List Sizes

[sideswipe]

We have too many equalisation measures.

Clubs are able to survive on welfare.
I’d like to see AFL mentor management or trial private ownership rather than compromise the draft.

Were you around for the fun times of Edelsten, Cronin, Pelerman and the Roos stock listing? Or maybe St.Kilda paying out fractions of player salaries?

The current system is a bit of an improvement on those times.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Markfs]

I think we worked out you need to school yourself on them thar rules before you question them.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

as I said, I just trust your judgement... and i've never known the rules so I cant see why i'd do it now.

 

[The Phantom]

Were you around for the fun times of Edelsten, Cronin, Pelerman and the Roos stock listing? Or maybe St.Kilda paying out fractions of player salaries?

The current system is a bit of an improvement on those times.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Sidey, I was indeed.
And that was a crap instance. I agree.
I don’t think the AFL can or should continue its monopoly forever.
And I reckon we’ve learned and would put better governance around it.
Change can be growth.

 

[sideswipe]

Sidey, I was indeed.
And that was a crap instance. I agree.
I don’t think the AFL can or should continue its monopoly forever.
And I reckon we’ve learned and would put better governance around it.
Change can be growth.

Can you provide one reason why private ownership might be good for the game?



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Phantom]

Can you provide one reason why private ownership might be good for the game?



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

It diminishes the AFL administrations absolute power monopoly. Especially should a number of clubs achieve this.
BUT
I’m not advocating for private ownership.
I am advocating for fewer equalisation measures.
I’m advocating for allowing a club like Collingwood to reap greater unbiased reward for its success.

So let’s not get lost down a rabbit hole, because it’s the wrong debate.

 

[sideswipe]

It diminishes the AFL administrations absolute power monopoly. Especially should a number of clubs achieve this.
BUT
I’m not advocating for private ownership.
I am advocating for fewer equalisation measures.
I’m advocating for allowing a club like Collingwood to reap greater unbiased reward for its success.

So let’s not get lost down a rabbit hole, because it’s the wrong debate.

We just won a flag with some decent father-son talent and a bloke called Scott who came to us via an equalisation mechanism.

Let’s leave it there


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

We just won a flag with some decent father-son talent and a bloke called Scott who came to us via an equalisation mechanism.

Let’s leave it there


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

And a gun academy player - who we had access to despite not really developing in an Academy.

 

[The Phantom]

We just won a flag with some decent father-son talent and a bloke called Scott who came to us via an equalisation mechanism.

Let’s leave it there


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Sidey
We took advantage of what the rules allowed us to.
Just like other teams.
And it contributed to success.
There’s nothing wrong with that.

My point is that the success should be achieved based on merit.
Not such handicap systems.

But citing that example and it being correct doesn’t win or close a debate.

We have different points of view. And that’s fine.

I just find the idea of socialistic principles applied so comprehensively to competitive sport ironic.

 

[sr36]

Sidey
We took advantage of what the rules allowed us to.
Just like other teams.
And it contributed to success.
There’s nothing wrong with that.

My point is that the success should be achieved based on merit.
Not such handicap systems.

But citing that example and it being correct doesn’t win or close a debate.

We have different points of view. And that’s fine.

I just find the idea of socialistic principles applied so comprehensively to competitive sport ironic.

I've got no qualms with the concept of assistance packages. My issue is with using an assistance measure like early draft picks which is likely to really take effect 5 years in the future - when that team probably no longer needs assistance. Give a club that is a basket case an extra million in salary cap and some advantageous poaching rule, so that they bring in established players to become immediately competitive - rather than a measure which keeps them s**t in the short term and then is a guess whether it is even necessary or too much assistance in the long term.

 

[Markfs]

I've got no qualms with the concept of assistance packages. My issue is with using an assistance measure like early draft picks which is likely to really take effect 5 years in the future - when that team probably no longer needs assistance. Give a club that is a basket case an extra million in salary cap and some advantageous poaching rule, so that they bring in established players to become immediately competitive - rather than a measure which keeps them s**t in the short term and then is a guess whether it is even necessary or too much assistance in the long term.

Logic doesnt work in this case. It seems that the crap years of Leppitsch's coaching years is rewarded by a huge dose of players which delivers a superteam in the last couple of years.....as you said. People will say that the reward for the Pies being bad a couple of decades ago was pendles and thomas and a premiership half a dozen or more years later. The blues are now getting their reward for being super-bad when Malthouse dropped them off a cliff.

But what's unpalatable about this slow-reaction to poor performance, is that North effectively drove the process towards uselessness. You might argue that the eagles took their hands off the wheel and carlton just surrounded themselves with incompetence, but North actually took a strategic decision to dump their senior players. And the AFL is rewarding this.....