AFL Corruption

[kaiserchief13]

This is also not corruption. It’s just something you don’t like

It's clearly corruption as some decisions are made based because of certain reasons, when other decisions are made that are the opposite of that. The most obvious is some decisions are made to increase revenue, but then other decisions are made which are the opposite of that

 

[pablo668]

Why are you staggered?

We all know that the AFL is a business. It's not a balanced sporting comp designed to find the best yeam each year.

Only the deluded die hards in their duffle coats cheering for the boys each week still believe that.

It's an entertainment product. I find it very entertaining, as I do many other sports.

It's just like watching a decent TV show and hoping your favourite character doesn't get killed off.

If you take it any more seriously than that, well, you're a fool really.

Yeah I agree with all this. I just wish they'd go the whole hog and be like the WWF/WWE, and that way everyone can have as much cocaine, steroids, hookers, Miss Elizabeth as they like an no one has to really care causeit's no longer officially a sport.

 

[Nostradumbass]

Old news

 

[btdg]

It's clearly corruption as some decisions are made based because of certain reasons, when other decisions are made that are the opposite of that. The most obvious is some decisions are made to increase revenue, but then other decisions are made which are the opposite of that

Yeah, that’s not corruption. That’s just decisions you don’t like

Corruption is literally fraudulent behaviour, usually involving bribery. As much as you don’t like the AFL commission, it’s a step far to say the reason they chose the Gabba for finals was fraud/bribery. If so - it’s criminal behaviour and likely the biggest scandal in Australian sport history.

Instead - they’re just making decisions based on commercial and entertainment value. You might perceive it as unfair, hypocritical, etc. still not corrupt

 

[Obeanie1]

It’s funny how times changed and the league was absolutely filthy when the Swans gazumped the Giants and signed Buddy Franklin.

And soon aftter COLA was cut.

Swans no longer the AFL's love child in NSW.

Fast forward........Swans finally slip out of finals after a very long stretch.

 

[The 747]

The only one of these that is remotely close to corruption is the first, and even then, there still needs to be proof of impropriety.

There’s quite a lot of nepotism in the AFL, but mostly that’s just a list of things you don’t like.

A definition: corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. I disagree with your statement.

The list of things I don't like is much longer than that.

 

[Obeanie1]

Yeah, that’s not corruption. That’s just decisions you don’t like

Corruption is literally fraudulent behaviour, usually involving bribery. As much as you don’t like the AFL commission, it’s a step far to say the reason they chose the Gabba for finals was fraud/bribery. If so - it’s criminal behaviour and likely the biggest scandal in Australian sport history.

Instead - they’re just making decisions based on commercial and entertainment value. You might perceive it as unfair, hypocritical, etc. still not corrupt

The AFL and the Commission have so many conflicts of interest some decisions will seem strange. They benefit some teams and disadvantage others.

 

[The 747]

Yeah, that’s not corruption. That’s just decisions you don’t like

Corruption is literally fraudulent behaviour, usually involving bribery. As much as you don’t like the AFL commission, it’s a step far to say the reason they chose the Gabba for finals was fraud/bribery. If so - it’s criminal behaviour and likely the biggest scandal in Australian sport history.

Instead - they’re just making decisions based on commercial and entertainment value. You might perceive it as unfair, hypocritical, etc. still not corrupt

No it is not, that is fraud and/or bribery.

 

[btdg]

A definition: corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. I disagree with your statement.

The list of things I don't like is much longer than that.

Yes. What you are saying is that the list of things you don’t like is happening because those in power are receiving bribes, committing fraud, or receiving some other illicit personal benefit.

That simply isn’t the case. You might not like their reasoning but it isn’t corrupt. It is probably just a combination of bad management and decisions that you perceive as unfair

 

[kaiserchief13]

Yeah, that’s not corruption. That’s just decisions you don’t like

Corruption is literally fraudulent behaviour, usually involving bribery. As much as you don’t like the AFL commission, it’s a step far to say the reason they chose the Gabba for finals was fraud/bribery. If so - it’s criminal behaviour and likely the biggest scandal in Australian sport history.

