Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

AFL Autopsy def. by BLOODS KULCHA

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kong
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Santoz said:
So, are you telling me you're happy for him to berate midfielders who aren't getting back quick enough to fill space to help him out, whilst the mids are themselves going up against the best midfield in the comp?
Click to expand...

Yes - Goddard does it every week.
 
Trevelyan said:
Jobe does it differently. It's not right after a personal failure to beat his opponent and he doesn't look like a nob doing it.

Did Fletch scream at Hooker a couple of years ago for being absolutely ******* shithouse with poor positioning and getting dropped several times during the year? Did Jobe piss and moan at Zaka for sloppy defensive running?

No, behind closed doors they largely provided constructive feedback and took ownership for their own failings.

This whole thing about demanding excellence implies that having a tanty is the only way to do it. For example, I manage a team of 12 people where the average wage is about 70k to 100k; if I berated people for making mistakes or not being 100% consistent then I would not get the outcome I want. You can kind of do it very occasionally in the right way but if you make a habit of it then people stop listening and start resenting you. I firmly believe that Hooker would be making no difference to creating a better team by having his sooks. All it does is make him look like he's not taking ownership for the fact that he lost touch and resistance on his opponents. He's better off smoothing it out and being firm, direct and controlled.
Click to expand...

- Behind closed doors: Bomber has been talking about a lack of onfield leadership, so ignoring the issue on the ground and addressing it on Monday in the review would be a failing in that regard

- your workplace example: Your workplace is not in any way comparable to a football field. Feedback needs to be delivered immediately, succinctly and during the performance of other high intensity tasks. Yelling at teammates is part and parcel of it. It's not aggressive, it's about delivering the message in the most effective manner. The mids won't have been thinking "Oh, Hooksy's cracked the shits again". Comparing an office environment is irrelevant.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't blame the Swans as much as I blame the AFL for the situation with COLA. Sydney are working within the rules set by the AFL. Is it fair, probably not, but how can we blame them for taking full advantage if the AFL gives it to them?
 
Nifft said:
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't blame the Swans as much as I blame the AFL for the situation with COLA. Sydney are working within the rules set by the AFL. Is it fair, probably not, but how can we blame them for taking full advantage if the AFL gives it to them?
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Nifft said:
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't blame the Swans as much as I blame the AFL for the situation with COLA. Sydney are working within the rules set by the AFL. Is it fair, probably not, but how can we blame them for taking full advantage if the AFL gives it to them?
Click to expand...

Ok, fine.

To borrow from cricket briefly, underarm bowling wasn't illegal when Greg told Trevor to do it, either. Nor Bodyline back in the 1930's.

Call it the 'spirit' of the rule if you will.
 
Last edited:
And on COLA, my understanding is that it isn't 109.8% compared to 100% of our cap, it's that the players get an extra 9.8% each from their pay. For example, Mitchell's apparently on $400k/year. That translates into $438k/year with COLA. Instead of him being on $400k and 4.9% more going to Buddy and Tippett.
 
Nifft said:
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't blame the Swans as much as I blame the AFL for the situation with COLA. Sydney are working within the rules set by the AFL. Is it fair, probably not, but how can we blame them for taking full advantage if the AFL gives it to them?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, I agree.

My problem with it, and the circumstances around it are not simple.

First and foremost, believe it or not the concept of an 'expansion allowance' I actually agree with. I'm a big believer that mistakes are actually ok, as long as you learn from them. And the AFL (VFL) made mistakes when it initially tried expansion with both the Sydney move - and more obviously the introduction of Brisbane and West Coast. New clubs need to be given a 'lubricated' entry to make sure they are given the best opportunity to establish itself and become competitive from the get go.

Now, the AFL learnt that lesson, but probably made a different mistake when introducing Gold Coast and GWS. I believe the 'intent' of the concessions given to them was to see them gather a larger list of experienced players than they did. But anyway, I don't want to get too sidetracked....

So, my first real problem. It is NOT a cost of living allowance, nor has it ever been. You know that, I know that. The AFL knows that. Sydney knows that. But up until recently, nobody really said it out loud. Let's be clear, if the AFL was serious about addressing cost of living we'd have a base salary cap, with the AFL themselves paying out cost of living variations based on what city the player was living in on a five year index or some other such arrangement. The arrangement they seem to be moving to NOW is a step in the right direction, but you are still half arsing it until you apply it to all clubs.

It is a marketing allowance. Best way I can title it. A salary cap concession given to clubs in expansion markets that cannot embed themselves naturally. I feel sorry for Freo, West Coast, Adelaide and Port sometimes - if they had been less successfully in establishing themselves in their home states, they may have gotten the same leg up. Maybe they shouldn't have worked so hard.....

So considering the above, how is that Sydneys fault?

Here's how.

The allowance, regardless of what it is called, is designed to GROW the game in the market.

Sydney have had THIRTY YEARS to embed itself in Sydney. Granted, real support only came twenty years ago, but we are still talking DECADES. And what have they done?

I went to the North webpage (North FFS), and found this:

http://www.nmfc.com.au/huddle/about-the-huddle

The Huddle was established "to improve social cohesion by systematically addressing the causes of disengagement among young people, The Huddle’s programs target youths from migrant and refugee backgrounds, in North Melbourne, Flemington, Kensington, West Melbourne and the City of Wyndham."

It's won the Premiers award.

