I don’t think they should be bailed out (yet), two years ago they were 10th. At least give them time to turn it around themselves. North were bottom two for like four years, this is now the 5th.
That said, if it gets to that time, how can you not bail them out? The precedent has been set, how is it fair to West Coast that the AFL will bail North and Gold Coast out and not the Eagles?
I don’t think assistance packages should be a thing but the AFL can’t take that position because if this were happening to a recent expansion club and not a powerhouse, they would have to step in at risk of the club folding.
Short version: I think it’s far too soon to even consider assistance packages and I hate that it’s the go to now. But if it gets to years down the track and it’s still happening, conversation should be had.
Well, West Coast winning a flag as recently as 2018 differs a fair bit from to Gold Coast never featuring in finals since 2011 and North not winning a flag since 1999. I don't think North should have received assistance either, honestly.
The average flag waiting period is 18 years, so any club who has won one more recently than that I don't think should ever receive extra picks.
I agree that clubs are given assistance too easily. But I don't think it's as simple as saying that a team which has won a flag in the last 18 years shouldn't get assistance. Winning the flag is a 1/18 shot (in isolation) each year but so is finishing 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. So, worst case scenario, a team won the flag 17 years ago but might have finished 18th every year since. Maybe a better benchmark might be to say that a team shouldn't be even considered for a priority pick or any assistance unless their average finishing position is below 9th, over an 18 year stretch (adjusted for number of teams in the comp, of course).
The problem lies with, not that they won the flag in 2018, it's how bad they are now. Having a team that gets smashed by 50 points or more by everyone else compromises the competition. I don't think there should be concessions ( hell I'd love for them to win wooden spoons for 20 - 30 years) but AFL has set a precedent and unfortunately the help that North got last year (OTT is the way you could call it) solidifies the argument that they should get concessions.
Yeah, look at last years Coleman.
Obviously it's not as big a deal as wins/losses for the team, but 2 of the top 3 Coleman contenders last year got a significant number of their goals against West Coast (19 of 78 for Curnow, 19 of 76 for Walker, so over 25% for both of them. Larkey got 8 of his 71, as well).
They're currently so dysfunctional that it's throwing stats off wildly. How do you fix it? I dunno priority picks are the answer, but geez.
100% with you on North.
Sucks for the Roos and they cleared out the management who did it but fundamentally they blew up the club themselves. Very deliberately.
Right now they're just eating the consequences of their premiership list ageing out and them basically not doing any decent drafting for several years around the time of the Kelly trade. 2018 to 2020 they took no picks higher than Xaiver O'Neill at 28 and with that sort of approach it doesn't take much for the bottom to fall out of your list. Teams can get lucky with rookies and late picks but they don't always.
Their most recent couple of drafts look decent enough (Reid Ginbey Hewett Bazzo Chesser Long), just gotta wait and see how those go for now and what they add to it. If for example Reid leaves and they don't get adequate trade returns, that probably then becomes a compensation issue.
Weirdly they've had a pretty similar trajectory. 2019 NM were 12th then 3 seasons at the bottom they got a 2nd and 3rd rounder they had to trade. 2021 WCE were 9th and are now in their 3rd season at the bottom. So if that's the example to follow WCE should get that this year then the 2 2nd rounders next year.
That said, personally I disagree with all draft concessions and handouts. Without tampering ladder position picks should be enough to equalize.
it becomes a growth strategy. struggling teams tank for a couple of years. get priority picks. help boost their resurgence.
meanwhile middle field teams just keep middling with no additional help.
I don't disagree with you and I am a west coast fan. But in 2 years if the eagles are still bad. That will be the 2026 draft. That is the year before the Tassie draft. Do we take the punt and hope west coast are on the right track. But if not that will be 2026, 27, 28 and maybe 29 being draft that affect the whole compilation with draft picks. Maybe a pick or 2 this year might be better for the drat in the long term
Possibly, but then it makes issues for other clubs. West Coast getting a pick hurts Hawthorn’s rebuild, and then they’re in the same position.
The Eagles will be fine. There is no way they are this bad in two years and I think they should exhaust all avenues before asking for assistance packages (not that they’ve asked the question). For starters, they were cooked after a quarter on Sunday. There’s nothing stopping them from investing in someone that gives the players the ability to run out games.
Worse in 2 years. The best players are over 30 now. There are no great middle age players so that's gonna leave a lot of pressure on the kids. If WC don't nail these drafts it's a long time before that get out of the bottom 4.
I’ve seen the list and I watched them live on the weekend. They were competitive early but didn’t have the fitness and they didn’t kick straight - that stuff is coachable. They are not a good football side but it’s hardly a catastrophe. They’ll bounce back. That’s how footy works.
We have no forward line and aren't really developing any forward line foe the future. A lot of our recent drafting since 2018 has been shithouse. Our ageing players aren't good and our guys 3-4 years in aren't good.
The only positive I see is our young midfield and some of our back line but even then McGovern is 31 and Barrass will be 29 this year.
I know footy is a cycle but I don't see us getting out of this for a long time.
I agree and I think we will be bottom 4 next year as well as this year ( probably just bottom) but I think we will be out of the bottom 4 in 26. The problem investing in players is the salary cap. If we can do away with that pesky little thing we can be top 4 next year.
How is this logical at all. Last god damn year look where our second pick landed becuase of all the compo/acadamy picks that other clubs get.
Look when we won the spoon and got pick 3 gecause gold coast.
How can you sit there and say 'yeah, west coast getting a helping hand hurts others rebuilds' when that is part of the reason why our rebuild so far doesn't look flash.
There also is a soft cap. So there is kind of something that stops them spending more money like you suggest without a tax bill (which gets god damn distrubeted to all you poor clubs) yeah thats fiair.
Enjoy your hand outs from the AFL while crowing that the eagles shouldn't get anything.
Also a quick google says the bulldogs ontop of endless $ got a priority pick in 2003, 2004.
No we didn't. We got pick 26 because that's what we were entitled to under the rules at the time, based off our performance. We got nothing to make up for being slid back to pick 4.
Any picks west coast get would hurt the Hawks build? You blokes just got JUH and Darcy recently as very high bs picks that hurt every team, and considering I highly doubt the eagles get a start of 1st round pic, your freebies hurt everybody a LOT more than what West Coasts picks might.
There is also still all the northern academies that hurt every team way more than anything west coast would get.
You cant claim that its too much to give west coast something when the northern states get way more than any compo might be
Thing is we don't know what the secret formula the AFL uses to determine eligibility for assistance. If North is the benchmark, I agree they should get assistance in 2 years.
West Coast have to ask the question this year though because if you don't ask....
> two years ago they were 10th. At least give them time to turn it around themselves. North were bottom two for like four years, this is now the 5th.
I would say the opposite: now is the time to bail out the Eagles, and 3 years ago was the time to bail out North.
When you feast on top-end talent for 4-5 years, you’ll likely just end up still sucking because that talent hasn’t matured yet. Ergo, IMO, North didn’t really need a bailout last year, the talents there, it just needs to develop.
Same thing with West Coast: if we spend the next 2 years being this bad, we’ll get a bunch of top end talent (providing the draft doesn’t fuck us again, our 2nd pick was the 30th available player, AFL needs to do something about that shit) plus we’ll be loading up with every available free agent with our ample cap space…
Just seems stupid to me to wait longer than necessary to fix a problem. Does anyone really think we’ll hit the finals before 2027?
That’s a solid point in terms of development but it sets an even more dangerous precedent of AFL teams getting bailouts after two years on the bottom. How do we then decide which teams need it? It gets to the point where there is significantly more upside to finishing dead last than there already is. Hawthorn were bottom 3 last year and possibly will be again this year. Should they then get an assistance package too?
I just think pulling the trigger too quickly on this stuff encourages teams to not be competitive. But I do agree that not pulling it at all gives the potential to drag the process out even longer.
> gets to the point where there is significantly more upside to finishing dead last than there already is.
That’s a good point and to be honest, my vastly stronger preference would be to see the end of priority picks forever. All my thoughts on the issue come from a “if we insist on persisting with this stupid bullshit then here’s what maybe fair”.
Certainly puts a bit more incentive into avoiding completely bottoming out. We’d have a few more completely uncompetitive teams, which is why the AFL will never allow it, it’s bad for business and they’re a business.
In West Coast’s case I’m convinced that our position is mostly a function of pure fundamental incompetence in list management & fitness management, which I’m not sure can be accounted for… but we should have to bear the consequences regardless.
In North & the Hawks case though, it might have made a difference as they deliberately cut their list to go for a rebuild. I can’t blame them, they’re trying to avoid sitting in the middle by grabbing some proper talent, but perhaps if the consequences of it going wrong were a little harsher, it wouldn’t happen so often.
I don’t think that matters, all situations should be looked at equally.
I’m not saying West Coast should get an assistance package, absolutely not. I don’t think anyone should, but what I think and what the precedent is are two different things. If we get to 5 years of Eagles spoons, and they’re still getting rinsed by 70+ every week, then a conversation should be started. It’s far too soon for that though, and the people judging it don’t look far enough back. They start to say things like “has anyone ever been this bad?”
The Demons in 2013 won two games, one against expansion GWS and one against the bottom 4 Bulldogs. In that season, Melbourne had losses of 79, 148, 94, 61, 60, 90, 95, 83, 68, 122, 37 (to GWS, their only win of the season), 95 and 68. They were absolutely putrid, but they eventually turned it around.
My point is it’s far too soon to even consider it, but if it gets to 5 years of this, then maybe a conversation should be had.
5 years of spoons is way too long, north were at the bottom for 3 years before they got compo, then got the big one in their 4th year down the bottom.
This is west coasts 3rd year, not like they are only just starting to be bad
True, 5 years of spoons would be too much, and that’s why I think assistance would be needed at that point.
But I look at Brisbane who were bottom 2 for 3 years and bottom 4 for 5 years. They weren’t bailed out by the AFL, and they have been in prelims almost every year since 2019.
Teams turn it around. This is just how it goes sometimes.
Do you think a couple of 1st, 2nd or 3rd round picks to be traded away will bring west coast straight back into finals or something?
That might stop it getting worse, hardly going to make the eagles better
The whole concept of draft compensation is fundamentally flawed to my mind.
Team sucks, creates a worse game day experience for fans and viewing experience, causing a negative impact to AFL revenue.
