News OFFICIAL: Gary Ablett traded to Geelong

How many games will Ablett play for Geelong in his second stint


  • Total voters
    251

Pure_Ownage

Premium Platinum
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Posts
33,672
Likes
30,913
Location
PODS fan club office
AFL Club
Geelong
Really piss poor implementation of the 2nd Qld team. Totally neglecting their first team that's still not properly established and giving everything to the 2nd one.
Tough times ahead for Brissy.
I think the AFL probably didn't expect that Brisbane would have such a sustained down period at the same time that GC came in but yeah you are probably right that they should have given Brisbane more help (particularly off field as both QLD clubs have poor facilities that makes it hard for them to attract players) at the same time that GC was brought in.

Hopefully footy in QLD gets back on it's feet.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Spazz Cat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Posts
9,971
Likes
14,102
AFL Club
Geelong
I think the AFL probably didn't expect that Brisbane would have such a sustained down period at the same time that GC came in but yeah you are probably right that they should have given Brisbane more help (particularly off field as both QLD clubs have poor facilities that makes it hard for them to attract players) at the same time that GC was brought in.

Hopefully footy in QLD gets back on it's feet.
Losing their COLA then FA didn't help a lot either.
Apparently the GABBA won't even water the grass. Players don't want to train on it every day because it's so hard. I think they were even trying to build another training base because of it but don't have the cash.
It's hard to see Brissy doing well. Especially if they bring in another League team. There'll be NRL played up there every weekend.
 

Pure_Ownage

Premium Platinum
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Posts
33,672
Likes
30,913
Location
PODS fan club office
AFL Club
Geelong
Losing their COLA then FA didn't help a lot either.
Apparently the GABBA won't even water the grass. Players don't want to train on it every day because it's so hard. I think they were even trying to build another training base because of it but don't have the cash.
It's hard to see Brissy doing well. Especially if they bring in another League team. There'll be NRL played up there every weekend.
I think I read there was a plan for them to build a new training base but it got scuttled (I can't remember why). They have a new plan which they are trying to lobby for funding for. The issues with the GABBA do sound like a real challenge for them.
 

Spazz Cat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Posts
9,971
Likes
14,102
AFL Club
Geelong
The AFL put money into the rebuilding of Carrara and I think?signed a deal with the State Government and Gold Coast City Council to be tenants for a period of time,My tip is a merger eventually Gold Coast Lions.
Probably for the best. Wonder why they didn't make the Southport Sharks the GC team. Went there for lunch the other day. Tis Huge.
 

you pick one

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Posts
20,433
Likes
23,440
Location
308 Negra Arroyo Lane Albuquerque New Mexico
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
WADA
Probably for the best. Wonder why they didn't make the Southport Sharks the GC team. Went there for lunch the other day. Tis Huge.
The Sharks are a very profitable organization and well run footy club,their pokies owe me but ay.:D
 

Stan The Caddy

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Posts
7,686
Likes
10,386
AFL Club
Geelong
That's what you are referring to? It was pretty clear that in context my use of the word 'make' was the rule always being there but the AFL 'making' a decision about whether to use (i.e enforce) a rule that already exists, based on whether it suits them or not (I have referred to this heaps of times in my previous posts on the Ablett trade issue and it was fairly obvious I was referring to it again).
It wasn't clear at all. You're changing the goal posts once again in order to suit your argument. You still haven't answered a previous question of mine... The AFL never made a decision to enforce it. It was always there and they always did enforce it. It had nothing to do with whether it suited them or not.

You say that in the context of using the word "make" that you meant the rule was always there but that is simply by definition, a contradiction of what it is meant to mean.

There is a big difference (a chasm of difference) from that and saying that and saying the AFL would actually make up (i.e. invent rules that don't exist) for the sake of blocking an Ablett trade or some other reason. Which, unless I severely misunderstood you, was exactly what you were saying I said.
Fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood you then...

You will be waiting a long time on that one. I am sorry if you are genuinely offended in some way but I stand by what I said, and I will leave it to other people to make their own judgements on this or any other matter.
Don't worry, I've got plenty of time to kill...
 

Ricketz

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Posts
2,784
Likes
2,323
Location
Wagga Wagga
AFL Club
Geelong
It looks to me as though you've decided to throw the toys out of the cot mate. All you're doing now is continually changing the goal posts which is typical BF behaviour when you've been called out on something. I have no problem with you. Infact, I think that you're a good poster but I'm still going to call it as I see it.

You actually did say that the AFL made up a rule in regards to Sydney and Franklin. Go back and read your posts again please. You also say that "they chose to enforce the rule when it suited them to do so" but when have they ever not enforced the rule? Which player or club did they not enforce it for? The only person talking rubbish is you mate.
I have said this before in response to your doubt - the AFL have meddled in far worse ways when it comes to saving face. The disgraceful Essendon saga well and truly tops the tree, but there are plenty of other examples of this behaviour - the Buddy trade and subsequent cola punishment, the Melbourne tanking fiasco - but the most relevant example, is the behaviour they exhibited over the Hendo trade.

No one is saying they will definitely meddle, but it's a rational risk given their blessed marquee player bailing on the failed club would be a n absolute marketing failure.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Stan The Caddy

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Posts
7,686
Likes
10,386
AFL Club
Geelong
I have said this before in response to your doubt - the AFL have meddled in far worse ways when it comes to saving face. The disgraceful Essendon saga well and truly tops the tree, but there are plenty of other examples of this behaviour - the Buddy trade and subsequent cola punishment, the Melbourne tanking fiasco - but the most relevant example, is the behaviour they exhibited over the Hendo trade.

