AFL corruption yet again

[Bokonon_]

Don't know about corruption but they are incompetent when it comes to finals ticketing.
In Advertiser this morning, there are still 1100 tickets available for Adelaide v GWS final even though its been "sold out" for over a week
Seems GWS couldn't sell all the tickets allocated to them so it takes a week to retrieve them for resale !!
Those tickets should have been available late last week if not sold, after all as members of Adelaide, we had 4 hours in which to buy our tickets last Tuesday week
Same thing happened against North Melbourne last year

That's not what happened. GWS doesn't "sell" tkts to finals in any way shape or form. The AFL does. All our members were directed on ticketec to a single aisle. There may have been another held in reserve but that would be it. The way finals are ticketed always means some go on sale to the general public at a later stage. It's happened in every final I've ever bought tkts to, and happened for Friday's QF at the G to a lesser extent.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

The ticketing rules for finals have been there for years and nobody has said boo until you just mentioned it. If they were so unfair and corrupt, as you have put it, why has it taken till now to complain?

Ambassadorial roles suggested ahead of time to stop existing players from leaving their own club at the end of their contract (by paying outside the cap) is relatively new, so I have raised the issue as being unfair. If you cannot see the difference between the two situations you need to go back to school and have some lessons in clear thinking.

1. Not sure why you keep backing your argument by suggesting no one has ever complained about finals ticketing or ground allocation this week. Blatant trolling as you surely know that is just not true. Way back to the Eagles in 1996 having to play a final we earned against Essendon at the MCG, finals scheduling has been an issue.

2. The issue around finals scheduling and ticketing, even if new (which it's not) is at least around an actual issue that has happened and is happening. This ambassador nonsense is over an answer McLachlan gave to a hypothetical question. An answer where he actually made it pretty clear Lynch would not be paid or promised in advance because McLachlan can surely see it would be viewed as tampering if Lynch was made promises that incentivised him to stay at GC. Any outrage over this 'issue' is outrage over something that hasn't even happened and affects nothing. The story has then been thrown up by Fox and Fox aligned journos like Robbo, when the only story was their question. For all your insults in this thread, you're either trolling yourself or you've been sucked in by the media trolling the footy public. For anyone whose knowledge of this issue is based on articles post Monday night, do yourself a favour and actually watch On The Couch.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

The AFL are nothing if not consistent in their manipulation of loose rules. Seems if there is a GWS v Sydney prelim it will be at the neutral ANZ Stadium so more people get to go. Despite a six figure sum to being the turf up to scratch. This despite the Bulldogs having to go to Spotless last year. So again, IF it comes to this Sydney will be advantaged because they happen to be from the same state and have more supporters able to get there than the Dogs did.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

1. Not sure why you keep backing your argument by suggesting no one has ever complained about finals ticketing or ground allocation this week. Blatant trolling as you surely know that is just not true. Way back to the Eagles in 1996 having to play a final we earned against Essendon at the MCG, finals scheduling has been an issue.

2. The issue around finals scheduling and ticketing, even if new (which it's not) is at least around an actual issue that has happened and is happening. This ambassador nonsense is over an answer McLachlan gave to a hypothetical question. An answer where he actually made it pretty clear Lynch would not be paid or promised in advance because McLachlan can surely see it would be viewed as tampering if Lynch was made promises that incentivised him to stay at GC. Any outrage over this 'issue' is outrage over something that hasn't even happened and affects nothing. The story has then been thrown up by Fox and Fox aligned journos like Robbo, when the only story was their question. For all your insults in this thread, you're either trolling yourself or you've been sucked in by the media trolling the footy public. For anyone whose knowledge of this issue is based on articles post Monday night, do yourself a favour and actually watch On The Couch.

You are distorting what I have said.