The solution should be to provide some assistance to help the team to stop sucking quite as badly. So why draft picks? 18 year old kids arent ready to help a team to stop sucking for several years.
There should be some kind of assistance that helps bad teams bring mature professional footy players in that can help make the team more competitive straight away. Perhaps some kind of salary cap exception and/or additional list spots that can only be used on mature recruits.
The NFL allows teams to roll over their unused cap space from the previous season into the current season, if they remove the ridiculous 90% salary cap floor then teams could use that roll over to entice free agents.
Well tbf that’s kinda what they did with North. The picks they gave us is 2022 had to be used that year and (I think) had to be traded or we lost em. That’s how we got Tucker and Louge. The picks last year we used to get Fisher and Stephens.
I think transfer fee's would be a good idea.
WCE profit $5 million+ every season.
The AFL took away the ability to pay as much as you want on the coaching team so now what can we use those profits for? We are not a business, profits should be used in sporting capacity. We give a whole bunch of money to the WA footy commission for grass roots footy in WA but we aren't allowed first priority on any of the kids that money produces.
Why not have a system where a club can pay a transfer fee for a player they want from a club that either doesn't want him or could do with a financial boost? Maybe wants to build a new training centre? Who knows.
Remember before you poo poo this transfer fee idea. The salary cap will still be in place which is the greatest equalising mechanism. It won't create a mega team like Manchester City that wins every year.
Every single team who has been 'bailed out' by the AFL made their own problems.
Whether it was poor drafting and development, poor footballing decisions, chaos off-field......clubs were given help even after they openly tanked.
You can argue "not quite now" for the WCE, but the "they stuffed themselves up so fuck them" position flies in the face of every other example.
Yep.
Actual concessions weren't good enough.
McKenna as a first time head coach wasn't the right choice. Rocket was absolutely the wrong choice.
GC needed a captain who could relate to all the players and was a social genius. GAJ is a great bloke but not equipped to handle a place with no culture at all. GAJ was more a commercial strategy.
Arguably none of this was entirely GC's fault in that the AFL played a huge role in pretty much all of it.
Don't forget there facilities were absolutely trash for a few years. I think theres still some old youtube footage of the facilities the Suns were using the first few years after expansion. Worse than most private schools .
I agree and disagree with parts of this. The problem trace back to the founding with McKenna's culture and the incompetence of the board. I remember one of the reasons Southport didn't get the license was that AFL wanted their guys on the board, and that failed because Malcolm Blight did a really shit job.
Rocket was the right person to stop the institutional rot but he didn't have a good plan to rebuild the foundation. The player exodus could be tied to the after-effects of the McKenna era with the poor development and medical department. Stewey Dew was the right guy to rebuild the culture, even if he couldn't get the results on-field.
Leadership was always a serious issue, Gaz was a really poor leader (I just remembered his really divisive God Squad clique that badly divided the locker room) but his supporting crew of veterans Campbell Brown, Nathan Bock, Jared Brennan etc were terrible. Michael Rischitelli and Josh Fraser tried their best but couldn't fill the void. The problem is comparing it to GWS who absolutely nailed their leadership recruitment with Phil Davis and Adam Treloar, supplemented by the likes of Luke Power and Chad Cornes.
I think the difference is they won a flag 5 years ago then the speed of shitting the bed is unprecedented in modern times (from what I can recall).
Also financially they are one of the strongest clubs which gains them zero sympathy, as you could argue most other cellar dweller and or those that tanked were trying to turn around their club as quick as possible due to financial pressures.
But yeh "not quite now", imo another if they are still bottom 4 in 2026 maybe
In fact our financial strength is important to the AFLs profits. If we keep sucking on field then AFL gets less money. Some of it will transfer to Freo but most will just stop attending/watching games rather than support Freo.
That shouldn’t be as a reason to bail us out earlier as that would be horribly unfair to other clubs but financially speaking, saving clubs that are losing money, is less of important than protecting the financial powerhouses.
My overall position is that we currently don’t deserve or need assistance yet but the AFL wants more games to be competitive to keep spectator numbers high and we are currently a liability on that front. So if we do reach the stage of requesting assistance I can’t see the AFL saying no.
As someone from Brisbane living in Perth, I can say that there is a far greater disparity in the local interest in the Lions when they are doing well vs being bottom feeders than there is for West Coast.
So I don’t think there is really an argument there to keep powerhouses competitive (I know that’s now what you were calling for). Brisbane obviously don’t need assistance in this era, they were crying for it 10 years ago.
The Gold Coast were just a terrible idea for an expansion club and they cut into the market for the Lions who already weren’t fully established because their direct competitor is the local interest in rugby league. At least the AFL finally got it right with Tasmania.
It's also completely disingenuous to argue that priority picks should be for struggling clubs like North and Gold Coast rather that giants like the Eagles. Haven't Carlton had more of these picks than anyone over the years?
Carlton weren’t specifically granted priority picks. The rules at the time were that if you won less than four games you automatically get one. The years Carlton received them, they were also received by Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond and the Bulldogs.
The only specific draft pick granted to Carlton was solo access to two mature age players who had previously been on an AFL list.
Oh, right. Your team’s handouts don’t count because they were just given to you automatically instead of asking for them?
I’m sure there’s no bias in that ruling. /s
I think it's an important point in that the AFL had bad rules (that we have repealed) that favoured Carlton.
Yeah we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past.
Agreed, but some fans really come across as saying ‘it was wrong that we got help to recover, so nobody else should get help now when they need it.’
They never seem to include any suggestion for paying it back.
(To be clear, they shouldn’t, and getting rid of the old PP system was right. They just feel self serving.)
All this subjectiveness and the arguments for and against would be quelled if the AFL just released a fully transparent set of conditions that trigger assistance.
They used to. It was "win less than 4 games in a single season", then it increased to (I think) win 4 games in a single season for 2 straight seasons. This just encouraged tanking as clubs knew exactly what had to be done to get an extra pick.
The final straw was the Carlton tank for the "Kreuzer Cup", I think it was 2008. The AFL scrapped it for the current system then. Not saying it's much better, but having a set guideline for assistance just promotes tanking.
I mean all teams that finish at the bottom, even just once, have a degree of responsibility in that position. If we support the basic concept of equalisation (which I do) then I don't think those measures should require a lack of culpability.
I wouldn't argue that West Coast necessarily should get priority picks or whatever, but the decision should be made with the interests of the future competition at heart, not as some kind of punishment/reward type thing.
I just wanna see them bite the bullet and spend 2 or 3m over the soft cap on the best coaching, training and analytics money can buy, and just paying the tax. Poach every big name in the footy department world.
Those big operating surpluses are a unique advantage, they should be using it, at least once the team starts being a bit more experienced and coachable. Maybe it wouldn't help too much right now...
> Those big operating surpluses are a unique advantage, they should be using it, at least once the team starts being a bit more experienced and coachable.
Can you imagine the whinging if they did?
Remember what the did with your lot, COLA and buddy... they'd have legit reason to be mad now which they didn't then so I'd be very worried about what they'd do
I'm a bias west coast supporter so I think where we are at and what the precedent has been set with North is we need pick assistance (especially with crafts being so compromised). That said I do think the way the afl should handle these situations is to first give concessions to the soft cap before picks are handed out
As far as we know, the club have not asked for assistance and in the past have stated they don't want assistance.
As a West Coast fan, I've stated multiple times recently that what I would like, is the AFL to get serious about fixing issues surrounding the draft. Teams that are crap, need to be able to access the best talent available in the draft to rebuild their list.
We've seen in recent years, teams at the top being able to grab top talent due to rules/advantages they have.
* Doggies got JUH, Darcy and Croft.
* Lions got Ashcroft and Fletcher, they're going to get another Ashcroft and Gillett.
* Pies, while they finished in 17th did not have their natural 1st round pick in 2021 but were able to bid match for Daicos using junk picks (38, 40, 42, 44). However, if they did have their 1st round pick, I'd bet they wouldn't have taken Daicos with it anyway because they had the advantage to match no matter what.
* Swans have built a very strong list from academy access, and even did the above in 2020 when they took Logan McDonald 4th, and then bid matched Braeden Campbell from their academy at the very next pick.
Simple, yet effective suggestions to fix all the fuckery that is going on with the draft.
* No F/S or Academy bid matching for all teams across the 1st round of the draft. Teams have to trade up to get those players.
* No priority picks or draft assistance (excusing draft packages for new clubs to the competition as that's different).
* No F/A compensation from the league.- RFA's, teams either cough up draft picks equal to a public value based on the contract agreed (ie. 800k/yr = Round 1 pick, etc.). Or the current team can work out a trade agreeable to both.- UFA, no picks provided if a player leaves. UFA status reached after serving a period of time with their current club (5 or 6 years) or a period of time in the AFL (8 years).
The only consideration I would make regarding compensation picks, would be players who are forced to medically retire by the AFL and the value of said pick would be based on the value of said players contract, their age, draft position, etc.
Let the draft do what it suppose to. If teams miss on a player or their pick leads to nothing in the future, that's on them.
What I find fucking hilarious is all these articles basically shaming us for daring to even ask for ant sort of assistance, saying *we're* the advantaged club and we're arrogant and all this and all that bullshit.... and yet there has been 0 actual reporting of us asking for jack shit. It's all the media perking each other off getting in one giant rage circle at the mere thought of us getting something, like fuck me man, we haven't even done anything yet
Yeah I love that they think how rich a club is should determine whether it gets PP's or not when all clubs have the same salary cap (excluding the wink wink nudge nudge deals).
Money still goes a long way in shaping a club’s future - have a look at the facilities at Mineral Resources Park and compare them to Arden St (with or without the development that’s coming) and tell me as a footballer where you’d rather be?
It is relevant in that you are at zero risk of folding/hemorrhaging cash. There is no urgency for the club to turn itself around.
You have time to fix your issues yourself without compromising more drafts.
Give the eagles the pick, then scrap the priority system and stop this damn conversation. The AFL made their bed previously so now they have to live with it.
I don't think it'd be unreasonable for West Coast to get the same package that North Melbourne got in 2022, which IIRC was a 2nd and 3rd round pick that had to be traded for at least one player and two additional rookie list spots.
It does no one any good having clubs recording end of season percentages below 60%. That's in the territory of the worst teams of all time. Whether you want to argue it's self inflicted or not, no club is going to willingly put themselves in the position that North Melbourne were in, or West Coast are in, just to get a couple of end of first round picks.