Instead - they’re just making decisions based on commercial and entertainment value. You might perceive it as unfair, hypocritical, etc. still not corrupt

Is the AFL deciding on the Gabba because QLD government says they will spend more money on Aussie rules in QLD bribery?

 

[The 747]

Yes. What you are saying is that the list of things you don’t like is happening because those in power are receiving bribes, committing fraud, or receiving some other illicit personal benefit.

That simply isn’t the case. You might not like their reasoning but it isn’t corrupt. It is probably just a combination of bad management and decisions that you perceive as unfair

No, you are misconstruing what I posted to suit your argument. I provided the commonly accepted (and narrow) definition. You are the one who thinks it means fraud or bribery or other behaviour that is of itself illegal. They make decisions to suit themselves and those who depend on the gravy train.

 

[btdg]

Is the AFL deciding on the Gabba because QLD government says they will spend more money on Aussie rules in QLD bribery?

No, not by any definition of bribery.

It’s a decision made for financial/commercial reasons. You would have preferred it made on different criteria (eg: spectator numbers or home state advantage).

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Yeah, that’s not corruption. That’s just decisions you don’t like

Corruption is literally fraudulent behaviour, usually involving bribery. As much as you don’t like the AFL commission, it’s a step far to say the reason they chose the Gabba for finals was fraud/bribery. If so - it’s criminal behaviour and likely the biggest scandal in Australian sport history.

Instead - they’re just making decisions based on commercial and entertainment value. You might perceive it as unfair, hypocritical, etc. still not corrupt

I guess what is perceived as corrupt is that the public are sold a product that claims to be one thing - but is in fact another.

The other element linked to 'corruption' is the undisclosed influencing of outcomes in favour of whichever person or organisation benefits the AFL at a given point in time.

They corrupt the process, that's for sure.

 

[btdg]

No, you are misconstruing what I posted to suit your argument. I provided the commonly accepted (and narrow) definition. You are the one who thinks it means fraud or bribery or other behaviour that is of itself illegal. They make decisions to suit themselves and those who depend on the gravy train.

No matter what definition you use, corruption involves some sort of abuse of power for personal gain (generally financial).

You are accusing the AFL commission of making decisions for unethical or illicit personal gain. Really, they're making decisions that are inconsistent, hypocritical, or that you simply don't like the reasoning behind. But it simply isn't corrupt.

I think you are completely fair if you say you think the AFL commission are incompetent. They certainly make some head-scratching decisions at times - from fixturing, to the rules of the game, to their treatment of expansion teams vs established teams, etc. Corrupt is just such a loaded accusation - it implies conspiracy, immorality, etc.

 

[captain blood 17]

You don't think it's corrupt that certain decisions are 'to maximise revenue', whereas other decisions are the complete opposite?

I think you’re a sad soul who needs a hug and cheering up. Here’s a hint about the unfairness of life in general - pick your battles. If you’re gonna be mad at everything it’ll be an early grave. Your teams in the finals. They got a 6-7 game run at home where a lot of teams didn’t this year. Be happy with your lot. It could be a lot worse.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[btdg]

I guess what is perceived as corrupt is that the public are sold a product that claims to be one thing - but is in fact another.

The other element linked to 'corruption' is the undisclosed influencing of outcomes in favour of whichever person or organisation benefits the AFL at a given point in time.

They corrupt the process, that's for sure.

I'm not sure about that. I think the public sometimes expect something that the product is not and has never been.

For example: every team across the league has a different set of historical, geographical, and random advantages and disadvantages that they face. Yet fans drill down into specific areas and expect complete 'fairness' (eg: fixturing). But that's neither possible, nor desirable, and the AFL has never pretended otherwise. It's not the EPL, but it's also not totally a level playing field. Some fans are remarkably hung up on particular aspects of this (particularly WA and SA fans in my experience, whose gripes are quite small in comparison, to say, the home ground disadvantage Carlton has year after year...).

At other times, the AFL suffers from horrible inconsistencies in decision making, and I certainly won't deny that. Tribunal decision - horrific. Rules of the game changes - terrible. Somewhere along the way they totally reversed their policy on finals grounds in favour of expasnion teams (from 'biggest ground in home state' to allowing GWS to play at their suburban venue). They've chopped and changed on priority picks, added academies that are a total disaster, etc, etc.

There's a communication problem, a fan expectations problem, a consistency problem, a problem of stakeholder conflict... but I don't think it is a corruption problem

 

[kaiserchief13]

I think you’re a sad soul who needs a hug and cheering up. Here’s a hint about the unfairness of life in general - pick your battles. If you’re gonna be mad at everything it’ll be an early grave. Your teams in the finals. They got a 6-7 game run at home where a lot of teams didn’t this year. Be happy with your lot. It could be a lot worse.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

What are you talking about? Answer the question

 

[The 747]

No matter what definition you use, corruption involves some sort of abuse of power for personal gain (generally financial).

You are accusing the AFL commission of making decisions for unethical or illicit personal gain. Really, they're making decisions that are inconsistent, hypocritical, or that you simply don't like the reasoning behind. But it simply isn't corrupt.

I think you are completely fair if you say you think the AFL commission are incompetent. They certainly make some head-scratching decisions at times - from fixturing, to the rules of the game, to their treatment of expansion teams vs established teams, etc. Corrupt is just such a loaded accusation - it implies conspiracy, immorality, etc.

Yes that is correct. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[captain blood 17]

Is the AFL deciding on the Gabba because QLD government says they will spend more money on Aussie rules in QLD bribery?

How about this logic - QLD was the one state that supported the league when covid first broke out. So they have been rewarded for 100% backing the league. And here’s another thing to consider - what if we are still dealing with this stuff in March/April 2021. You reckon it would be good business to burn the one state that allowed 2020 to really get going and keep going on? Bigger picture my friend. Nothing is certain moving forward.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[WeAreGeelong]

Dude, it's the AFL. The AFL is corrupt AF.

Commission people having stakes in businesses that the AFL awards contracts to, family members getting jobs, the whole drugs saga, the fixture, the 800 odd staff they have in the first place about 10% of who would be actually the best person for the job, secret formulas for priority picks, AA selection, Rising Star, compensation picks, finals venues, clubs negotiating their own penalties, the whole involvement with betting companies, the list goes on and and on and on.....

Yes I'm aware of all of that, dude. I just hadn't heard of this Lockett one that's all, hence my post.

 

[The 747]

Yes I'm aware of all of that, dude. I just hadn't heard of this Lockett one that's all, hence my post.

Fair enough, my dude.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Let's get this straight. Are people only just starting to realise that maybe the AFL have different rules for some clubs than others? It's been happening for at least 30 years.

And just to add to the definition of corruption, it can only exist where those in charge are not accountable for their decisions .... like the AFL

 

[JoondalupJ]

I watched The Front Bar tonight and hearing John Northey speak about Tony Lockett, I was blown away by what he said re: Lockett and Richmond/Sydney.

Forigve my ignornance, but I didn't realise Lockett had all but signed at Richmond before he famously signed with Sydney. Northey said that Lockett wanted to play with Richmond and they were trying to arrange a deal with St. Kilda and St. Kilda would not answer his many calls. He then called AFL boss at the time Ian Collins and told him that he was trying to arrange a deal with the Saints to get Lockett to Richmond and Collins told him that Lockett would be playing at Sydney and nowhere else.

I might be reading more into this, but I am staggered that the AFL basically overruled this and made Lockett go to Sydney instead. I guess they wanted Sydney to flourish as they were trying to establish them into the NSW rugby market. I know corruption exists in many forms of life, but this staggered me and I think it is disgusting that Ian Collins by the sounds of it orchestrated Lockett's move to Sydney instead of where he actually wanted to go.

