once in the hisrory of the draft and that was steven hooper. I think more needs to be done at the administration level. Maybe an AFL task force to review any team that's been in the bottom eight for more than four years and have not won a premiership in the last 15 years. It can then come up with a voluntary plan to get the club competitive. They can reccommend a temporary increase in Salary cap, a couple extra on the playing list, changes to administration etc if the club follows the plan.The Club is not obligated to use the plan but they dont get the incentives if they dont. A bit like the IMF.
Mat P
Guest
2 out of 3 ain't bad. West Coast (1990-98), Geelong (1999-2021) and now Carlton (2022). Andrew Ireland has been CEO at Sydney since 2010.
AJ73
Roar Rookie
Do you consider the FS who don't make it after being picked in the draft? Geelong - 1995 - Simon Fletcher MISS (no games at Geelong, moved to Carlton) 1997 - Marc Woolnough MISS(6 games). Missed out on selecting Simon Black 1997 - Matty Scarlett 1998 - David Clarke MISS (89 games before moving to Carlton) 2001 - Gary Ablett Jnr 2002 - Tim Callan MISS (15 games before moving to Bulldogs) 2003 - Mark Blake EITHER (99 games and cost the club keeping Shane Mumford) 2004 - Nathan Ablett MISS? (32 games & 2 for GC) 2006 - Tom Hawkins 2007 - Adam Donohue MISS (0 games) 2011 - Jed Bews 2016 - Sam Simpson ?? (19 games & injury - still on the list) 2018 - Oscar Brownless MISS (0 games & delisted Only 4 have had a real impact (out of 13), the others are mostly misses. The rules changed after Hawkins, However, the following benefitted as well before the rule changes; Brisbane - Jono Brown Carlton - Whitnall & Waite Collingwood benefitted from the Shaw's and the Cloke's before the rule change. Essendon with Fletcher and Watson. Did the Cats benefit? Yes with Scarlett, Ablett Jnr, Hawkins & Bews. Not with the others really. Only Scarlett played in all 3 flags from 2007 to 2011, and Ablett & Hawkins had only 2 in that period. The point is, clubs take a risk picking a FS just the same as any other player. They are also probably under more pressure to pick a young player because of who his father is and the supporters are dirty if they go elsewhere. The Cats missed out on Ben Cousins (could choose between Geelong and WCE), and Bailey Scott (NM & Geelong) as examples. We also only remember the hits (so to speak).
christy olsen
Roar Rookie
Do you mean labour regulations issues? A lot of labour rules don't apply to this type of situation. The only real hurdle would be getting the AFLPA to agree to longer, unbreakable rookie contracts. But the courts wouldn't be involved.
Boo
Guest
I was thinking over the weekend the bidding system for father sons is inherently flawed .If a team thinks a father son is going to go no 1 ala Ashcroft they should have to trade to get that pick with the bottom club with a 10 percent bonus added .It's crazy that all picks in effect go one back due to father son .Ok clubs of the f/s don't have the luxury of waiting for the bid to trade for the player but if the kid is that good the bottom club should be compensated for missing out .
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
“Father son rule is a great tradition‘ Only for clubs that have been around for a couple of generations though. It’s inherently biased against the new teams - who are the most in need of assistance.
Simoc
Roar Rookie
The bottom clubs are often poorly run with a weak Board Chair which runs right through the organisation administration. Gold Coast are a great example. If you want a successful club get someone like Brian Cook to run it. My memory may be wrong but I think he went West Coast first, then Geelong and Sydney. It looks like WCE need him back.
George Apps
Roar Rookie
Poor admin. will make a basket case of any team!
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Blah blah blah. Why should the AFL continue to reward under performance? The AFL unlike other codes like American baseball or UK soccer, has a Salary Cap & a draft with lowest performing teams getting first pick. Why should the AFL be continuously supporting poorly run clubs? High performing clubs will always lose players as their salary cap cannot accommodate too many superstars. Yes, players might take a pay cut to play at clubs in the premiership window. E.g., Brian Lake in 2013. But that isn't always be the case.
RucknRoll
Guest
Has Andrew failed to notice that the teams in the northern states are feeder clubs for the powerful Victorian clubs, or like most Mexicans is he happy with this arrangement? The only counter balance on this are the northern academies. Yet he identifies them as an issue? The is never going to be any equality while the AFL fails to police the salary cap with anything approaching competence. The sheer amount of freebies, sponsor jobs for partners, easy term property investments etc. etc. has made a farce out of the salary cap.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
Cat mentioned that figure. I suggested that the eleven year olds from 2011 would even up their demographic.
Cat
Roar Guru
Restraint of trade is not always illegal. That’s what the arm chair lawyers keep ignoring.
Chris_S
Roar Rookie
Don't disagree with your sentiment but forcing a player who does not want to be there is restraint of trade at best and toxic at worst. However, the idea that a club can get a player for less points than that player cost as an unproven draftee is just unfair. Why not at least insist that a trade out of a lower club is fair. For example, Jason Horn Frances cost North a first-round pick or 3000 points; if Port want him, they should be forced to hand over the original points value plus a factor based on development say 3000 points x say a factor of 1.2 which would equal 3,600 points. Port would still get him but at a cost that reflected his real value.
Birdman
Roar Rookie
The Bowes deal is everything that's wrong with 'equalisation' with the AFL explicitly changing the rules to a) legitimise a contracted salary dump with an attached incentive pick and then doubling down to ensure the nominated club gets to b) vary smooth the player's contract terms over an extended period and then c) changing it's own pick swap requirement from a second rounder to a third rounder. FIFA would be proud of that effort.
Chanon
Roar Rookie
Where the he.l did you get that number :shocked: 37 cmon Doc that’s ludicrous. Nothing wrong with daughters Doc but they can’t play AFL.
O M
Roar Rookie
Exactly RT. There was great Leadership shown by Peggy and Brendan through that difficult period. They'll erect bronze statues in their honour one day down at Punt Road.
Brian
Guest
The problem is the lack of periphal opportunities in teams with low supporter bases. Its not a coincidence it GC, GWS & North struggling at draft time. Now 3 dud teams might not sound like a big deal except it ruins the equalisation for everyone else if Essendon being shunned by wantaway GC & GWS players for Geelong and Richmond. So either fix those 3 clubs to have a chance by giving them extra concessions orimplement rules to stop the strong getting stronger eg. Can only salary dump to a team that missed the top 8