Check out the Eagles:

http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/WestCoastEagles/Community/wce14community.pdf

32 pages of activities from last year. Includes the Eagles Cup, BHP Leadership initiative, faction footy and so on. They are seriously engaged with their community - no wonder they are a bloody powerhouse in Western Australia, nay, Australia

Maybe its just not a NSW thing:

http://www.gwsgiants.com.au/community

Holy crap! The club isn't a decade old and they have how many community programs? It's almost like they are trying to grow the game or something! Bridges to Education - that's clever, I like that.

So three clubs that had to deliberately, actively engage its community.

I'm sure the Swans have been as active:

http://saff.org.au/MakeaDifference/HOWYOUCANHELP/tabid/134/Default.aspx

The Sydney Swans Foundation. Whose stated aim is "Underpinning the Sydney Swans success for the long term future".

Umm ok.

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/club/team-swans/news

Oh look. It's one of those news filter things. And it's had three updates this year.

If the point has escaped, let me state it in plain English. The Sydney Swans have NOT actively engaged its community (hell, use the word market). As a result, despite a longer presence than ANY OTHER expansion side, it has failed to establish a strong, self supporting base on which to hang its proverbial hat.

The Sydney Swans whinge that the allowance is necessary. IF it is necessary, it is because of the actions (or more correctly the INACTION) of the Sydney Swans.

Why? WHY?

Why should the Sydney Swans receive an allowance whose goal is to grow the game, when it disadvantages those clubs that have worked their asses off in order to achieve that very end.

Clubs like North, West Coast, GWS take deliberate and specific action to not only improve the standing of the game, but also improve the community they live off.

The Sydney Swans are a lecherous germ that take and offer nothing in return. They think only of the Sydney Swans.

That is why Richard Colless was a shit leader, and why the Sydney Swans are a shit club not worthy of the advantages they are given.

They should hang their heads in bloody shame.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

eth-dog said:
And on COLA, my understanding is that it isn't 109.8% compared to 100% of our cap, it's that the players get an extra 9.8% each from their pay. For example, Mitchell's apparently on $400k/year. That translates into $438k/year with COLA. Instead of him being on $400k and 4.9% more going to Buddy and Tippett.
Click to expand...

Same end result though. If Mitchell's market value is $438k, Sydney offer him the $400k and save themselves $38k of cap space. Multiply that across 40-odd players, and there's your Buddy contract.
 
Nifft said:
What about us making sweet deals with Etihad while others teams cannot (for various reasons). Or the fact that we get the Anzac day game? Should we not do these because they go against the spirit pf the rules?

I don't begrudge any team using anything at their disposal to become better than the opposition, as long as it's within the rules. If something is unfair then it's the AFL that should answer for that.
Click to expand...

The Etihad deal offered was a good one for Essendon purely because Essendon was good for Etihad. That is, the stadium wanted a big fish to ensure healthy crowds early in its existence and the Bombers being one of the very best teams in the league (and about to be THE best, woop woop!) fitted the bill. Not only were the team flying on field, the average crowd for an Essendon home game in 1999 was a staggering 57,309 people, with only 3 games being under 47,000 for the entire season. And this is only 7 years after leaving the relatively tiny Windy Hill for its home games. The club worked hard to establish a good brand and consequently got a good deal. No handouts necessary.

Ditto Anzac Day. Bruce Ruxton (ex-President of the Victorian RSL and a massive Pies fan) and Kevin Sheedy were the ones to promote it as a big event initially, then the first one in 1995 just happened to be one of the best H&A games ever seen and just happened to be in front of the 2nd biggest H&A crowd in league history. Throw in Sav's bag of 9, complete with iconic screamer, as well as Bucks' terrible decision making in the dying seconds (thanks, Bucks!) and the legend of Anzac Day was born on that brilliant day of footy for all concerned. Again, no handout from the league, and all of the club's doing (along with Collingwood's contribution, of course).
 
Stopher said:
The Etihad deal offered was a good one for Essendon purely because Essendon was good for Etihad. That is, the stadium wanted a big fish to ensure healthy crowds early in its existence and the Bombers being one of the very best teams in the league (and about to be THE best, woop woop!) fitted the bill. Not only were the team flying on field, the average crowd for an Essendon home game in 1999 was a staggering 57,309 people, with only 3 games being under 47,000 for the entire season. And this is only 7 years after leaving the relatively tiny Windy Hill for its home games. The club worked hard to establish a good brand and consequently got a good deal. No handouts necessary.

Ditto Anzac Day. Bruce Ruxton (ex-President of the Victorian RSL and a massive Pies fan) and Kevin Sheedy were the ones to promote it as a big event initially, then the first one in 1995 just happened to be one of the best H&A games ever seen and just happened to be in front of the 2nd biggest H&A crowd in league history. Throw in Sav's bag of 9, complete with iconic screamer, as well as Bucks' terrible decision making in the dying seconds (thanks, Bucks!) and the legend of Anzac Day was born on that brilliant day of footy for all concerned. Again, no handout from the league, and all of the club's doing (along with Collingwood's contribution, of course).
Click to expand...


Sydney is good for the game?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Love this Jade "The Sydney Swans are a lecherous germ that take and offer nothing in return. They think only of the Sydney Swans."
kind of reminds me of the matrix "You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A Sydney Swan hahhahahahaha
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

ant555
    • Like
  • Locked
Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Dave Barham
37 38 39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
19K
Lore
Lore

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom