Opinion MODERATE ideas for a 'fairer' AFL without the hyperbole of VIC & non-VIC trolls. TROLLS FROM BOTH SIDES PLEASE KEEP OUT

[Brunswick Trap King]

Fair enough, although I still can't see anyone admitting as such on BigFooty, for example. Like maybe in your heart of hearts, you might think that, but if there's a thread in October, "West Coast least deserving premiers in history," 100% of participating Eagles posters will be arguing that it was fully deserving, in fact, maybe even more deserving than most flags.

And freely substitute any other team for West Coast because we're all the same.

If that comes to fruition then I'll create the thread. Of course, you then won't know if I was just doing it to prove a point so this is futile.

 

[kranky al]

If that comes to fruition then I'll create the thread. Of course, you then won't know if I was just doing it to prove a point so this is futile.

He doesnt really have a choice - to believe what we are trying to tell him then forces the reexamination of richmonds two recent flags.

id bet money that if the first one was richmond vs collingwood hed rate that win as a better win than richmond / giants or adelaide....

much harder to beat a co-tenant than a team flying in

 

[Hallstrom]

He doesnt really have a choice - to believe what we are trying to tell him then forces the reexamination of richmonds two recent flags.

id bet money that if the first one was richmond vs collingwood hed rate that win as a better win than richmond / giants or adelaide....

much harder to beat a co-tenant than a team flying in

Well they couldn't beat a co-tenant in the prelim in 2018 so maybe they wouldn't have any flags?
I note they also beat non MCG tenants in the prelim thier flag years.
There you have it 2 of the most undeserved flags in history!

Hehe. Just stirring Tiges fans, couldn't resist.

 

[The_Wookie]

Im not ignoring history - i finished work late last night and was exhausted.

im happy to go as granular as you want - im driving geraldton to exmouth today so wont be on here except at lunch then after i pull up.

Dont really care any more. We arent going to agree so whats the point.

im just fascinated to know who you are going to quote and cite that is going to gainsay the Victorian corporate regulator, the chief executive of the vfl and a vfl commissioner.

Im disagreeeing with the article quotes and I dont think they all say what you think they do.

But im done.

 

[Final Siren]

If that comes to fruition then I'll create the thread. Of course, you then won't know if I was just doing it to prove a point so this is futile.

Well someone will do it, for whichever team wins the flag, so we can just wait and see how many of the new premier's fans will say it's less deserving.

 

[Final Siren]

He doesnt really have a choice - to believe what we are trying to tell him then forces the reexamination of richmonds two recent flags.

id bet money that if the first one was richmond vs collingwood hed rate that win as a better win than richmond / giants or adelaide....

much harder to beat a co-tenant than a team flying in

I rate the 2017 flag higher than 2019 because it was a magical fairy tale that came true. Nothing will ever top the experience of seeing my team win it all after supporting them for 30 years of misery.

I don't really have to consider which flag Richmond "deserved" more because we won every final in both years by such thumping margins as to remove all doubt as to who was the better team.

 

[kranky al]

Dont really care any more. We arent going to agree so whats the point.



Im disagreeeing with the article quotes and I dont think they all say what you think they do.

But im done.

But im actually interested in these books you have that say differently.

I understand that its a bit of a stretch to get you to go find quotes out of a book when i can just quote from a webpage - so how about this ....

Tell me the name if one of the books and ill get it from the library and read it myself.

 

[kranky al]

I rate the 2017 flag higher than 2019 because it was a magical fairy tale that came true. Nothing will ever top the experience of seeing my team win it all after supporting them for 30 years of misery.

I don't really have to consider which flag Richmond "deserved" more because we won every final in both years by such thumping margins as to remove all doubt as to who was the better team.

Yet were unable to beat more than the bottom 5 and port away from the mcg......

btw i can imagine the 2017 flag being manna from heaven - we start getting tetchy when we havnt won one for tenyears

after than long a gf win against an under 9’s team would be something

 

[Final Siren]

Yet were unable to beat more than the bottom 5 and port away from the mcg......

I mean it says a lot that you have to reach back into the home & away season to find a game that Richmond didn't comprehensively win. If we'd fallen over the line in a Grand Final from a fortunate umpiring call, no doubt you'd be all over that. But since that didn't happen, you have to go looking elsewhere for reasons we didn't deserve it.