Can anyone else shed some light on this? I feel like this sort of stuff still happens particularly with the new clubs trying to gain a foothold into rugby territory. I know the integrity of the competition is severely compromised anyway by the AFL's want to make as much money as possible, but I just didn't know about this Lockett one to be honest. Would be interested to hear others thoughts and memories on this one.

I think manipulation of players to promote Australian Rules in Sydney and Brisbane was an absolute plan set in place not just to relocate and survive but to eventually win flags. A fair while later both clubs have broken droughts.
Worse though than that is the later atrocities that have happened via the AFL and expanding and wanting to make huge money as well.

That very unfair advancing of footy adding 2 new clubs to the league and without a doubt in the world diluted the elite footballer's pool of new players.

I believe to play Australian Rules at its highest level is the hardest professional sport on earth to adapt too. To consistently play at a standard to elite level, against other elite players, the dedication is mind boggling!
Our ball goes anywhere. You don't just train for six months and "know" Aussie footy. There was nothing like it on earth!

So I see what you are saying very easily, and agree.

Sydney move was to save a club.
I guess Brisbane was a few years after the B/Bears, they grabbed Fitzroy, AFL virtually forcing it.

So that gave the AFL base to gather more money more fans in 2 new states and so when you get the greatest goal kicker Tony Lockett to your club, it can be nothing but good news. Not just for Brisbane /Fitzroy ( Brissy got a whole club).
But get whatever it takes send Tony so Sydney so Sydney don't fail in NSW! Or just draw crowds to watch Lockett?

That is now history, but when North refused to relocate to Gold Coast (QLD) and Footscray renamed the WESTERN Bulldogs, refused to go to Greater WESTERN Sydney NSW.The AFL saw its huge TV rights, massive money deals to grow the sport EVERYWHERE!!! ANYWHERE!!!!going down the toilet.
So they invented two newbies GC17 and GWS, who diluted the game and the level of capacity of new players to play elite footy at the level it was and only just meeting that level with 16 teams, as we witnessed for years and years sides that have not won flags for decades,and that 'll go on.

Hawthorn power dynasty was probably the last of the super teams, up until 2016 , it will be a long long time or never for a club to reach those heights in the modern age.

What I am saying is the AFL is only interested in making lots of money. TV broadcasts from all states and territories is the way to do it.

That's what they aimed at. They also aimed at making the game easier to play with ridiculous rule changes, that have slowly been sneaking into the sport to the point of viewer and fan anger and inconsistency, and such petty calling of free kicks and lots of not good at kicking at goal and many many handballs are allowed, but are THROWING.
Confusion from one umpire to another, and now the umpire can and does change momentum and results with perceptions of rules because the rules are so grey
This is NOT our game now.

If you've ever read anything I 've written about this, before, you would know what I mean by the destruction of contest contact and defencive play without giving a barley connecting arm touch, usually paid to a forward , so the scoring got better.

Lots of rules I say, are not even needed, and the only thing I can guess at, is, the AFL expansion has created this, Hocking, McGlachlans man has spent some time bending and twisting interpretations, tried to complicate the sport when it is a simple game, but they have gone overboard with petty unneeded rule changes.
I can name dozens of things happening now especially in the last 5 years but the rule fiddling has been happening since about 2003, when the idea of two new teams started being thought on.
Only one area, I think was wise, that of the head injury protection and banning sling tackling , I personally hate sling tackles someone will die from one in the end. Heavy clashes on the other hand are what any person who has ever played our game at any level understands, that is the game, not the biff and bash, just hard hard footy. Collisions are dangerous , still happen, always have, its called football.

But for me that is a corruption SO SO so much worse, and so damaging to our sport, that I know many people of different ages not all older people either, who have given up because of the RULES, the unfair interference and stop start scrum scrag typed pack game, now,
WHERE UMPIRES FOR SOME REASON ESPECIALLY THIS SEASON!! ALLOW THOSE HORRIBLE PACKS TO GO ON AND ON THAT FEW SECONDS LONGER.
Our game is meant to flow and umpires are not there to stop a flow of our game.
But they do every week, every game, and confusion is king!
Ruckmen??? why is anything they do,performing their craft , get any penalty at all, its stupid!