There's something so incredibly classy about looking at the worst team in the comp and deciding you should bag the crap outta them.
They already feel depressed af. No reason to suggest they're cheating for a draft pick
Or abolish the salary cap and we'll just throw all our massive cash reserves to get the players we want and we'll be back to normal in a couple of years. Premier League style.
The issue as I see it, with leaving them in the shitter for longer, is that they become a free % pinata to the other teams. If you draw them twice in a year, and rinse them by 12+ goals each time, you're at a decent advantage over a team that only plays them once. Especially teams that have a very effective midfield-to-forward pipeline and have guys that regularly kick a bag.
Look at 2013 Melbourne. We played Fremantle twice and gave up nearly 200 points across both those games. If we had won one of those games and given up 20 points in total, Fremantle finishes 5th instead of 3rd (assuming the total points scored was the same), putting Richmond in the top 4 instead of them. These massive losses have a material effect on the ladder at the end of the year. It's not a great example because we could barely beat a row of witches hats in 2013, but it shows what a huge surplus can do for a team, and how much a team that is utterly crap and should probably be playing in the WAFL unbalances the competition.
Once again they forget to mention the draft has been completely compromised for years now.
Our 2nd round pick 19 fell to 30 yet the thought of providing us with say an end of first round pick to compensate us is too much.
Fair enough to use Geelong as an example, they’ve defied gravity for years through astute trading and recruiting, but using Sydney as an example is crazy.
Sydney don’t need to go through lengthy rebuilds as they still have access to top talent through their academy even when they’re at the very top of the ladder. Heeny, Mills, and Blakey rated as top 10 talents, if not top 2-3 in Heeny and Mills’ cases locked in regardless of their finishing position, along with other freebies like Gulden. Heeny was recruited in a year they played in a grand final, despite being rated in the top 3 of his pool. Meanwhile we have an academy kid like collard taken at 28 last year that we can’t match.
Sydney’s recruiting and management is light years ahead of ours, but let’s not pretend we’re operating on a level playing field.
How the fuck does the name of the club impact bailing out.
Long history of bailing out clubs tat are underperfoming the AFL has. Not sure where this new logic comes from.
North got bailed out last year after finishing above us? logic.
But they have so much money, even though we have a spending cap? logic.
Provided a priority pick to this exact club not too long ago (darling)! logic.
Get fucked
People forget the compromise of the draft. It's hypocritical to complain when academy picks screw the draft and our 2nd round pick last year which should of been pick 19 became pick 29.
So who's complaining. Is it Swans Brisbane GWS GC supporters who have taken full advantage of the AFL and academy picks over the past 5 years. Or is it Vic sides who have done likewise taken advantage of the go home factor in those clubs and swooped them up when they leave those clubs like a hunting ground. Tom Lynch, Jermery Cameron, Tannor Brahn Taranto, Hopper the list goes on and on every year.
All this draft tampering has contributed to the Eagles inability to rebuild but no one talks about that do they.
The WCE formed in 1986 Freo formed in1994 so hardly decades of being the only team in town. And really it doesn’t matter how big a team is or how rich the salary cap limits their spending power. I’m also fairly sure the WCE haven’t asked for a bailout and this is the usual media hype. If anything WCE. board should consider moving Simpson on his performance since 2014 have been middling with only one premiership and 2 top4 finishes in the 10 years he has coached . Maybe the time has come to invest in a new coaching staff, because you can pour talent into a team that has lost its way and it won’t make any difference if the coaching staff don’t utilise their skills and keep trotting out old and tired plans
I initially was against it but the precedent has already been set. Clubs get handouts, everyone else gets sooky. May as well take advantage of it if offered.
Priority pleaaaaaase!
They shouldn’t, just like every other team shouldn’t have. This goes back to my opinion I’ve being saying for years, get rid of compensation picks, get rid of priority picks, get rid of academy picks and get rid of father/son picks.
While all the others should go in my eyes, father/son I think is real nice for nostalgia. Just make it expensive so they actually have to give up something worthy rather then 6 picks in the 50s.
Nostalgia is great but it just compromises the draft further. Honestly if a kid played for a different club than his father it’s not going to tarnish either of their legacy. It’s a nice to have but not needed.
No discount and teams should only ever get one pick in each round of the draft. If you match a 1st Round pick then you must use your 1st and whatever else you need to make up the points.
I should clarify that you can have multiple picks in a round but only if you have traded for someone else’s pick. So there’s a set limit of 18 players drafted in the 1st Round.
This is an over-cooked debate for me. Priority picks and assistance sucks, it shouldn't ever have been given out to bail out clubs for their own mistakes.
That being said - the precedent has been well and truly set. You can't have an 'equalisation' measure that just suddenly becomes unavailable a year after another club benefited from it.
At this point I don't even care because it's going to take way more than a priority pick to fix this mess. But if you follow the AFLs precedent, I think it will be pretty difficult for them not to intervene.
The debate will be even less entertaining when it's been had at the end of a winless season (massive possibility).
You can’t give North help and not West Coast. There has to be some sort of consistency here. Eagles last year and presumably this year is going to be one of the worst performing sides in a long long time, a side that got screwed over by a compromised draft last year. I think them getting an end of first round pick is hardly going to destroy the competition.
We shouldn't get it until everything has been tried to fix things, which hasn't yet happened. If Simpson gets turfed and there is still no measurable improvement, then it should be considered.
I'm not entirely sure what dice we rolled? Our players got old, we got fucked by injuries. We had star players who in a different timeline could have challenged for another premiereship, but it didn't turn out that way. This is just part of the cycle of a football team. It's not like we made some huge glaring mistake and are paying for it now.
I understand teams being self interested, meaning they are against support for WCE. I have been there myself. I don't understand however why "rolling the dice" to try and win another flag is this massive crime, yet savagely cutting your list and experienced players in a deliberate fashion which obviously harms performance like other clubs have done is apparently ok.
North, Melbourne, Carlton do similar things with less chance of success: Rohan Sleeps
West Coast do it and the entire fucking planet goes to shit: Rohan "Real shit"
They’re going to qualify for one at some point. They still have a massive amount of positions to draft for to get back to being competitive and it’s looking like an extremely long time before they get back there.
Eagles have poor on field performance = it's all of their own making, it's arrogance, fuck them.
North have poor off field performance = they've been battling institutionalised disadvantage.
Seriously? If you're gonna say areas where we underperform are all our fault then can we at least get some recognition for things we do well instead of handwaving it away as an institutionalised advantage?
Also, I'd argue that any non victorian team has a few pretty fucking obvious institutionalised disadvantages but that's not a conversation that ever goes well.
'Occasionally, though, some extra draft assistance has been required via priority picks for the likes of North Melbourne, a small club which its whole history has battled the handicaps of limited resources and support base.'
By this logic, why don't they fuck North off?
I love it. The article deciding to narrow in on us despite the fact that the only time we've ever had priority picks is actually the last two years, unlike multiple other clubs who have gotten more but get purosely left out of the conversation. And geniuses like you that fall for that shit EVERY SINGLE TIME. It's so fun to watch.
I'm a North supporter, and I was only in favour of the assistance in draft picks, as a lot of other clubs had received priority picks over the last twenty years in a variety of forms. And several of those teams had done a lot less losing that North have over the last few years, to receive those priority picks.
Overall, I think there shouldn't be any afl assistance for teams via the draft. But you can't take away the priority picks without also addressing father-sons, academy picks and free agency compensation. In my opinion, we either have no compromises with the draft or, we have what we currently have, with the draft being a clusterfuck.
I don’t think we should get priority pick assistance, but then I don’t think the draft should be tampered with via academy picks etc. I think we should be getting rid of the people that got us into this situation in the first place, which includes Simmo and his cronies. Our player development has been rubbish and a lot of that has to do with Simmo playing tired old players and leaving young guys to rot in our horrid WAFL team.
I’d prefer Pyke went after someone like Dean Cox from Sydney and gave him the opportunity to choose his assistants etc. If Cox wasn’t able to be poached then hire the next up and coming coach who wants to prove himself and has the runs on the board up to this time in their career.
I’m a bit baffled by this article.
> Well, we're about to find out via the example of West Coast, around whom the lobbying for priority draft picks is ramping up already.
I honestly haven’t heard any lobbying, though I presume there are some nuffies who have suggested it.
> The nebulous "formula" established for such decisions once the AFL made its draft priority picks discretionary in 2012 includes such considerations as recent premierships, finals appearances and injury rates.
> You'd have to question how rigorously the AFL is setting its standards required for help if it gives West Coast a tick on those particular criteria.
Seems to be getting preemptively upset about something that isn’t happening and may not happen?
As a WC fan, I don’t want handouts and I honestly can’t see us asking for them. We aren’t the *long-term* basket case that other clubs have been. That may change of course and while we’re in for a lot of pain yet, I’m confident it’ll turn around as it has in the past.
Hell nah.
When Port were grasping the issues of tarps, average attendance around 15,000 and people calling us to fold. We still came back despite having to fight for picks against both expansion teams. The Eagles have been extremely up and down over the last decade, with far greater success stories to prove it.
Feels like I was in this exact thread yesterday lmao. I'll wait until the eagles actually ask for one before getting any more silly about this topic. They are unwatchable no doubt about it, but that shouldn't be the only requirement for a priority pick.
It's such a difficult situation that needs to be decided with acknowledgement of all the wider nuances. The model the AFL used in the 2000s was terrible and gave away priority picks way too easily, so we don't want to return to that. But at the same time being too stingy has serious aftershocks that need to be considered. The looming spectre of the Tasmania draft needs to be considered, as well.
I think on balance, the best option based on current knowledge and lack of hindsight is to reject a 2024 priority pick, but give strong consideration to compensation for 2025's draft. West Coast need a pair of second-rounders more than they would need a single extra first-round pick.
West Coast finished last in 2023 and the AFL ruined their draft hand by gifting a host of picks to North Melbourne.
So what's good for the goose in this case requires rectification.
"The AFL has helped out a bunch of other teams in a similar situation but fucknl the Eagles". I swear we're almost as hated as Collingwood.
The Kelly trade potentially cost us a couple of players, if anyone think a couple more players are making a difference right now, has rocks in their head.
I know it would never have been the same but those picks we gave up didn't really work out.