 

[Carringbush2010]

But im actually interested in these books you have that say differently.

I actually read that whole discussion between you and The_Wookie - literally every post and quote the Wookie put in them was bracketed from which publication and even the page number:

Now I'm not gonna go into debate with you about the actual discussion but what you've asked for in this post has been provided by the Wookie in every post prior. All it would take for you to read them is look them up, as you know the publication names and even the page numbers because they've been provided.

And to be fair to you, you've also provided a link(s) to back your side of the discussion.

There is obviously conflict of truths between your source (journalist?) and the Wookie's (Historians?). So I'm not even sure which is correct.

The two ends of the argument: VFL would've 'died' if not for wc and the bears or the VFL was solvent, some of the clubs were not though.

 

[kranky al]

I mean it says a lot that you have to reach back into the home & away season to find a game that Richmond didn't comprehensively win. If we'd fallen over the line in a Grand Final from a fortunate umpiring call, no doubt you'd be all over that. But since that didn't happen, you have to go looking elsewhere for reasons we didn't deserve it.

If you had beaten a team away in the finals you might get a point - but nope - all the teams you played were at the mcg.

richmond were 1/2 the team away from the mcg - i have zero doubt that adelaide would have thrashed you lot in a gf at ao

What would have been interesting would have been to see who rocked up at a neutral venue.

 

[kranky al]

I actually read that whole discussion between you and The_Wookie - literally every post and quote the Wookie put in them was bracketed from which publication and even the page number:

Now I'm not gonna go into debate with you about the actual discussion but what you've asked for in this post has been provided by the Wookie in every post prior. All it would take for you to read them is look them up, as you know the publication names and even the page numbers because they've been provided.

And to be fair to you, you've also provided a link(s) to back your side of the discussion.

There is obviously conflict of truths between your source (journalist?) and the Wookie's (Historians?). So I'm not even sure which is correct.

The two ends of the argument: VFL would've 'died' if not for wc and the bears or the VFL was solvent, some of the clubs were not though.

Hold up for a sec

Right at the moment im only arguing the solvency of the vfl

and correct me if im wrong but at no stage has he quoted anything to show other wise.

theres other stuff he has quoted im going to look at tonight when im parked up but i will take each issue one by one.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Hold up for a sec

Right at the moment im only arguing the solvency of the vfl

and correct me if im wrong but at no stage has he quoted anything to show other wise.

theres other stuff he has quoted im going to look at tonight when im parked up but i will take each issue one by one.

Actually the Wookie has, more than once.

 

[kranky al]

Actually the Wookie has, more than once.

Well quote it - been through it twice and i cant see wheres hes addressed that point

 

[Carringbush2010]

Well quote it - been through it twice and i cant see wheres hes addressed that point

Then you're not reading it, heaps of reference to publications and page numbers.

 

[kranky al]

Then you're not reading it, heaps of reference to publications and page numbers.

I can see where he has answered the other point on the formation of west coast and the involvement of the wafl and upon further research im happy to concede that point

The point that the vfl was busted arse broke and about to be closed down by the regulators has been debunked by “i dont believe that”

thats all i can see on that point.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I can see where he has answered the other point on the formation of west coast and the involvement of the wafl and upon further research im happy to concede that point

The point that the vfl was busted arse broke and about to be closed down by the regulators has been debunked by “i dont believe that”

thats all i can see on that point.

Again you're not reading it, he's saying all his information is written by historians and your link is a journalist piece - hence he believes football historians over journalists. He's also linking that the VFL was not broke and only some clubs were - according to the references he's provided.

Maybe best to look up the references and page numbers he's provided and then go back into battle with him, if you can indeed prove the claims of his references one way or the other.

 

[kranky al]

Again you're not reading it, he's saying all his information is written by historians and your link is a journalist piece - hence he believes football historians over journalists. He's also linking that the VFL was not broke and only some clubs were - according to the references he's provided.

Maybe best to look up the references and page numbers he's provided and then go back into battle with him, if you can indeed prove the claims of his references one way or the other.

