AFL corruption yet again

Danger!Selwood

All Australian
Joined
May 18, 2016
Posts
745
Likes
972
AFL Club
Geelong
I don't mind financially helping the club. They obviously can't survive themselves without money being handed out to the them. That money is from the TV rights deal AND from the equalisation funds from profitable clubs. That money is to run the club and provide the funds to pay the players. What I don't agree with is using false "jobs" like ambassador payments outside the cap to give them a COLA type advantage. This is even worse than COLA as it only to keep one player. We all know that won't save the club. It is a myopic view that the AFL gets as a knee jerk reaction when they sense that a good player wants to possibly consider leaving their new expansion clubs. How have people like the GC recruiting team kept their jobs all these years when continually given the top talent in the land. How have the board kept their jobs by stuffing up coaching choices? To an outsider, there are more issues there to tackle and correct rather than artificially keeping a single player by paying him more money outside the cap in the guise of an ambassadorial role.
Well it clearly has happened and continues too. Ablett and Hunt were on $1million between them outside of the cap, no doubt Folau and now Cameron are in the same boat. Wouldn't surprise me if Buddy had teed up some sort of deal with the AFL if he was to move to Sydney. Maybe that's why they were filthy as they assumed he was going to the giants and ended up at the swans.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,125
Likes
29,228
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
Thread starter #253
Well it clearly has happened and continues too. Ablett and Hunt were on $1million between them outside of the cap, no doubt Folau and now Cameron are in the same boat. Wouldn't surprise me if Buddy had teed up some sort of deal with the AFL if he was to move to Sydney. Maybe that's why they were filthy as they assumed he was going to the giants and ended up at the swans.
The advantages in cap payments were supposed to be "weaned" over the years. We all accepted that at the time of the expansion team's birth. However, just continuing to invent new rules for these teams I find distasteful. I guess I am even more acutely sensitive about this issue as my own team, which has been widely called the least successful team in the AFL since its inception, just had to fork out 1.2 million dollars to retain a player without any assistance from the AFL. Why? Why can't we call Dusty an ambassador? Hawthorn lost Buddy but at least they had won flags with him. I would have accepted losing Dusty if he had won us flags. GAJ left Geelong but had at least helped them to several flags before he left too.
 

Seeds

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Posts
27,934
Likes
24,008
Location
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
Melcats member numbers are very large. Geelong is only one hour up the road. What I am saying is you kept an advantage and we didn't. Our advantage only comes to the fore playing a few vic teams during finals. It has hardly been an advantage over a 35 year period. You have your advantage EVERY year.
What utterly moronic logic. you must be trolling as no one could actually believe this. take it to the bay.
 

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,125
Likes
29,228
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
Thread starter #260
What utterly moronic logic. you must be trolling as no one could actually believe this. take it to the bay.
It is a historic comment. We moved from Punt Road and gave up a huge home ground advantage but gained a small advantage in the finals series. Geelong COULD have done the same thing but obviously didn't for many reasons. They have thus kept their home ground advantage which is the biggest for a Victorian team but they give away small advantage during the finals. What's so moronic about that?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

General Giant

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Posts
29,529
Likes
20,728
AFL Club
GWS
My point is it becomes a disadvantage when it's the governing body assisting one club over the other.
Its an advantage wether provided by the AFL or due to luck being based in the home of footy. The states up here dont live and breath the game as such 3rd party opportunities that big name players make a ton off are few and far between.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,125
Likes
29,228
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
Thread starter #264
Its an advantage wether provided by the AFL or due to luck being based in the home of footy. The states up here dont live and breath the game as such 3rd party opportunities that big name players make a ton off are few and far between.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Most 3rd party deals are included in the cap especially if associated with any individual affiliated with the club.
 

Bokonon_

Cancelled
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Posts
10,562
Likes
6,890
AFL Club
GWS
I'm not saying it doesn't happen.