Twice in three weeks I 've watched a game that two ruckmen from either side heard the whistle, neither knew which one had infringed , it is stupid and it will be the death of Australian rules.
Our umps through no fault of their own except that they know all these ridiculous new things to the empth degree, they call what they are directed and they have changed the sport

So AFL money hungry ...yes! AFL manipulate the game to a point of changing it sop many don't watch.Yes!

You are a Geelong person I am Hawthorn, WE HAVE PLAYED BRILLIANT MATCHES AGAINST EACH OTHER, FOR DECADES, WE KNOW GREAT MATCHES.
BUT OUT OF THE NINE WE SEE EACH WEEK, NOW DAYS ABOUT TWO ARE WORTH A WATCH.

And we wait for finals or close to it to see the real hammer come down. I simply don't understand it, but Locketts move pales into insignificance when you see what they done to our game.
The good is still great, the bad is necessary! That is the weird thing. Sorry this is long its a pet hate of mine losing my sport. To a referee!

 

[Roylion]

I guess Brisbane was a few years after the B/Bears, they grabbed Fitzroy, AFL virtually forcing it.

So that gave the AFL base to gather more money more fans in 2 new states and so when you get the greatest goal kicker Tony Lockett to your club, it can be nothing but good news. Not just for Brisbane /Fitzroy ( Brissy got a whole club).

That's not quite correct, although events were indeed manipulated by the AFL to suit their purposes.

In a nutshell is what happened.

• Fitzroy Football Club's licence to compete in the AFL competition was surrendered by the Fitzroy administrator to the AFL and the Club was removed from the AFL competition. The Club still exists in its' own right but remains outside the competition to this day. Fitzroy FC are not part of the Brisbane Lions, other than what the Lions elect to commemoate of Fitzroy's VFL-AFL history.
• Brisbane Bears rebranded themselves to the 'Brisbane Lions' using AFL's trademarked intellectual property (such as the 'Fitzroy Lion logo'). This was marketed as a "merger" by the AFL but there was no such thing. Any reference to a "merger" is merely AFL spin / marketing.
• The Brisbane Bears were granted priority access to eight Fitzroy players and an extended list of 44, before all Fitzroy players (those who had years left on their contracts were taken over by the AFL or paid out) became "free agents" to be drafted by other clubs
• The Brisbane Bears were granted $6 million of AFL funds (similar to how some clubs now receive greater funds from the AFL's distribution fund)

 

[smasha]

I watched The Front Bar tonight and hearing John Northey speak about Tony Lockett, I was blown away by what he said re: Lockett and Richmond/Sydney.

Forigve my ignornance, but I didn't realise Lockett had all but signed at Richmond before he famously signed with Sydney. Northey said that Lockett wanted to play with Richmond and they were trying to arrange a deal with St. Kilda and St. Kilda would not answer his many calls. He then called AFL boss at the time Ian Collins and told him that he was trying to arrange a deal with the Saints to get Lockett to Richmond and Collins told him that Lockett would be playing at Sydney and nowhere else.

I might be reading more into this, but I am staggered that the AFL basically overruled this and made Lockett go to Sydney instead. I guess they wanted Sydney to flourish as they were trying to establish them into the NSW rugby market. I know corruption exists in many forms of life, but this staggered me and I think it is disgusting that Ian Collins by the sounds of it orchestrated Lockett's move to Sydney instead of where he actually wanted to go.

Can anyone else shed some light on this? I feel like this sort of stuff still happens particularly with the new clubs trying to gain a foothold into rugby territory. I know the integrity of the competition is severely compromised anyway by the AFL's want to make as much money as possible, but I just didn't know about this Lockett one to be honest. Would be interested to hear others thoughts and memories on this one.

Richmond supporters have known about this for a long time,Demetriou did not like us one bit either,when we were screaming for draft picks,he brought the 2 new teams in,which set us back even more.