<<<No it wouldnt - there were several clubs that were close to the edge, if not over, but the league itself was ok. There were other alternatives - it wasnt the "eagles or bust". The bears also paid up, but more importantly the VFL signed a huge increase on its tv rights at the end of 1987.>>>>

<<<
yeah thats what ive done. As usual you lack context - particularly the rest of the statement - which is backed up in part by Samuels remarks.I never - and never have - claimed something was fake news - its just not 100% accurate unless you really want it to be.

<<<Ive got numerous books written by notable football historians from WA, SA and Victoria that i put faith in before any modern journalist, but you dont have the patience to read the citations provided sooooo>>>

Thats all i can see to reference the vfl being broke - no book no reference

if you see something im missing quote it.

 

[HTT]

If you had beaten a team away in the finals you might get a point - but nope - all the teams you played were at the mcg.

richmond were 1/2 the team away from the mcg - i have zero doubt that adelaide would have thrashed you lot in a gf at ao

What would have been interesting would have been to see who rocked up at a neutral venue.

The problem is you’re looking at an extremely limited sample size and drawing the conclusion the that the effect on Richmond 2017 of the venue was at least 4 times that which is considered average for most teams. That’s just not a realistic conclusion to make based on a handful of games.

 

[kranky al]

The problem is you’re looking at an extremely limited sample size and drawing the conclusion the that the effect on Richmond 2017 of the venue was at least 4 times that which is considered average for most teams. That’s just not a realistic conclusion to make based on a handful of games.

I can look at the bottom four and port.

i can look at 2016 and 2018 and see nothing different.

trust me - we know about winning games away more than any team - we dont even start mentioning winning gf’s till we start winning away.


Its not

 

[HTT]

I can look at the bottom four and port.

i can look at 2016 and 2018 and see nothing different.

trust me - we know about winning games away more than any team - we dont even start mentioning winning gf’s till we start winning away.


Its not

Again, this is not a large enough sample size.
And using 2016 Richmond to judge 2017 Richmond is pretty sketchy. Did you see how we went that year? We were total garbage everywhere.

 

[Carringbush2010]

<<<No it wouldnt - there were several clubs that were close to the edge, if not over, but the league itself was ok. There were other alternatives - it wasnt the "eagles or bust". The bears also paid up, but more importantly the VFL signed a huge increase on its tv rights at the end of 1987.>>>>

<<<
yeah thats what ive done. As usual you lack context - particularly the rest of the statement - which is backed up in part by Samuels remarks.I never - and never have - claimed something was fake news - its just not 100% accurate unless you really want it to be.

<<<Ive got numerous books written by notable football historians from WA, SA and Victoria that i put faith in before any modern journalist, but you dont have the patience to read the citations provided sooooo>>>

Thats all i can see to reference the vfl being broke - no book no reference

if you see something im missing quote it.

There is a reference in one his posts. If you can't it I can't help you.

 

[kranky al]

There is a reference in one his posts. If you can't it I can't help you.

Mmmm my bullshit detector is off the scale here

You can continually reply but the quote function is beyond you?

 

[kranky al]

The license holder was ALWAYS the WAFL/WAFC. It was sublicenced to IPL. The licence terms were negotiated with the WAFL not IPL. IPL was created so the WAFL didnt have to pay for the licence.

• 1986, August 26. All six WAFL directors and six of the eight clubs voted to apply to join the VFL in 1987. Sth Fremantle and Swan Districts vote against. (Behind the play, pg 202). To get the clubs votes a $200,000 in finanical support was offered to each club (Behind the play pg 218) The 4 million license fee is demanded up front by the VFL instead of over 10 years as had been originally proposed (Behind the play pg 215)
• 1986, September 22. Indian PAcific Limited is formed to control the Eagles license. (Behind the play pg 206). The WAFL sells its sublicense to Indian Pacific Limited for $5.6million, making a 1.6 million profit. IPL also had the right 50% of any shares offered in a second team. The new clubs would have to pay their own air fares, but could only use the VFLs airline partner. (The Phoenix Rises pg 79)
• 1987, Feb 6. A Limited Partnership (Indian Pacific Limited) is formed to raise the money to cover the costs of setting up and operating the Eagles. The float eventually raised $12.3 million. (Soaring, pg 17)

Its worth noting that the Western Reds also had to do the same thing in rugby league.



No it wouldnt - there were several clubs that were close to the edge, if not over, but the league itself was ok. There were other alternatives - it wasnt the "eagles or bust". The bears also paid up, but more importantly the VFL signed a huge increase on its tv rights at the end of 1987.



No chance of that, the WAFL had been asking about putting WA teams in the VFL since 1981.

• 1981, July 1. The WAFL board resolved to ask the VFL of their opinion of a WA team joining the VFL competition and for an iundication of the VFLs intentions regarding the development of football in Australia (Behind the Play pg 180)
• 1982, April. The WAFL calls a special meeting of its Directors to discuss the formation of a policy on a national competition. (Behind the play pg 183)
• 1983, May 2. – The WAFL requests immediate AID from the WA Goverment to meet a 1.9 million deficit that had come about due to the maintenance of league venues. The Government sets up a task force headed by Bill Mitchell to investigate footballs financial problems and long term needs. The Report would recommend ground rationalisation – down to four, including Subiaco and the WACA, as well as an independent commission. (Behind the Play pg 187)
• 1984, February 28. The WAFL board hands control of football in WA over to a newly formed WAFL board. In return the Givernment took over repayments on a 4 million loan used to finance the development of Subiaco Oval. (Behind the Play pg 190)
• 1984 – June 15. WA Football Commissioner appraches the SANFL to discuss entering the VFL at the same time, but leaves under the impression the SANFL arent interested (Headliners – Birth of the West Coast Eagles)
• 1984 – September 4. Meeting of club representatives organised by John Elliot and Ian Collins proposing the setting up of a new national competition, with financial conditions set, and clubs to be invited from WA and SA. SA is uninterested, but interest from WA was reported as warm. 11 VFL club presidents are reported in favour (Geelongs president wasnt present).
• 1984 – September 13. The WAFL says its ready to join the VFL, but wants composite teams not individuals. Elliot was reported to have talked to Swan District and Claremont. The SANFL condemned the VFL for keeping it in the dark.
• 1985, November 7. The NFL releases its own play for a national compeition, with a 12 team structure featuring 9 teams from Melbourne and one each from Sydney, Perth and Adelaide. It also proposed an independent form of administration rather than the VFL’s Melbourne centrered power base”. The WAFL supports the NFL option, going so far as to send its CEO to talk to Macquarie Bank in Sydney about getting $100 million to float a competition, with six Melbourne clubs saying they’d break away. (Behind the Play pg 198)
• 1986, February. Executives from the SANFL, WAFL and VFL meet to establish the format of a new competition. (Behind the Play pg 200)
• 1986, Feb 7. WAFL Chairman Roy Annear states that he sees a national competition as essential to football in Australia, WA had to be represented and it had to be with a composite team. (soaring pg 12)
• 1986, July 10. A report by Richard Colless, Peter Fogarty and John Walker is presented to the WAFL stating that 1) an expanded VFL was inevitable. 2) a composite team was the way forward. 3) Control of the team should rest with the WAFL. 4) The VFL would expand to WA by other means if the WAFL teams didnt support the composite option.
• 1986 – August 5. The VFL decides not to adopt rationalistion and announces it will take 12 teams into its proposed national competition in 1987.
• 1986 – August 7. SA and WA say they will reconsider joining the national competition after the VFL voted to retain all 12 clubs in the league. WA and SA had been working under the belief that there were be some rationalisation and the league would be composed of 12 clubs and not 14.
• 1986, August 26. All six WAFL directors and six of the eight clubs voted to apply to join the VFL in 1987. Sth Fremantle and Swan Districts vote against. (Behind the play, pg 202). To get the clubs votes a $200,000 in finanical support was offered to each club (Behind the play pg 218) The 4 million license fee is demanded up front by the VFL instead of over 10 years as had been originally proposed (Behind the play pg 215)

Would you? The position of the leagues hasnt changed and their bargaining power is even worse than it was in 1987. What bargaining power does anyone else have? The money and assets are still with the AFL. Neither the SANFL or WAFL have income without a national competition, and dont even own their own stadiums any more. I almost hope they try.

Carringbush2010

Is it in this post?

 

[Final Siren]

trust me - we know about winning games away more than any team - we dont even start mentioning winning gf’s till we start winning away.

Well that would make sense. You definitely shouldn't be talking about winning the GF if you lose a block of 10 games.