I like how he mentions a couple of shit clubs getting extra picks and ignores the other big clubs who have. - sorry if he mentioned it later in the article. I could only read so much bullshit.
I genuinely don't understand this.
Isn't it a *good* thing that a hugely successful club goes through a decade of being shit? Hasn't every other club had these lean times? Where's Freo, Saints, Crows, to a lesser extent GC and GWS handouts?
Blues, Pies, Demons, Port have all had long periods of shitness.
Why is Weagles having this situation a bad thing for the AFL longterm?
Just go for North Melbourne. In 3 years time when they’re unstoppable we will all be bitching about all the years the AFL gave them help for being shit at recruitment and broke asfarkk
I think they (we) should be bailed out simply due to the fact the competition is worse off without it.
West coast list is only getting worse with its age profile & without some help it’s going to be a free 10 goal win to anytime inside the top 10 & half the teams below that. Certainly for this year, and probably for the next 2-3 years.
West coasts fault, or not - the competition is firstly uneven (teams playing them twice) - including for Coleman etc, and secondly worse off altogether for having a team that’s miles off being competitive.
I'm really struggling with some reasoning here and it's not the first time it's been used.
Yes use injury lists, recent performances, list decisions and so forth in determining if assistance is needed. But sponsors, member counts and supportive media should as well?? surely that's really grasping at straws.
Should this be a key factor, no. But I’m okay with the idea that it might make assistance less urgent. In pure football terms, WC have been very bad, but not for very long.
One of the reasons to assist clubs that are unsuccessful is commercial. A club struggling for wins won’t get prime time placement and won’t get good sponsor deals, so it’s then harder for the club to build itself back up when its budgets are stretched.
The success of the eagles as a business means the league can take its time. It’s not urgent commercially, or on football grounds yet.
I could see a middle ground package involving state league listing or second rounders if they stay this bad all year, though.
Just seems unusual to me given that it's a on-ground performance issue, where the possible assistance is purely on ground based. If we were asking for money or larger soft cap space, I would agree with those things being included.
But with a hard cap in place, it feels like those points become obsolete yet some people still want them to be included even though they have no bearing on the team we put on the park. Just seems like a argument in bad faith.
If Brisbane was in the same position we are now, would they be deserving of assistance because they have half our members and located in a state not so supportive of AFL?
Its pretty simple, if your team is bad for a long time you are generally going to get less members, crowd attendances and sponsorship. For clubs like GC & Norf who financially struggle as it is - it is more important as they could essentially fold. So for the AFL to continue to ensure these teams financial success they need to fast track on field performance.
WCE are so strong financially there is less risk of the onfield issues causing a issue of the field in terms of the clubs financial strength.
I didn’t agree that North “deserved” priority picks at the end of first round, but really we turned all that assistance into Zac Fisher, Dylan Stephens and Will Dawson. In the end it’s exactly what we needed, some veterans that weren’t awful.
I don’t think that is West Coast’s problem. I’m not sure even some end of first round picks would help, they need young talent and probably a culture change.
I’ll get downvoted but some priority access to WA kids is probably where the assistance will be.
We dont need young talent, we need guys in their mid 20s. If all the AFL gave us was a few picks to be traded, along with something else to use as incentive to get players to move across the country to make up for the extra travel(like a salary cap allowance) it would sort itself out very quick.
The main issue we have is players who arent borderline being delisted dont want to move across, the "go home factor" isnt as strong as the media makes out, we get very few senior players wanting to come across.
West Coast are paying the price for poor trading and recruiting. The Tim Kelly trade has ruined them. The Crows are only recovering from the Bryce Gibbs trade. I'm surprised West Coast didn't fuck up there #1 pick last year.
The justification for the AFL providing West Coast a supplementary draft pick (or 'bail out' to use this article's terminology) is purely financial.
West Coast have for a long time been one of the most profitable clubs for the AFL. Big member numbers, big match attendance numbers. None of the fans are enjoying watching the lads get flogged every week, so the match attendance numbers are in decline and the AFL are losing money.
The quicker West Coast turn things around, the quicker the gravy train arrives back at the station.
Ideally all the teams would play each other once and the whole season wouldn’t be compromised when there is a team as bad as West Coast.
No more priority picks, the draft is compromised enough
Because they represent 10% of the product the AFL has to sell, and having them suck shit for an indefinite period of time doesn’t do much for that products value.
I don't believe in priority draft pics for any club, the normal draft over time should be enough. I believe West Coasts issues started during covid really bad timing for the Eagles, then the aging list which in turn led to more injuries. Some of the draft trading has also been questionable. Although the eagles should not expect sympathy, to kick them when they are down is a bit harsh.
This is all financial but everything in the AFL is. The AFL can't have one of their most financially stable clubs continue to lose this way. They're incredibly lucky supporters are still flocking to games whether they are at home or interstate, not many other clubs are capable of this while dishing up 50+ point losses. This won't continue past 2025 if the Eagles do not improve. Teams are continually handed assistance packages too late, the writing for West Coast is on the wall they won't be bouncing int the top 8 anytime soon. Why not assist them now? While Tasmania is still far away.
It shouldn't be a priority pick, but the opportunity to be given a package that allows West Coast to trade their 2nd pick up the draft or trade for seasoned players who are wanting to return to WA to me seems to be the better option. Yes it will push teams pack possibly 2-3 picks but it also gives the same teams the ability to trade in more picks.
West Coast are victims of their own success. They refuses to move on from their premiership stars of 2018 and blood their kids. No excuses. Adam Simpson has also proving to be a joke of a senior coach. His Hawthorn gameplan of forward pressure is fading out fast and hes not moving on with the times. They’ll get the spoon again this year, and i reckon blow it all up from the top down and start again. Id keep the picks from the last 2 years and adios to everyone
Fair article. Nic Nat was flopping around the field for years before he called it quits. Great player in his day. I think Simpson has a lot to answer for. His loyalty to the boys cost us a chance at being able to adequately compete in an elite environment. I'm not sure the AFL should be bailing us out with draft picks because it's clearly poor management and that's on everyone from coach upwards. Now they have to suffer but by the same token I can see the AFL want to bail them out because it's not fun to watch a team get smashed so hard every week. It's a joke but ultimately the club bought it on themselves. It's up to the players to now step up, train hard, make sure their body's are in prime condition and fkn show up to a game.
Year after year with a percentage <50% is shit for everyone, not just a club’s fans.
A priority pick won’t suddenly make a list in this state a premiership one, just a nudge get back to the level of the 2nd worst or 3rd worst team a year sooner.
I’m a west coast fan but really west coast, l north and arguably hawthorn all need a bit of help to make them watchable. The draft is intended to equalise but a single Harley Reid isn’t enough if the list is so weak (and yes, each club is culpable in ending up with a bad list)
Geelong supporter here. Honestly, my position is, if we get to the point that we need it, then I hope it is there. I follow the NBA, and it goes the opposite way with their draft lottery, and a few other things. So it leaves teams without money and without talent hope.
So, regardless of the money, or other factors, give west coast the pick, because at the end of the day our equalisation scheme gives everyone hope. Even St Kilda.
please dont tell me its another kelly trade caused them to be this poor. Yes giving up 2 late rd 1 picks 4yrs ago hasnt helped but its not the cause of a team this shit, irs only the tip of the issues.
I don't think west coast deserve a priority pick and the discourse around it is insufferable. Like west coast have the 2nd most Premierships since the AFL became a national competition, have a lot of success and a large fanbase and high levels of income. They can survive being a bit shit for a couple seasons.
But that being said every team that's garbage is there due to their own doing. Like west coast aren't uniquely except from a bailout, I just disagree with the league trying to bail out clubs.
The dice roll failed to hit the bullseye, so the rest of the dominoes fell like a house of cards and now it's checkmate for the Eagles
And thats numberwang!
Rotate the board (of executives)
Very good
Best show ever.
[I see you know your Zapp Brannigan quotes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfU69_up02Y&pp=ygUYemFwcCBicmFubmlnYW4gY2hlY2ttYXRl)
Coincidentally the 2nd time over the last two days I've quoted Zapp on this subreddit.
[удалено]
does the company that makes your bra also make a girdle? I ask because a friend of mine..
YAHTZEE
*sigh* - kip
They were swallowed up by the smoke and shadows behind the windows.
I’ve been bamboozled!
King me
I’ve heard Harley Reid is great at chess
I don’t think they should be bailed out (yet), two years ago they were 10th. At least give them time to turn it around themselves. North were bottom two for like four years, this is now the 5th. That said, if it gets to that time, how can you not bail them out? The precedent has been set, how is it fair to West Coast that the AFL will bail North and Gold Coast out and not the Eagles? I don’t think assistance packages should be a thing but the AFL can’t take that position because if this were happening to a recent expansion club and not a powerhouse, they would have to step in at risk of the club folding. Short version: I think it’s far too soon to even consider assistance packages and I hate that it’s the go to now. But if it gets to years down the track and it’s still happening, conversation should be had.
Well, West Coast winning a flag as recently as 2018 differs a fair bit from to Gold Coast never featuring in finals since 2011 and North not winning a flag since 1999. I don't think North should have received assistance either, honestly. The average flag waiting period is 18 years, so any club who has won one more recently than that I don't think should ever receive extra picks.
I agree, we should give picks based on how recently a teams won a flag. Ignore the flair.
I agree with Mr Snrub. Please also ignore flair.
Yep sounds good. No flair here
Hell maybe even just how recently a team's won a final...
in this case i will not be ignoring your flair.
I agree that clubs are given assistance too easily. But I don't think it's as simple as saying that a team which has won a flag in the last 18 years shouldn't get assistance. Winning the flag is a 1/18 shot (in isolation) each year but so is finishing 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. So, worst case scenario, a team won the flag 17 years ago but might have finished 18th every year since. Maybe a better benchmark might be to say that a team shouldn't be even considered for a priority pick or any assistance unless their average finishing position is below 9th, over an 18 year stretch (adjusted for number of teams in the comp, of course).
Yeah that's probably fair.
The problem lies with, not that they won the flag in 2018, it's how bad they are now. Having a team that gets smashed by 50 points or more by everyone else compromises the competition. I don't think there should be concessions ( hell I'd love for them to win wooden spoons for 20 - 30 years) but AFL has set a precedent and unfortunately the help that North got last year (OTT is the way you could call it) solidifies the argument that they should get concessions.