By ticketing I was referring to ticket allocations to clubs. I was not talking about venue allocation. So please keep up. Venue allocation has now been established for the final series for a while. I am not talking about the early days for WA and SA sides. Those anomalies are in the past so I'm not sure why you are bringing up something that occurred over 20 years ago as an example. Maybe you are just trolling yourself. The notion of home state finals has been working well. That is not to say they are not streamlining it further. I applaud the AFL with considering ANZ stadium for the possible GWS Sydney match. They are looking after the football public who pay their hard earned and want the opportunity to witness the game in person. I have stated several times without response that I'd be happy to travel to Geelong if they had a stadium that could hold both sets of members. They do not have anywhere near that and I do not think it is unreasonable that the game be played at the MCG so it gives both sets of members the best chance to see the game. As opposed to the idiots on here that think I just want it at the MCG because it advantages my team, I want to have it at the MCG just to give people like myself who have paid thousands of dollars in memberships for myself and my family the chance to see the game live. It's pretty simple really.

As for the ambassador question, you may have thought he answered it well but I didn't. Answering it well would have been to reject it as a possibility just like I would have expected him to reject a question about whether Richmond could get half of Dustin Martin's salary to be paid by the AFL with him working as a "Maori" ambassador. If you can't see this there is no point discussing it with you any further.

And if you think I'm in the minority who has this view, just look at the number of likes the OP has received and is still receiving.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

You are distorting what I have said.

By ticketing I was referring to ticket allocations to clubs. I was not talking about venue allocation. So please keep up. Venue allocation has now been established for the final series for a while. I am not talking about the early days for WA and SA sides. Those anomalies are in the past so I'm not sure why you are bringing up something that occurred over 20 years ago as an example. Maybe you are just trolling yourself. The notion of home state finals has been working well. That is not to say they are not streamlining it further. I applaud the AFL with considering ANZ stadium for the possible GWS Sydney match. They are looking after the football public who pay their hard earned and want the opportunity to witness the game in person. I have stated several times without response that I'd be happy to travel to Geelong if they had a stadium that could hold both sets of members. They do not have anywhere near that and I do not think it is unreasonable that the game be played at the MCG so it gives both sets of members the best chance to see the game. As opposed to the idiots on here that think I just want it at the MCG because it advantages my team, I want to have it at the MCG just to give people like myself who have paid thousands of dollars in memberships for myself and my family the chance to see the game live. It's pretty simple really.

As for the ambassador question, you may have thought he answered it well but I didn't. Answering it well would have been to reject it as a possibility just like I would have expected him to reject a question about whether Richmond could get half of Dustin Martin's salary to be paid by the AFL with him working as a "Maori" ambassador. If you can't see this there is no point discussing it with you any further.

And if you think I'm in the minority who has this view, just look at the number of likes the OP has received and is still receiving.

Why would I not bring up something that happened 20 years ago in response to your claim that an issue has never been bought up before. Perfectly demonstrates just how long the AFL venue issue has been a source of complaint, yes for a variety of reasons as the so called policy has evolved.

I know what you have stated several times and I respectfully disagree with your point. I don't believe a ground should have to hold both sets of members to qualify for holding a final and certainly not at the expense of the competition's integrity, regardless of who is playing. I am all for members of football clubs being looked after and the amount of corporates getting GF tickets makes me want to vomit, but don't want to confuse that with having a right of some kind to attend a final. In this instance (and I take your point about it being not a Richmond tinted glasses view), I believe it should be as simple as Geelong earned the home final, so they choose where to play it. The only reason it's complicated in this instance, is because of geography making options available. Richmond couldn't fit all their members into Subiaco Oval if it was the Eagles (not to mention travel costs preventing many of your loyal supporters getting there), so I don't personally believe Geelong should be disadvantaged.

