Rookie List - Should it be scrapped?

[bulldogtragic]

The AFLPA have said for some time the rookie list should be scrapped. They cite rookies doing as much work as any other main listed player, but on less cash. Ergo, fair days pay for a fair days work means a bigger playing list (46 players) and scrapping the rookie list.

One part agrees with the argument. Seems well reasoned in a sense, leaving training and playing AFL aside. One part thinks the extra $300,000 wages (and annual increases) will mean more fringe players with less coaches for poorer teams. Seems all trains come back to a meaningful equalisation in the league.

[GVGjr]

They have an argument. There isn't a lot of difference between the players on the primary list.

Once the expansion teams came in the rookie list was adjust for all teams as a way of bringing in more players into the elite environment. I think they need to toughen the rules rather than scrap the list.

[Maddog37]

I tend to feel that the system works ok as is. It may be harsh financially but compare it to a struggling track and field athlete and they are quite well off.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

How much do rookies earn?

[bulldogtragic]

How much do rookies earn?

Last time I recall it was around $55,000. I think draftees are on up to $100,000. Big difference.

[azabob]

The other flaw with the rookie system is when clubs put players like Mitch Hahn or Adam Schinder on it.

[Twodogs]

Last time I recall it was around $55,000. I think draftees are on up to $100,000. Big difference.

It depends on where players are drafted. First round selections get more than second round and so on. I know that Tom Boyd is on $180, 000 next year.

[bulldogtragic]

It depends on where players are drafted. First round selections get more than second round and so on. I know that Tom Boyd is on $180, 000 next year.

Right you are TD.

[divvydan]

It depends on where players are drafted. First round selections get more than second round and so on. I know that Tom Boyd is on $180, 000 next year.

To be more precise on Boyd, since he's a first round pick and played 6-10 games last year his 2015 salary is:

Base: $79,855
Match: $4,230

So if Boyd played 22 games in 2015, he would receive $172,915.

I'm not entirely clear if preseason games get a match bonus too. If they do it might go higher.

[Bulldog Joe]

The AFLPA have said for some time the rookie list should be scrapped. They cite rookies doing as much work as any other main listed player, but on less cash. Ergo, fair days pay for a fair days work means a bigger playing list (46 players) and scrapping the rookie list.

One part agrees with the argument. Seems well reasoned in a sense, leaving training and playing AFL aside. One part thinks the extra $300,000 wages (and annual increases) will mean more fringe players with less coaches for poorer teams. Seems all trains come back to a meaningful equalisation in the league.

While there is a fair argument, that they should be treated the same as everyone else, I would like to see some stats around the success or otherwise of rookie list compared to those drafted on the main list.

There does seem to be a strong success rate from the rookie list across all clubs.

Think Dean Cox, Nick Maxwell etc and our own Matthew Boyd, Dale Morris and Luke Dahlhaus among many successful players who started via the rookie list.

I am sure there is something about this pathway that really gets those offered a chance to work as hard as they can for success.

A bit of struggle is good for the soul.

[soupman]

If it did become an extensiuon of the snenior list then there should be rdestrictions applied to it to ensure it continues to be used as a means to giving underdeveloped talent a chance in the system instead of just becoming extra list spots to top up with depth.

Otherwise if they left it as is could they not just increase the salary package to be equal to the later rounds of the ND, removing the bonus for being promoted, so that the only difference between pick 66 in the ND and pick 66 in the rookie draft is that the rookie has to wait for a spot to open up on the senior list first? I'm pretty sure the late draft picks are only on $65kish so it would be an increase in expenditure of about $50k a season (5 rookies getting a $10k increase) for each club which wouldn't be too debilitating.

[soupman]

The AFLPA have said for some time the rookie list should be scrapped. They cite rookies doing as much work as any other main listed player, but on less cash. Ergo, fair days pay for a fair days work means a bigger playing list (46 players) and scrapping the rookie list.

Playing devils advocate here yes they do as much work, but that means nothing really.

Daniel Cross has not only done as much work as everyone else, but would have far exceeded the standard expected throughout his career. Unlike someone like Cooney* who may not have done more than required. This would never have been reflected in their wages, in fact I dare say Cooney would have been on significantly more than Cross for the majority of his career.

Players wages aren't and have never been reflective of the effort they put in, but rather what they contribute or are capable of contributing to the club on matchday.

Rookies are rookies because they aren't as talented theoretically as the players on the main list, so as long as they are paid a decent minimum wage why should they get paid as much as a better player for "effort" when they aren't as good? That happens no where else in the AFL system.

*just an example to make a point, may be factually incorrect

One part agrees with the argument. Seems well reasoned in a sense, leaving training and playing AFL aside. One part thinks the extra $300,000 wages (and annual increases) will mean more fringe players with less coaches for poorer teams. Seems all trains come back to a meaningful equalisation in the league.

Where does that figure come from?

If they are on $55k now it would cost a club $100k tops to bring their 5 rookies up to Tom Boyd; a pick 1's wage bracket.

[G-Mo77]

Wouldn't thy also get paid match day payments for their VFL affiliate? Or is that included in the $55K?

I don't see an issue. They were overlooked and wouldn't earn anywhere near that much if there wasn't a rookie list and had to play VFL. If they're good enough they'll earn more down the track.

[bulldogtragic]

Playing devils advocate here yes they do as much work, but that means nothing really.

Daniel Cross has not only done as much work as everyone else, but would have far exceeded the standard expected throughout his career. Unlike someone like Cooney* who may not have done more than required. This would never have been reflected in their wages, in fact I dare say Cooney would have been on significantly more than Cross for the majority of his career.

Players wages aren't and have never been reflective of the effort they put in, but rather what they contribute or are capable of contributing to the club on matchday.

Rookies are rookies because they aren't as talented theoretically as the players on the main list, so as long as they are paid a decent minimum wage why should they get paid as much as a better player for "effort" when they aren't as good? That happens no where else in the AFL system.

*just an example to make a point, may be factually incorrect



Where does that figure come from?

If they are on $55k now it would cost a club $100k tops to bring their 5 rookies up to Tom Boyd; a pick 1's wage bracket.

If my memory serves me, the AFLPA was suggesting a list of 46 players, which is la arger list again. So there's 2 more wages there $150,000 on increased wages. So there's 8 new spots. The base level as above is $25,000 more than rookies get. Times that by 6 6 existing rookie spots is $150,000. Then match payments on top if applicable.

[divvydan]

If the rookie list was scrapped and instead we had 46 players on a main list and nothing else, it might mean the end of clubs taking chances with irish players and players from other sports. The main reasons why these players are taken are: 1. Not taking up a spot of another player and 2. Lower wage cost makes it okay if they don't develop.

Players like Hanley, Pyke, Blicavs were all given a chance when they might otherwise have been deemed too risky to warrant a main list spot.