LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - Rd 7 - 7:40PM Fri
Squiggle tips Demons at 76% chance -- What's your tip? -- Injury Lists » -- All Rd 7 Games
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 7
The Golden Ticket - Corporate tickets, functions, Open Air Boxes at the Adelaide Oval, ENGIE, Gabba, MCG, Marvel, Optus & People First Stadiums. Corporate Suites at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
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.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Did the AFL pay for it?
And if we're being honest we gave WHE's girlfreind a job, and that didn't turn out too well.
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?
My point is it becomes a disadvantage when it's the governing body assisting one club over the other.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen.
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.
Most 3rd party deals are included in the cap especially if associated with any individual affiliated with the club.
Fairly certain Treloars media duties and Treloars girlfriends job arent.
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.
If it has something to do with Eddie, by the AFL's rules, they should be included in the cap.
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?
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.
Im not mate all good.
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.
I think when the AFL starts intervening in your favour the club has ****ed up and isn't in a place any sensible person would want to be.
Its not equal and fair though.
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.