The ambassador question......again, sorry I disagree. If he'd rejected it out of hand as even a possibility, there'd be scorched earth if it then did eventuate. The same hypothetical discussion took place when everyone assumed Buddy was GWS bound. There is an article from Demetriou still online talking about how it wouldn't simply be an enticement payment to get Buddy to GWS, but he'd have to work to earn it. Look how that turned out. I actually agree with you, that the AFL should absolutely NOT be sticking their nose into propping up the Gold Coast by making up roles to entice a key talent to stay and if it was actually happening I'd be one of your likes on the OP. There's already enough inequities in a supposedly equalised competition (that are magnified due to the equalisation measures). Honestly, I just hate the fact that the same media who asked a question I believe was almost impossible to answer perfectly, then report his answer as breaking news. If you ask me if it's going to rain tomorrow and I shrug my shoulders then the front page of tomorrow's paper shouldn't scream "BK says storms on the way".

 

[PowerForGood]

Richmond aren't arguing about any AFL corruption right now. Why would you when you are the beneficiary?

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

If the eagles are allowed to scam a chunk of NicNat's salary to be paid by the AFL to be an ambassador to Perth's huge Fijian population then anything seems fair.

Same as how fyfe is an AFLW ambassador !

 

[jatz14]

Same as how fyfe is an AFLW ambassador !

Eagles have 1 multicultural ambassador, Freo have none, Essendon and Bulldogs both have 2. Not sure what all this corruption is trying to achieve, is it being argued the AFL is corruptly trying to boost Essendon and the Dogs more than other teams?

Nic Nat would also still be Fijian at another club, so...

Very confused.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[deltablues]

I guess a big difference is the players actually appear on the show and thus fulfill their commitment. We have zero knowledge of how much if any work these ambassadors do to earn their income. It is a blatant rort run by the AFL.

Indeed. And what sort of $$ are these "ambassadors" paid?

 

[Pack Specialist]

I have zero complaints and Richmond earned it so there should be no excuses from our lot.

That said, if Richmond supporters truly believe that the AFL does not have a vested interest in their success, then they are kidding themselves.

 

[jatz14]

I have zero complaints and Richmond earned it so there should be no excuses from our lot.

That said, if Richmond supporters truly believe that the AFL does not have a vested interest in their success, then they are kidding themselves.

That would explain all that otherwise unexplainable success they have had.

Sent from my Lenovo TB3-710F using Tapatalk

 

[randyzany]

That would explain all that otherwise unexplainable success they have had.

Sent from my Lenovo TB3-710F using Tapatalk

Being mediocre (the only have themselves to blame) is no excuse for not utilizing all the advantages that the AFL has offered the likes of Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton, etc.. since time immemorial.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Being mediocre (the only have themselves to blame) is no excuse for not utilizing all the advantages that the AFL has offered the likes of Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton, etc.. since time immemorial.

So having the greatest home ground advantage ratio to the least away advantage when playing against other Vic teams is something you just ignore comfortably?
LMAO.

 

[sprockets]

I have zero complaints and Richmond earned it so there should be no excuses from our lot.

That said, if Richmond supporters truly believe that the AFL does not have a vested interest in their success, then they are kidding themselves.

Of course they have a vested interest in Richmond, as they do with Geelong, afterall, the AFL IS the clubs.

 

[Pack Specialist]

Of course they have a vested interest in Richmond, as they do with Geelong, afterall, the AFL IS the clubs.

I have not made a single complaint about the MCG being the venue of last night's game.

I'm stating that the AFL has a ve$ted interest in the traditional big four having success (financially)

The AFL is all about the dollars.

 

[jatz14]

I have not made a single complaint about the MCG being the venue of last night's game.

I'm stating that the AFL has a ve$ted interest in the traditional big four having success (financially)

The AFL is all about the dollars.

So the big 4 would be Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Richmond?

What has the AFL done that ensured there decade of dominance? Beyond the financially sensible' like playing big games at the G.

You realise that if the AFL were in a weaker position financially, it wouldn't be the Big 4 in trouble. It is the financial strength of the AFL that allows it to carry clubs that are struggling.

 

[sprockets]

I have not made a single complaint about the MCG being the venue of last night's game.

I'm stating that the AFL has a ve$ted interest in the traditional big four having success (financially)

The AFL is all about the dollars.