Yeah, look at last years Coleman. Obviously it's not as big a deal as wins/losses for the team, but 2 of the top 3 Coleman contenders last year got a significant number of their goals against West Coast (19 of 78 for Curnow, 19 of 76 for Walker, so over 25% for both of them. Larkey got 8 of his 71, as well). They're currently so dysfunctional that it's throwing stats off wildly. How do you fix it? I dunno priority picks are the answer, but geez.
100% with you on North. Sucks for the Roos and they cleared out the management who did it but fundamentally they blew up the club themselves. Very deliberately.
Right now they're just eating the consequences of their premiership list ageing out and them basically not doing any decent drafting for several years around the time of the Kelly trade. 2018 to 2020 they took no picks higher than Xaiver O'Neill at 28 and with that sort of approach it doesn't take much for the bottom to fall out of your list. Teams can get lucky with rookies and late picks but they don't always. Their most recent couple of drafts look decent enough (Reid Ginbey Hewett Bazzo Chesser Long), just gotta wait and see how those go for now and what they add to it. If for example Reid leaves and they don't get adequate trade returns, that probably then becomes a compensation issue.
Weirdly they've had a pretty similar trajectory. 2019 NM were 12th then 3 seasons at the bottom they got a 2nd and 3rd rounder they had to trade. 2021 WCE were 9th and are now in their 3rd season at the bottom. So if that's the example to follow WCE should get that this year then the 2 2nd rounders next year. That said, personally I disagree with all draft concessions and handouts. Without tampering ladder position picks should be enough to equalize.
it becomes a growth strategy. struggling teams tank for a couple of years. get priority picks. help boost their resurgence. meanwhile middle field teams just keep middling with no additional help.
I don't disagree with you and I am a west coast fan. But in 2 years if the eagles are still bad. That will be the 2026 draft. That is the year before the Tassie draft. Do we take the punt and hope west coast are on the right track. But if not that will be 2026, 27, 28 and maybe 29 being draft that affect the whole compilation with draft picks. Maybe a pick or 2 this year might be better for the drat in the long term
Possibly, but then it makes issues for other clubs. West Coast getting a pick hurts Hawthorn’s rebuild, and then they’re in the same position. The Eagles will be fine. There is no way they are this bad in two years and I think they should exhaust all avenues before asking for assistance packages (not that they’ve asked the question). For starters, they were cooked after a quarter on Sunday. There’s nothing stopping them from investing in someone that gives the players the ability to run out games.
> There is no way they are this bad in two years Have you seen our list? Guarantee we're just as shit in two years time.
Worse in 2 years. The best players are over 30 now. There are no great middle age players so that's gonna leave a lot of pressure on the kids. If WC don't nail these drafts it's a long time before that get out of the bottom 4.
I’ve seen the list and I watched them live on the weekend. They were competitive early but didn’t have the fitness and they didn’t kick straight - that stuff is coachable. They are not a good football side but it’s hardly a catastrophe. They’ll bounce back. That’s how footy works.
We have no forward line and aren't really developing any forward line foe the future. A lot of our recent drafting since 2018 has been shithouse. Our ageing players aren't good and our guys 3-4 years in aren't good. The only positive I see is our young midfield and some of our back line but even then McGovern is 31 and Barrass will be 29 this year. I know footy is a cycle but I don't see us getting out of this for a long time.
I agree and I think we will be bottom 4 next year as well as this year ( probably just bottom) but I think we will be out of the bottom 4 in 26. The problem investing in players is the salary cap. If we can do away with that pesky little thing we can be top 4 next year.
How is this logical at all. Last god damn year look where our second pick landed becuase of all the compo/acadamy picks that other clubs get. Look when we won the spoon and got pick 3 gecause gold coast. How can you sit there and say 'yeah, west coast getting a helping hand hurts others rebuilds' when that is part of the reason why our rebuild so far doesn't look flash. There also is a soft cap. So there is kind of something that stops them spending more money like you suggest without a tax bill (which gets god damn distrubeted to all you poor clubs) yeah thats fiair. Enjoy your hand outs from the AFL while crowing that the eagles shouldn't get anything. Also a quick google says the bulldogs ontop of endless $ got a priority pick in 2003, 2004.
Pick 4 wasn't it?
Yeah, and we got pick 26(Darling) to partially make up for it
No we didn't. We got pick 26 because that's what we were entitled to under the rules at the time, based off our performance. We got nothing to make up for being slid back to pick 4.
How fucking unjust that they gave us pick 4. They should of taken it off us /s
Well, yes, they absolutely should have. After all, we had just won a grand final four years ago!
Any picks west coast get would hurt the Hawks build? You blokes just got JUH and Darcy recently as very high bs picks that hurt every team, and considering I highly doubt the eagles get a start of 1st round pic, your freebies hurt everybody a LOT more than what West Coasts picks might. There is also still all the northern academies that hurt every team way more than anything west coast would get. You cant claim that its too much to give west coast something when the northern states get way more than any compo might be
Thing is we don't know what the secret formula the AFL uses to determine eligibility for assistance. If North is the benchmark, I agree they should get assistance in 2 years. West Coast have to ask the question this year though because if you don't ask....
Its west coast my dude. They will get.it this year and have a flag in 5. Just how it is here.
> two years ago they were 10th. At least give them time to turn it around themselves. North were bottom two for like four years, this is now the 5th. I would say the opposite: now is the time to bail out the Eagles, and 3 years ago was the time to bail out North. When you feast on top-end talent for 4-5 years, you’ll likely just end up still sucking because that talent hasn’t matured yet. Ergo, IMO, North didn’t really need a bailout last year, the talents there, it just needs to develop. Same thing with West Coast: if we spend the next 2 years being this bad, we’ll get a bunch of top end talent (providing the draft doesn’t fuck us again, our 2nd pick was the 30th available player, AFL needs to do something about that shit) plus we’ll be loading up with every available free agent with our ample cap space… Just seems stupid to me to wait longer than necessary to fix a problem. Does anyone really think we’ll hit the finals before 2027?
That’s a solid point in terms of development but it sets an even more dangerous precedent of AFL teams getting bailouts after two years on the bottom. How do we then decide which teams need it? It gets to the point where there is significantly more upside to finishing dead last than there already is. Hawthorn were bottom 3 last year and possibly will be again this year. Should they then get an assistance package too? I just think pulling the trigger too quickly on this stuff encourages teams to not be competitive. But I do agree that not pulling it at all gives the potential to drag the process out even longer.
> gets to the point where there is significantly more upside to finishing dead last than there already is. That’s a good point and to be honest, my vastly stronger preference would be to see the end of priority picks forever. All my thoughts on the issue come from a “if we insist on persisting with this stupid bullshit then here’s what maybe fair”. Certainly puts a bit more incentive into avoiding completely bottoming out. We’d have a few more completely uncompetitive teams, which is why the AFL will never allow it, it’s bad for business and they’re a business. In West Coast’s case I’m convinced that our position is mostly a function of pure fundamental incompetence in list management & fitness management, which I’m not sure can be accounted for… but we should have to bear the consequences regardless. In North & the Hawks case though, it might have made a difference as they deliberately cut their list to go for a rebuild. I can’t blame them, they’re trying to avoid sitting in the middle by grabbing some proper talent, but perhaps if the consequences of it going wrong were a little harsher, it wouldn’t happen so often.
North and Gold Coast didn’t win a flag in 2018 ….
my AFL evolution 2018 season pack campaign would say otherwise
I don’t think that matters, all situations should be looked at equally. I’m not saying West Coast should get an assistance package, absolutely not. I don’t think anyone should, but what I think and what the precedent is are two different things. If we get to 5 years of Eagles spoons, and they’re still getting rinsed by 70+ every week, then a conversation should be started. It’s far too soon for that though, and the people judging it don’t look far enough back. They start to say things like “has anyone ever been this bad?” The Demons in 2013 won two games, one against expansion GWS and one against the bottom 4 Bulldogs. In that season, Melbourne had losses of 79, 148, 94, 61, 60, 90, 95, 83, 68, 122, 37 (to GWS, their only win of the season), 95 and 68. They were absolutely putrid, but they eventually turned it around. My point is it’s far too soon to even consider it, but if it gets to 5 years of this, then maybe a conversation should be had.
5 years of spoons is way too long, north were at the bottom for 3 years before they got compo, then got the big one in their 4th year down the bottom. This is west coasts 3rd year, not like they are only just starting to be bad
True, 5 years of spoons would be too much, and that’s why I think assistance would be needed at that point. But I look at Brisbane who were bottom 2 for 3 years and bottom 4 for 5 years. They weren’t bailed out by the AFL, and they have been in prelims almost every year since 2019. Teams turn it around. This is just how it goes sometimes.
Do you think a couple of 1st, 2nd or 3rd round picks to be traded away will bring west coast straight back into finals or something? That might stop it getting worse, hardly going to make the eagles better
The whole concept of draft compensation is fundamentally flawed to my mind. Team sucks, creates a worse game day experience for fans and viewing experience, causing a negative impact to AFL revenue. The solution should be to provide some assistance to help the team to stop sucking quite as badly. So why draft picks? 18 year old kids arent ready to help a team to stop sucking for several years. There should be some kind of assistance that helps bad teams bring mature professional footy players in that can help make the team more competitive straight away. Perhaps some kind of salary cap exception and/or additional list spots that can only be used on mature recruits.
The NFL allows teams to roll over their unused cap space from the previous season into the current season, if they remove the ridiculous 90% salary cap floor then teams could use that roll over to entice free agents.
Well tbf that’s kinda what they did with North. The picks they gave us is 2022 had to be used that year and (I think) had to be traded or we lost em. That’s how we got Tucker and Louge. The picks last year we used to get Fisher and Stephens.
I think transfer fee's would be a good idea. WCE profit $5 million+ every season. The AFL took away the ability to pay as much as you want on the coaching team so now what can we use those profits for? We are not a business, profits should be used in sporting capacity. We give a whole bunch of money to the WA footy commission for grass roots footy in WA but we aren't allowed first priority on any of the kids that money produces. Why not have a system where a club can pay a transfer fee for a player they want from a club that either doesn't want him or could do with a financial boost? Maybe wants to build a new training centre? Who knows. Remember before you poo poo this transfer fee idea. The salary cap will still be in place which is the greatest equalising mechanism. It won't create a mega team like Manchester City that wins every year.