My qualm is that the governing body of the competition is assisting one club over another.
The AFL pays "Ambassadors" of other clubs. If you think they shouldn't fair enough. The AFL has supported Melbourne and the Bulldogs clubs in recent years. Has and will have to support the Lions as well. It's an imperfect world is my view.
 

PieLebo87

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Posts
10,755
Likes
7,078
Location
Endeavour Hills
AFL Club
Collingwood
Its an advantage wether provided by the AFL or due to luck being based in the home of footy. The states up here dont live and breath the game as such 3rd party opportunities that big name players make a ton off are few and far between.
Please take this as a hypothetical and don't assume I'm insinuating anything, but if for example Collingwood was after him and he was a final piece of the Premiership puzzle, how is it fair that Collingwood misses out on him/potential flag because the AFL has played favourites by trying to influence a target player amongst clubs in a trade scenario?
 

PieLebo87

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Posts
10,755
Likes
7,078
Location
Endeavour Hills
AFL Club
Collingwood
The AFL pays "Ambassadors" of other clubs. If you think they shouldn't fair enough. The AFL has supported Melbourne and the Bulldogs clubs in recent years. Has and will have to support the Lions as well. It's an imperfect world is my view.
I'm definitely against it regardless of which club of whichever state is involved. If we're all about equalisation, it should work both ways for big AND small clubs.
 

General Giant

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Posts
29,529
Likes
20,728
AFL Club
GWS
Please take this as a hypothetical and don't assume I'm insinuating anything, but if for example Collingwood was after him and he was a final piece of the Premiership puzzle, how is it fair that Collingwood misses out on him/potential flag because the AFL has played favourites by trying to influence a target player amongst clubs in a trade scenario?
Im not mate all good.
But how is it fair that he gets the advantage of say Eddies media influences in getting him and his family work?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 

PieLebo87

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Posts
10,755
Likes
7,078
Location
Endeavour Hills
AFL Club
Collingwood
Im not mate all good.
But how is it fair that he gets the advantage of say Eddies media influences in getting him and his family work
Again, I'm not arguing with you about 3rd party arrangements and I'm fairly confident majority, if not all clubs, are involved in these and there's equal opportunity for all clubs to engage in it. It isn't equal/fair when the AFL is stepping in to aid a club over another with these scenarios. Why don't the AFL pay Lynch to join Collingwood? Im purely discussing this based on on-field outcomes.
 

Bokonon_

Cancelled
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Posts
10,562
Likes
6,890
AFL Club
GWS
I'm definitely against it regardless of which club of whichever state is involved. If we're all about equalisation, it should work both ways for big AND small clubs.
I think when the AFL starts intervening in your favour the club has ****** up and isn't in a place any sensible person would want to be.
 

General Giant

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Posts
29,529
Likes
20,728
AFL Club
GWS
Again, I'm not arguing with you about 3rd party arrangements and I'm fairly confident majority, if not all clubs, are involved in these and there's equal opportunity for all clubs to engage in it. It isn't equal/fair when the AFL is stepping in to aid a club over another with these scenarios. Why don't the AFL pay Lynch to join Collingwood? Im purely discussing this based on on-field outcomes.
Its not equal and fair though.

The footy states def have more opportunities outside of footy for players than those in non footy states.

The pies wouldnt def have more than most clubs due to the Eddie influence.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 

PieLebo87

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Posts
10,755
Likes
7,078
Location
Endeavour Hills
AFL Club
Collingwood
I think when the AFL starts intervening in your favour the club has ****** up and isn't in a place any sensible person would want to be.
That's true, but doesn't mean it's fair when in the process, the AFL can potentially hinder your chances of winning a Premiership in that transaction.

Not saying Collingwood would win the flag with Lynch but you can bet their chances would increase dramatically.

That is different to the AFL opting to give a priority pick or cash for off field endeavours which has an equal repercussion on all other 17 clubs.

They simply cannot try and manipulate direct on-field/trade transactions between two clubs.
 
Top Bottom