Yes, that's why the VFL/AFL commission was originally formed (apart from your 'big four' comment, which is just plain salty).

 

[Jables]

So the big 4 would be Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Richmond?

What has the AFL done that ensured there decade of dominance? Beyond the financially sensible' like playing big games at the G.

You realise that if the AFL were in a weaker position financially, it wouldn't be the Big 4 in trouble. It is the financial strength of the AFL that allows it to carry clubs that are struggling.

Interesting choice of words, 'financially sensible' when it comes to getting them more games at their favoured ground, but that doesn't sound like what other big sporting competitions need to do at all ... I bet it was 'financially sensible' when the AFL tried to sweep a certain incident involving a big 4 team under the rug as well.
If the AFL cared about struggling clubs they would actually share more of the tv money every club should earn instead of handing it out as they please, instead clubs have had to beg on their knees for every cent. It's a business transparently disguised as a non profit organisation.

 

[jatz14]

Interesting choice of words, 'financially sensible' when it comes to getting them more games at their favoured ground, but that doesn't sound like what other big sporting competitions need to do at all ... I bet it was 'financially sensible' when the AFL tried to sweep a certain incident involving a big 4 team under the rug as well.
If the AFL cared about struggling clubs they would actually share more of the tv money every club should earn instead of handing it out as they please, instead clubs have had to beg on their knees for every cent. It's a business transparently disguised as a non profit organisation.

Your right, they should operate more like the NRL or FFA and be less concerned with overall league health. Clubs would like that.

 

[Pack Specialist]

So the big 4 would be Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Richmond?

What has the AFL done that ensured there decade of dominance? Beyond the financially sensible' like playing big games at the G.

You realise that if the AFL were in a weaker position financially, it wouldn't be the Big 4 in trouble. It is the financial strength of the AFL that allows it to carry clubs that are struggling.

Well for a start they shafted NM of millions after they INVENTED Friday night games just so those big clubs made millions.

They all get the best draw and the Etihad deal cost SK, NM and the WB millions while Essendon and Carlton made bank.

Collingwood has 18 home games a season...

You don't even understand how the AFL works.

 

[Pack Specialist]

Yes, that's why the VFL/AFL commission was originally formed (apart from your 'big four' comment, which is just plain salty).

In reality it's a big 5 because people forget how big Melbourne are.

The AFL Commission is CORRUPT.

Didn't the Essendon stuff set off alarm bells?

The bells were ringing long before that.

 

[Pack Specialist]

Interesting choice of words, 'financially sensible' when it comes to getting them more games at their favoured ground, but that doesn't sound like what other big sporting competitions need to do at all ... I bet it was 'financially sensible' when the AFL tried to sweep a certain incident involving a big 4 team under the rug as well.
If the AFL cared about struggling clubs they would actually share more of the tv money every club should earn instead of handing it out as they please, instead clubs have had to beg on their knees for every cent. It's a business transparently disguised as a non profit organisation.

You nailed it.

I actually think the game last night should have been at the MCG.

Doesn't mean the AFL is not corrupt.

 

[jatz14]

People need to look up the definition of corrupt. Unless the big clubs are paying of the executive, it is not corrupt, you just do not like it, and frankly look a bunch of whinging knobs in continually using the term.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[mic59]

Send him to North Korea to negotiate with Kim Jong Un.

Honestly what on earth does a football club need an 'ambassador' for?

It's a euphemism for "brown paper bag recipient". Except the brown paper bag comes from "accepted" sources. Not sure if I've ever understood this, to me extra money above the salary cap is breaching the salary cap. Like Collingwood paying it's players $1000 a time in the 70s to cut the presidents lawn.

 

[marty36]

This corruption thing gets me every time

The AFL commisiosn run the league or make decisions on the league and is the representation of the clubs as they are voted in by the clubs

Who is corrupt???????????? THE CLUBS!!!!!

Clubs can campaign each other if they like so they vote on the same representitive who is kind to their plights, how is that different to a democracy that we live in