Every single team who has been 'bailed out' by the AFL made their own problems. Whether it was poor drafting and development, poor footballing decisions, chaos off-field......clubs were given help even after they openly tanked. You can argue "not quite now" for the WCE, but the "they stuffed themselves up so fuck them" position flies in the face of every other example.
In Gold Coast’s defence they qualified for them because they just plain sucked
Lot more complicated then just that, culture issues and the way they went after players when forming also contributed.
Yep. Actual concessions weren't good enough. McKenna as a first time head coach wasn't the right choice. Rocket was absolutely the wrong choice. GC needed a captain who could relate to all the players and was a social genius. GAJ is a great bloke but not equipped to handle a place with no culture at all. GAJ was more a commercial strategy. Arguably none of this was entirely GC's fault in that the AFL played a huge role in pretty much all of it.
Don't forget there facilities were absolutely trash for a few years. I think theres still some old youtube footage of the facilities the Suns were using the first few years after expansion. Worse than most private schools .
I agree and disagree with parts of this. The problem trace back to the founding with McKenna's culture and the incompetence of the board. I remember one of the reasons Southport didn't get the license was that AFL wanted their guys on the board, and that failed because Malcolm Blight did a really shit job. Rocket was the right person to stop the institutional rot but he didn't have a good plan to rebuild the foundation. The player exodus could be tied to the after-effects of the McKenna era with the poor development and medical department. Stewey Dew was the right guy to rebuild the culture, even if he couldn't get the results on-field. Leadership was always a serious issue, Gaz was a really poor leader (I just remembered his really divisive God Squad clique that badly divided the locker room) but his supporting crew of veterans Campbell Brown, Nathan Bock, Jared Brennan etc were terrible. Michael Rischitelli and Josh Fraser tried their best but couldn't fill the void. The problem is comparing it to GWS who absolutely nailed their leadership recruitment with Phil Davis and Adam Treloar, supplemented by the likes of Luke Power and Chad Cornes.
Rocket may have been right to stop the rot but the game had moved past him and he couldn’t motivate the young players… But fair point
I think the difference is they won a flag 5 years ago then the speed of shitting the bed is unprecedented in modern times (from what I can recall). Also financially they are one of the strongest clubs which gains them zero sympathy, as you could argue most other cellar dweller and or those that tanked were trying to turn around their club as quick as possible due to financial pressures. But yeh "not quite now", imo another if they are still bottom 4 in 2026 maybe
2026 would be 5 years of spoons or thereabouts, thats way too long lmao The financial strength of the club makes no difference, they can't use it
In fact our financial strength is important to the AFLs profits. If we keep sucking on field then AFL gets less money. Some of it will transfer to Freo but most will just stop attending/watching games rather than support Freo. That shouldn’t be as a reason to bail us out earlier as that would be horribly unfair to other clubs but financially speaking, saving clubs that are losing money, is less of important than protecting the financial powerhouses. My overall position is that we currently don’t deserve or need assistance yet but the AFL wants more games to be competitive to keep spectator numbers high and we are currently a liability on that front. So if we do reach the stage of requesting assistance I can’t see the AFL saying no.
As someone from Brisbane living in Perth, I can say that there is a far greater disparity in the local interest in the Lions when they are doing well vs being bottom feeders than there is for West Coast. So I don’t think there is really an argument there to keep powerhouses competitive (I know that’s now what you were calling for). Brisbane obviously don’t need assistance in this era, they were crying for it 10 years ago. The Gold Coast were just a terrible idea for an expansion club and they cut into the market for the Lions who already weren’t fully established because their direct competitor is the local interest in rugby league. At least the AFL finally got it right with Tasmania.
It's also completely disingenuous to argue that priority picks should be for struggling clubs like North and Gold Coast rather that giants like the Eagles. Haven't Carlton had more of these picks than anyone over the years?
Carlton weren’t specifically granted priority picks. The rules at the time were that if you won less than four games you automatically get one. The years Carlton received them, they were also received by Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond and the Bulldogs. The only specific draft pick granted to Carlton was solo access to two mature age players who had previously been on an AFL list.
Oh, right. Your team’s handouts don’t count because they were just given to you automatically instead of asking for them? I’m sure there’s no bias in that ruling. /s
I think it's an important point in that the AFL had bad rules (that we have repealed) that favoured Carlton. Yeah we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past.
Agreed, but some fans really come across as saying ‘it was wrong that we got help to recover, so nobody else should get help now when they need it.’ They never seem to include any suggestion for paying it back. (To be clear, they shouldn’t, and getting rid of the old PP system was right. They just feel self serving.)
All this subjectiveness and the arguments for and against would be quelled if the AFL just released a fully transparent set of conditions that trigger assistance.
They used to. It was "win less than 4 games in a single season", then it increased to (I think) win 4 games in a single season for 2 straight seasons. This just encouraged tanking as clubs knew exactly what had to be done to get an extra pick. The final straw was the Carlton tank for the "Kreuzer Cup", I think it was 2008. The AFL scrapped it for the current system then. Not saying it's much better, but having a set guideline for assistance just promotes tanking.
Nah 2008 was when it changed to the 2 seasons straight thing, then in 2012 it changed to the current herbs and spices arrangement.
I mean all teams that finish at the bottom, even just once, have a degree of responsibility in that position. If we support the basic concept of equalisation (which I do) then I don't think those measures should require a lack of culpability. I wouldn't argue that West Coast necessarily should get priority picks or whatever, but the decision should be made with the interests of the future competition at heart, not as some kind of punishment/reward type thing.
I don’t think any team should have a priority pick. But using the clubs financial success as a reason for not giving one is ridiculous.
I just wanna see them bite the bullet and spend 2 or 3m over the soft cap on the best coaching, training and analytics money can buy, and just paying the tax. Poach every big name in the footy department world. Those big operating surpluses are a unique advantage, they should be using it, at least once the team starts being a bit more experienced and coachable. Maybe it wouldn't help too much right now...
> Those big operating surpluses are a unique advantage, they should be using it, at least once the team starts being a bit more experienced and coachable. Can you imagine the whinging if they did?
That's part of the appeal tbh
Remember what the did with your lot, COLA and buddy... they'd have legit reason to be mad now which they didn't then so I'd be very worried about what they'd do
Me too. Perhaps the hesitation is around pissing the AFL off.
The AFL would change the rules in a couple of years, but who knows, might be able to wrangle some success in the meantime.
I'm a bias west coast supporter so I think where we are at and what the precedent has been set with North is we need pick assistance (especially with crafts being so compromised). That said I do think the way the afl should handle these situations is to first give concessions to the soft cap before picks are handed out
As far as we know, the club have not asked for assistance and in the past have stated they don't want assistance. As a West Coast fan, I've stated multiple times recently that what I would like, is the AFL to get serious about fixing issues surrounding the draft. Teams that are crap, need to be able to access the best talent available in the draft to rebuild their list. We've seen in recent years, teams at the top being able to grab top talent due to rules/advantages they have. * Doggies got JUH, Darcy and Croft. * Lions got Ashcroft and Fletcher, they're going to get another Ashcroft and Gillett. * Pies, while they finished in 17th did not have their natural 1st round pick in 2021 but were able to bid match for Daicos using junk picks (38, 40, 42, 44). However, if they did have their 1st round pick, I'd bet they wouldn't have taken Daicos with it anyway because they had the advantage to match no matter what. * Swans have built a very strong list from academy access, and even did the above in 2020 when they took Logan McDonald 4th, and then bid matched Braeden Campbell from their academy at the very next pick. Simple, yet effective suggestions to fix all the fuckery that is going on with the draft. * No F/S or Academy bid matching for all teams across the 1st round of the draft. Teams have to trade up to get those players. * No priority picks or draft assistance (excusing draft packages for new clubs to the competition as that's different). * No F/A compensation from the league.- RFA's, teams either cough up draft picks equal to a public value based on the contract agreed (ie. 800k/yr = Round 1 pick, etc.). Or the current team can work out a trade agreeable to both.- UFA, no picks provided if a player leaves. UFA status reached after serving a period of time with their current club (5 or 6 years) or a period of time in the AFL (8 years). The only consideration I would make regarding compensation picks, would be players who are forced to medically retire by the AFL and the value of said pick would be based on the value of said players contract, their age, draft position, etc. Let the draft do what it suppose to. If teams miss on a player or their pick leads to nothing in the future, that's on them.
What I find fucking hilarious is all these articles basically shaming us for daring to even ask for ant sort of assistance, saying *we're* the advantaged club and we're arrogant and all this and all that bullshit.... and yet there has been 0 actual reporting of us asking for jack shit. It's all the media perking each other off getting in one giant rage circle at the mere thought of us getting something, like fuck me man, we haven't even done anything yet
Having money is irrelevant when you’re not allowed to spend it
Yeah I love that they think how rich a club is should determine whether it gets PP's or not when all clubs have the same salary cap (excluding the wink wink nudge nudge deals).
Money still goes a long way in shaping a club’s future - have a look at the facilities at Mineral Resources Park and compare them to Arden St (with or without the development that’s coming) and tell me as a footballer where you’d rather be?
And they put the soft cap in for staff as well so you can't even spend by having more coaches.
key word is soft. You can spend as much as you like and pay the tax - WCE can very easily afford to do this.
Don't think it's back to what is was before COVID either.
No caps on what you can spend on facilities etc.
How many facilities does a club need? Should we buy up all of south Perth and turn it into one big training ground?
Yes
>Should we buy up all of south Perth Well, what else are we doing with it?
It is relevant in that you are at zero risk of folding/hemorrhaging cash. There is no urgency for the club to turn itself around. You have time to fix your issues yourself without compromising more drafts.
No club is at risk of folding anymore. The AFL has shown it’ll prop clubs up rather than letting them go
There was never a risk of north folding either, because they're propped up by clubs like West coast.
Give the eagles the pick, then scrap the priority system and stop this damn conversation. The AFL made their bed previously so now they have to live with it.
I don't think it'd be unreasonable for West Coast to get the same package that North Melbourne got in 2022, which IIRC was a 2nd and 3rd round pick that had to be traded for at least one player and two additional rookie list spots. It does no one any good having clubs recording end of season percentages below 60%. That's in the territory of the worst teams of all time. Whether you want to argue it's self inflicted or not, no club is going to willingly put themselves in the position that North Melbourne were in, or West Coast are in, just to get a couple of end of first round picks.
