Tigers in dire need of extra help from AFL JAKE NIALL
April 8, 2010 IN THEORY, the expansion of the competition will hurt all 16 clubs, which will lose players to the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney. In theory, the pain will be spread more or less evenly, as the new teams pick the eyes, ears and vital organs out of the 2010 and 2011 drafts, leaving only scraps for the rest.
In reality, the Richmond Football Club, the least successful club in the competition over the past quarter century, stands to be the biggest loser from expansion. It is a situation that ought to concern the AFL, which should be more mindful of the impact of expansion on the weak than the strong.
The Richmond administration must approach the AFL soon and argue the case that, as the foremost victim of expansion, it is entitled to compensation. The AFL ought to lend a sympathetic ear.
If it is prepared to reconsider Geelong's hypothetical compensation for losing Gary Ablett, then it also must consider carefully the impact of losing premium draft picks on the hapless Tigers, whose supporters have seen barely five minutes of on-field sunshine since 1982. They cannot hang on forever.
In the modern AFL, it is the promise of blue skies - via a Riewoldt, Hodge or Cooney - that sustains the hope and interest of supporters. Richmond's faithful, already tortured by serial failure, have less hope without AFL intervention.
There is a logical way of giving Richmond the assistance it desperately needs that doesn't interfere with the next two drafts.
Richmond is bottoming out in 2010 and, unless Damien Hardwick has supernatural coaching powers, will finish bottom two this year. The state of its playing list is comparable to Melbourne in 2008, when the Demons won three games and finished last, and to Carlton of 2005 or 2006, both spoon years.
The critical difference between Melbourne of 2008, Carlton of 2005-6 and Tigers of today is that the Dees and Blues were given access to the best talent via the draft; Carlton had pick one three times, the Demons earned pick one twice and pick two once, plus an extra choice inside the first 20. Richmond will not be so well compensated for its misery. As a result of the Gold Coast's entry, the best possible draft pick Richmond can hope for in 2010 - even if it won one or two games - would be pick No 4. Its second choice would be in the late 20s.
But finishing last is much preferable to being 15th, particularly if Melbourne unexpectedly takes its third consecutive spoon with no more than four wins. Under the rules, the Demons would then earn a priority selection and receive the first two non-Gold Coast draft picks (No 4 and No 6). The Tigers, who have a weaker playing list, would get No 8. If North Melbourne was last, the Tigers would receive No 6.
Bear in mind, too, that the draft pool is already diluted by the dozen 17-year-olds that the Gold Coast have signed, and that GWS has the same deal. Pick four, thus, is really tantamount to pick six or seven. The currency of the picks is devalued. The Tigers are getting paid in New Zealand dollars.
Leigh Matthews has suggested that Richmond and Melbourne, as competition weaklings, should be quarantined from Gold Coast raids on their players. Philosophically, Matthews is correct in identifying that the worst teams lose more from expansion, but his remedy - having their uncontracted players off limits - doesn't really help Richmond.
The Tigers have already re-signed Brett Deledio and Trent Cotchin. Dustin Martin aside, there aren't many others whom the new clubs would want. Richmond, in any case, will struggle to reach the minimum salary cap of 92.5 per cent next year and will probably have to ''front load'' contracts.
While Richmond's present wounds are self-inflicted over a decade, the same is true of most bottom teams. Hawthorn and St Kilda were given the opportunity to right the ship, as were Carlton - which was further punished for cheating the salary cap - and Melbourne.
Melbourne has no need for special help, having bottomed out in the nick of time. North could be another significant loser. But the Roos have not been as dismal for as long, and have a more competitive playing list.
Realistically, how can the AFL salve the Tigers' wounds? It cannot give them an extra pick, since it has committed those choices to the new teams.
Allowing the Tigers to sign uncontracted players, a year or two before free agency, is one possibility. But a far better form of assistance would be to allow Richmond access to the best 16-year-old in the land at the end of 2010, or the best 17-year-old in 2011. In effect, it would be given a No 1 pick one or two years in advance.
The Richmond faithful need a reason to remain faithful. And, as it embarks upon a costly expansion, the AFL should recognise that Richmond, with its large dormant fan base, is perhaps the only commercial ''upside'' remaining in its Victorian heartland.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tigers-in-dire-need-of-extra-help-from-afl-20100407-rs5g.html?rand=1270645985906