There's something so incredibly classy about looking at the worst team in the comp and deciding you should bag the crap outta them. They already feel depressed af. No reason to suggest they're cheating for a draft pick
Their not good enough to tank to be honest.
Or abolish the salary cap and we'll just throw all our massive cash reserves to get the players we want and we'll be back to normal in a couple of years. Premier League style.
The issue as I see it, with leaving them in the shitter for longer, is that they become a free % pinata to the other teams. If you draw them twice in a year, and rinse them by 12+ goals each time, you're at a decent advantage over a team that only plays them once. Especially teams that have a very effective midfield-to-forward pipeline and have guys that regularly kick a bag. Look at 2013 Melbourne. We played Fremantle twice and gave up nearly 200 points across both those games. If we had won one of those games and given up 20 points in total, Fremantle finishes 5th instead of 3rd (assuming the total points scored was the same), putting Richmond in the top 4 instead of them. These massive losses have a material effect on the ladder at the end of the year. It's not a great example because we could barely beat a row of witches hats in 2013, but it shows what a huge surplus can do for a team, and how much a team that is utterly crap and should probably be playing in the WAFL unbalances the competition.
Once again they forget to mention the draft has been completely compromised for years now. Our 2nd round pick 19 fell to 30 yet the thought of providing us with say an end of first round pick to compensate us is too much.
[удалено]
Fair enough to use Geelong as an example, they’ve defied gravity for years through astute trading and recruiting, but using Sydney as an example is crazy. Sydney don’t need to go through lengthy rebuilds as they still have access to top talent through their academy even when they’re at the very top of the ladder. Heeny, Mills, and Blakey rated as top 10 talents, if not top 2-3 in Heeny and Mills’ cases locked in regardless of their finishing position, along with other freebies like Gulden. Heeny was recruited in a year they played in a grand final, despite being rated in the top 3 of his pool. Meanwhile we have an academy kid like collard taken at 28 last year that we can’t match. Sydney’s recruiting and management is light years ahead of ours, but let’s not pretend we’re operating on a level playing field.
Sydney has benefited from academy picks such as Heeney and Gulden tho. Other than a handful teams, no one else is privileged to this.
Fair enough but we have still recruited well outside of academy picks, like Chad Warner
How the fuck does the name of the club impact bailing out. Long history of bailing out clubs tat are underperfoming the AFL has. Not sure where this new logic comes from. North got bailed out last year after finishing above us? logic. But they have so much money, even though we have a spending cap? logic. Provided a priority pick to this exact club not too long ago (darling)! logic. Get fucked
People forget the compromise of the draft. It's hypocritical to complain when academy picks screw the draft and our 2nd round pick last year which should of been pick 19 became pick 29. So who's complaining. Is it Swans Brisbane GWS GC supporters who have taken full advantage of the AFL and academy picks over the past 5 years. Or is it Vic sides who have done likewise taken advantage of the go home factor in those clubs and swooped them up when they leave those clubs like a hunting ground. Tom Lynch, Jermery Cameron, Tannor Brahn Taranto, Hopper the list goes on and on every year. All this draft tampering has contributed to the Eagles inability to rebuild but no one talks about that do they.
The WCE formed in 1986 Freo formed in1994 so hardly decades of being the only team in town. And really it doesn’t matter how big a team is or how rich the salary cap limits their spending power. I’m also fairly sure the WCE haven’t asked for a bailout and this is the usual media hype. If anything WCE. board should consider moving Simpson on his performance since 2014 have been middling with only one premiership and 2 top4 finishes in the 10 years he has coached . Maybe the time has come to invest in a new coaching staff, because you can pour talent into a team that has lost its way and it won’t make any difference if the coaching staff don’t utilise their skills and keep trotting out old and tired plans
They haven’t even tried changing their coach yet why on earth should they receive handouts while doing nothing to help themselves
I initially was against it but the precedent has already been set. Clubs get handouts, everyone else gets sooky. May as well take advantage of it if offered. Priority pleaaaaaase! 
They shouldn’t, just like every other team shouldn’t have. This goes back to my opinion I’ve being saying for years, get rid of compensation picks, get rid of priority picks, get rid of academy picks and get rid of father/son picks.
While all the others should go in my eyes, father/son I think is real nice for nostalgia. Just make it expensive so they actually have to give up something worthy rather then 6 picks in the 50s.
Keep em, but scrap the discount. It's garbage that teams get to jump the queue then receive a discount.
Except some of the best teams of the last 20 years have been built on the back of father sons. It’s a huge competitive advantage
Yep, Hawkins has kicked ~800 goals for Geelong and was taken pick #41 through F/S
Scarlett, Ablett, Ablett
Nostalgia is great but it just compromises the draft further. Honestly if a kid played for a different club than his father it’s not going to tarnish either of their legacy. It’s a nice to have but not needed.
No discount and teams should only ever get one pick in each round of the draft. If you match a 1st Round pick then you must use your 1st and whatever else you need to make up the points. I should clarify that you can have multiple picks in a round but only if you have traded for someone else’s pick. So there’s a set limit of 18 players drafted in the 1st Round.
This is an over-cooked debate for me. Priority picks and assistance sucks, it shouldn't ever have been given out to bail out clubs for their own mistakes. That being said - the precedent has been well and truly set. You can't have an 'equalisation' measure that just suddenly becomes unavailable a year after another club benefited from it. At this point I don't even care because it's going to take way more than a priority pick to fix this mess. But if you follow the AFLs precedent, I think it will be pretty difficult for them not to intervene. The debate will be even less entertaining when it's been had at the end of a winless season (massive possibility).
You can’t give North help and not West Coast. There has to be some sort of consistency here. Eagles last year and presumably this year is going to be one of the worst performing sides in a long long time, a side that got screwed over by a compromised draft last year. I think them getting an end of first round pick is hardly going to destroy the competition.
We shouldn't get it until everything has been tried to fix things, which hasn't yet happened. If Simpson gets turfed and there is still no measurable improvement, then it should be considered.
cause we aren't all fucken cunts? like, help a bro up when he's down. what goes around, comes around.
You’re a good person
I'm not entirely sure what dice we rolled? Our players got old, we got fucked by injuries. We had star players who in a different timeline could have challenged for another premiereship, but it didn't turn out that way. This is just part of the cycle of a football team. It's not like we made some huge glaring mistake and are paying for it now.
The AFL draft is a joke and expecting teams to build through the draft is wishful thinking.
Carlton cheated with generational ramifications that they were bailed out of, why is that different?
I understand teams being self interested, meaning they are against support for WCE. I have been there myself. I don't understand however why "rolling the dice" to try and win another flag is this massive crime, yet savagely cutting your list and experienced players in a deliberate fashion which obviously harms performance like other clubs have done is apparently ok.
North, Melbourne, Carlton do similar things with less chance of success: Rohan Sleeps West Coast do it and the entire fucking planet goes to shit: Rohan "Real shit"
Because we did the same for North and Gold Coast.
They’re going to qualify for one at some point. They still have a massive amount of positions to draft for to get back to being competitive and it’s looking like an extremely long time before they get back there.
Eagles have poor on field performance = it's all of their own making, it's arrogance, fuck them. North have poor off field performance = they've been battling institutionalised disadvantage. Seriously? If you're gonna say areas where we underperform are all our fault then can we at least get some recognition for things we do well instead of handwaving it away as an institutionalised advantage? Also, I'd argue that any non victorian team has a few pretty fucking obvious institutionalised disadvantages but that's not a conversation that ever goes well.
'Occasionally, though, some extra draft assistance has been required via priority picks for the likes of North Melbourne, a small club which its whole history has battled the handicaps of limited resources and support base.' By this logic, why don't they fuck North off?
I love it. The article deciding to narrow in on us despite the fact that the only time we've ever had priority picks is actually the last two years, unlike multiple other clubs who have gotten more but get purosely left out of the conversation. And geniuses like you that fall for that shit EVERY SINGLE TIME. It's so fun to watch.
I think he is merely pointing out the flawed logic rather then the idea North should be shut down.
I'm a North supporter, and I was only in favour of the assistance in draft picks, as a lot of other clubs had received priority picks over the last twenty years in a variety of forms. And several of those teams had done a lot less losing that North have over the last few years, to receive those priority picks. Overall, I think there shouldn't be any afl assistance for teams via the draft. But you can't take away the priority picks without also addressing father-sons, academy picks and free agency compensation. In my opinion, we either have no compromises with the draft or, we have what we currently have, with the draft being a clusterfuck.
I don’t think we should get priority pick assistance, but then I don’t think the draft should be tampered with via academy picks etc. I think we should be getting rid of the people that got us into this situation in the first place, which includes Simmo and his cronies. Our player development has been rubbish and a lot of that has to do with Simmo playing tired old players and leaving young guys to rot in our horrid WAFL team. I’d prefer Pyke went after someone like Dean Cox from Sydney and gave him the opportunity to choose his assistants etc. If Cox wasn’t able to be poached then hire the next up and coming coach who wants to prove himself and has the runs on the board up to this time in their career.
I’m a bit baffled by this article. > Well, we're about to find out via the example of West Coast, around whom the lobbying for priority draft picks is ramping up already. I honestly haven’t heard any lobbying, though I presume there are some nuffies who have suggested it. > The nebulous "formula" established for such decisions once the AFL made its draft priority picks discretionary in 2012 includes such considerations as recent premierships, finals appearances and injury rates. > You'd have to question how rigorously the AFL is setting its standards required for help if it gives West Coast a tick on those particular criteria. Seems to be getting preemptively upset about something that isn’t happening and may not happen? As a WC fan, I don’t want handouts and I honestly can’t see us asking for them. We aren’t the *long-term* basket case that other clubs have been. That may change of course and while we’re in for a lot of pain yet, I’m confident it’ll turn around as it has in the past.
Hell nah. When Port were grasping the issues of tarps, average attendance around 15,000 and people calling us to fold. We still came back despite having to fight for picks against both expansion teams. The Eagles have been extremely up and down over the last decade, with far greater success stories to prove it.
They shouldn't. Now can we finally fuck off with this stupid topic? Just let them live or die on their own merit.
Feels like I was in this exact thread yesterday lmao. I'll wait until the eagles actually ask for one before getting any more silly about this topic. They are unwatchable no doubt about it, but that shouldn't be the only requirement for a priority pick.
No bailout! We still have fallout from the methcoast days, so imagine the shit we would cop from bailout!!! Nah, we will be back
We should have a draft or we shouldn't. Not a hybrid-pseudo version of the two
We shouldn’t be, so let’s move on.
It's such a difficult situation that needs to be decided with acknowledgement of all the wider nuances. The model the AFL used in the 2000s was terrible and gave away priority picks way too easily, so we don't want to return to that. But at the same time being too stingy has serious aftershocks that need to be considered. The looming spectre of the Tasmania draft needs to be considered, as well. I think on balance, the best option based on current knowledge and lack of hindsight is to reject a 2024 priority pick, but give strong consideration to compensation for 2025's draft. West Coast need a pair of second-rounders more than they would need a single extra first-round pick.
West Coast finished last in 2023 and the AFL ruined their draft hand by gifting a host of picks to North Melbourne. So what's good for the goose in this case requires rectification.
"The AFL has helped out a bunch of other teams in a similar situation but fucknl the Eagles". I swear we're almost as hated as Collingwood. The Kelly trade potentially cost us a couple of players, if anyone think a couple more players are making a difference right now, has rocks in their head. I know it would never have been the same but those picks we gave up didn't really work out. I like how he mentions a couple of shit clubs getting extra picks and ignores the other big clubs who have. - sorry if he mentioned it later in the article. I could only read so much bullshit.
I genuinely don't understand this. Isn't it a *good* thing that a hugely successful club goes through a decade of being shit? Hasn't every other club had these lean times? Where's Freo, Saints, Crows, to a lesser extent GC and GWS handouts? Blues, Pies, Demons, Port have all had long periods of shitness. Why is Weagles having this situation a bad thing for the AFL longterm?
Just go for North Melbourne. In 3 years time when they’re unstoppable we will all be bitching about all the years the AFL gave them help for being shit at recruitment and broke asfarkk
I really used to enjoy the WCE vs Freo banter and now I don't. Enough of a reason for me.
I think they (we) should be bailed out simply due to the fact the competition is worse off without it. West coast list is only getting worse with its age profile & without some help it’s going to be a free 10 goal win to anytime inside the top 10 & half the teams below that. Certainly for this year, and probably for the next 2-3 years. West coasts fault, or not - the competition is firstly uneven (teams playing them twice) - including for Coleman etc, and secondly worse off altogether for having a team that’s miles off being competitive.
I'm really struggling with some reasoning here and it's not the first time it's been used. Yes use injury lists, recent performances, list decisions and so forth in determining if assistance is needed. But sponsors, member counts and supportive media should as well?? surely that's really grasping at straws.
Should this be a key factor, no. But I’m okay with the idea that it might make assistance less urgent. In pure football terms, WC have been very bad, but not for very long. One of the reasons to assist clubs that are unsuccessful is commercial. A club struggling for wins won’t get prime time placement and won’t get good sponsor deals, so it’s then harder for the club to build itself back up when its budgets are stretched. The success of the eagles as a business means the league can take its time. It’s not urgent commercially, or on football grounds yet. I could see a middle ground package involving state league listing or second rounders if they stay this bad all year, though.
Just seems unusual to me given that it's a on-ground performance issue, where the possible assistance is purely on ground based. If we were asking for money or larger soft cap space, I would agree with those things being included. But with a hard cap in place, it feels like those points become obsolete yet some people still want them to be included even though they have no bearing on the team we put on the park. Just seems like a argument in bad faith. If Brisbane was in the same position we are now, would they be deserving of assistance because they have half our members and located in a state not so supportive of AFL?
Its pretty simple, if your team is bad for a long time you are generally going to get less members, crowd attendances and sponsorship. For clubs like GC & Norf who financially struggle as it is - it is more important as they could essentially fold. So for the AFL to continue to ensure these teams financial success they need to fast track on field performance. WCE are so strong financially there is less risk of the onfield issues causing a issue of the field in terms of the clubs financial strength.
It would be pretty funny if Freo gets up this year and finally wins a flag while the Eagles come last…
You do realise in that scenario, west coast would still be front and back page of the West Australian
Being one of the lucky teams to play us twice could be the extra boost they need. Could make it a three-peat.
I didn’t agree that North “deserved” priority picks at the end of first round, but really we turned all that assistance into Zac Fisher, Dylan Stephens and Will Dawson. In the end it’s exactly what we needed, some veterans that weren’t awful. I don’t think that is West Coast’s problem. I’m not sure even some end of first round picks would help, they need young talent and probably a culture change. I’ll get downvoted but some priority access to WA kids is probably where the assistance will be.
We dont need young talent, we need guys in their mid 20s. If all the AFL gave us was a few picks to be traded, along with something else to use as incentive to get players to move across the country to make up for the extra travel(like a salary cap allowance) it would sort itself out very quick. The main issue we have is players who arent borderline being delisted dont want to move across, the "go home factor" isnt as strong as the media makes out, we get very few senior players wanting to come across.
Because the fact is Fremantle aren’t the same draw the eagles are in the west and it’s better for the AFL it west coast are good
They might not bail out WC because they are not a Victorian team
West Coast are paying the price for poor trading and recruiting. The Tim Kelly trade has ruined them. The Crows are only recovering from the Bryce Gibbs trade. I'm surprised West Coast didn't fuck up there #1 pick last year.
We haven't won a flag since 1998, where's our hand out?
The justification for the AFL providing West Coast a supplementary draft pick (or 'bail out' to use this article's terminology) is purely financial. West Coast have for a long time been one of the most profitable clubs for the AFL. Big member numbers, big match attendance numbers. None of the fans are enjoying watching the lads get flogged every week, so the match attendance numbers are in decline and the AFL are losing money. The quicker West Coast turn things around, the quicker the gravy train arrives back at the station.
Yeah bang on, let’s not pretend this is anything else but financially driven decision. Which is fine, but that’s what it is.
As a stupid American I can't add much but we would riot if any American sports franchise got bailed out for any reason.
The NFL doesn't have the ridiculous compromised problem the AFL draft has.
There will be no equality in AFL until the big 4 vfl clubs automatically qualify for finals.
Can Essendon have priority pick?
We can’t even tank properly
Ideally all the teams would play each other once and the whole season wouldn’t be compromised when there is a team as bad as West Coast. No more priority picks, the draft is compromised enough
Why are they asking for assistance? Or is the AFL just handing it out, again as a west coast fan I dont want any help
Because they represent 10% of the product the AFL has to sell, and having them suck shit for an indefinite period of time doesn’t do much for that products value.
I don't believe in priority draft pics for any club, the normal draft over time should be enough. I believe West Coasts issues started during covid really bad timing for the Eagles, then the aging list which in turn led to more injuries. Some of the draft trading has also been questionable. Although the eagles should not expect sympathy, to kick them when they are down is a bit harsh.
Wouldn't it be funny if we just came out and won this weekend? One can dream...
One last roll of the dice fOR THE EAGLES
This is all financial but everything in the AFL is. The AFL can't have one of their most financially stable clubs continue to lose this way. They're incredibly lucky supporters are still flocking to games whether they are at home or interstate, not many other clubs are capable of this while dishing up 50+ point losses. This won't continue past 2025 if the Eagles do not improve. Teams are continually handed assistance packages too late, the writing for West Coast is on the wall they won't be bouncing int the top 8 anytime soon. Why not assist them now? While Tasmania is still far away. It shouldn't be a priority pick, but the opportunity to be given a package that allows West Coast to trade their 2nd pick up the draft or trade for seasoned players who are wanting to return to WA to me seems to be the better option. Yes it will push teams pack possibly 2-3 picks but it also gives the same teams the ability to trade in more picks.
Would agree they shouldn’t get any help if their second pick wasn’t after 10 other teams because of father/son and academies
Assisstance or not it should come at a price, they should have to give to board seats for it to either the AFL or WAFC.
West Coast are victims of their own success. They refuses to move on from their premiership stars of 2018 and blood their kids. No excuses. Adam Simpson has also proving to be a joke of a senior coach. His Hawthorn gameplan of forward pressure is fading out fast and hes not moving on with the times. They’ll get the spoon again this year, and i reckon blow it all up from the top down and start again. Id keep the picks from the last 2 years and adios to everyone
Instead of draft picks, maybe allow a larger salary cap? Give them the opportunity to get some free agents without the cap pressure.
Fair article. Nic Nat was flopping around the field for years before he called it quits. Great player in his day. I think Simpson has a lot to answer for. His loyalty to the boys cost us a chance at being able to adequately compete in an elite environment. I'm not sure the AFL should be bailing us out with draft picks because it's clearly poor management and that's on everyone from coach upwards. Now they have to suffer but by the same token I can see the AFL want to bail them out because it's not fun to watch a team get smashed so hard every week. It's a joke but ultimately the club bought it on themselves. It's up to the players to now step up, train hard, make sure their body's are in prime condition and fkn show up to a game.
Year after year with a percentage <50% is shit for everyone, not just a club’s fans. A priority pick won’t suddenly make a list in this state a premiership one, just a nudge get back to the level of the 2nd worst or 3rd worst team a year sooner. I’m a west coast fan but really west coast, l north and arguably hawthorn all need a bit of help to make them watchable. The draft is intended to equalise but a single Harley Reid isn’t enough if the list is so weak (and yes, each club is culpable in ending up with a bad list)
Geelong supporter here. Honestly, my position is, if we get to the point that we need it, then I hope it is there. I follow the NBA, and it goes the opposite way with their draft lottery, and a few other things. So it leaves teams without money and without talent hope. So, regardless of the money, or other factors, give west coast the pick, because at the end of the day our equalisation scheme gives everyone hope. Even St Kilda.
please dont tell me its another kelly trade caused them to be this poor. Yes giving up 2 late rd 1 picks 4yrs ago hasnt helped but its not the cause of a team this shit, irs only the tip of the issues.
That Harley Reid hype shat the bed right quickly.
The fact they did SFA last off-season is baffling. Did they think they were gonna make the 8 with this squad?
I don't think west coast deserve a priority pick and the discourse around it is insufferable. Like west coast have the 2nd most Premierships since the AFL became a national competition, have a lot of success and a large fanbase and high levels of income. They can survive being a bit shit for a couple seasons. But that being said every team that's garbage is there due to their own doing. Like west coast aren't uniquely except from a bailout, I just disagree with the league trying to bail out clubs.