No one is saying they will definitely meddle, but it's a rational risk given their blessed marquee player bailing on the failed club would be a n absolute marketing failure.
I respect your opinion Ricketz. Your profile says that you've been around a while but I've only just noticed you recently. You seem like you know your stuff. The examples you bring up however, are nothing like the Ablett situation at all.

And FWIW people have definitely said that they would meddle but I'm not going to go down the road of bringing up old posts so that is for people to decide for themselves. I know what I've read though and it's all in this thread if people want to read it.

Keep posting mate. We need more like you!
 

Catsmaninamerica

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
5,936
Likes
8,713
Location
Cloud break
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Cricket, Surfing
I've pitied him for a long time. Welcome to the club.
A) I like you, possibly more than a friend.
B) His posting is a continuum of proof that Seeds has zero knowledge of footy. I'm sure like some others, that he genuinely believes that he has a better grip on tactics, coaching and selection than Chris Scott and co. The melt than goes on here on a daily basis - over mark Blicavs is a perfect example. Read their idiotic posts and you'd think blitz is a reserves footballer who we'd be lucky to get a 4th round pick for. But guess what? He finished SIXTH in the Carji. SIXTH!!!
C) GHS is still a 2's footballer - and now behind Scott Selwood and Menegola. But hang on, it's not cos they're wrong, it's because Chris Scott would sooner play a side that's not his best side, cos he has a vendetta. Or maybe it's cos he said incompetent. If only we could get some of these oracles on our match committee.

Some of the posters on here are so dumb it's staggering they actually survive life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stan The Caddy

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Posts
7,686
Likes
10,386
AFL Club
Geelong
A) I like you, possibly more than a friend.
B) His posting is a continuum of proof that Seeds has zero knowledge of footy. I'm sure like some others, that he genuinely believes that he has a better grip on tactics, coaching and selection than Chris Scott and co. The melt than goes on here on a daily basis - over mark Blicavs is a perfect example. Read their idiotic posts and you'd think blitz is a reserves footballer who we'd be lucky to get a 4th round pick for. But guess what? He finished SIXTH in the Carji. SIXTH!!!
C) GHS is still a 2's footballer - and now behind Scott Selwood and Menegola. But hang on, it's not cos they're wrong, it's because Chris Scott would sooner play a side that's not his best side, cos he has a vendetta. Or maybe it's cos he said incompetent. If only we could get some of these oracles on our match committee.

Some of the posters on here are so dumb it's staggering they actually survive life.
Haha! How do they survive life. It often staggers me too...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Posts
349
Likes
502
Location
USA
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Washington Redskins & Caps
Don't think the AFL would care. The Ablett publicity factor has already worn off on the GC.
They'd probably be better served if he left and they got another high profile player. They get attention for him leaving for a start and then the attention and speculation of who the new player will be etc.
Then the great story of him coming back home. Extra publicity, extra clickbait, more $
Precisely. Ablett doesn't feature heavily on the Suns website. If a club's key marketing player is an ageing champion that's a problem.

May and others are the future marquee players for the Suns, plus whoever the recruit with the spare Ablett coin


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Pure_Ownage

Premium Platinum
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Posts
33,672
Likes
30,913
Location
PODS fan club office
AFL Club
Geelong
It wasn't clear at all. You're changing the goal posts once again in order to suit your argument. You still haven't answered a previous question of mine... The AFL never made a decision to enforce it. It was always there and they always did enforce it. It had nothing to do with whether it suited them or not.

You say that in the context of using the word "make" that you meant the rule was always there but that is simply by definition, a contradiction of what it is meant to mean.
I don't think you have understood what I was saying. Basic background to what I was saying. When an uncontracted player (or free agent) switching clubs lodges a contract with a new club or a contracted player lodges a contract with a new club (this might be in the form of ripping up the contract with club A and signing a new one with club B ala Cloke or just lodging a new version of an existing contract where both club A and B pay part of it ala Deledio) the new contract has to be lodged with the AFL for approval. They can a) approve the contract as is b) reject it or c) approve it with conditions. I was referring to Franklin in the context that the AFL chose c). When players retire while under contract due to injury the player and club are routinely allowed to negotiate an agreement where the player only gets part of the money, or he gets all of the money but part of it goes in the club's injury payments (which sit outside the normal TPP) in either case allowing less cap burden for the club. Or they are allowed to put the player on the rookie list meaning he still gets all his contract money but only part of it is counted under the cap for those year(s)-this is what GWS have just done with Patfull. And when guys retire whilst contracted because they no longer wish to play (see Yarran, Garlett et al) clubs are routinely allowed to tear up the contract with no cap impact. Under the rules the AFL could in each of these cases force the clubs to bear the full contract they signed under their cap even though the player is no longer playing, but for whatever reasons they choose not to. However from what we have been told re the Franklin contract they approved it with a specific clause that if he retires before the 9 years for whatever reason he retires Sydney still have to bear his full salary under the cap for each of those years. I never suggested they 'made up' a rule in doing this, only that they enforced the existing rule in a way in which they hadn't previously enforced it in a heap of other recent cases. It stands to reason that it suited the AFL to do this otherwise they wouldn't have done it, as to why it suited them you'd have to ask them but obviously they aren't going to do something they don't usually do unless a) it suits them or b) they feel it is absolutely necessary for some compelling reason.

The relevance of this to the Ablett issue? Most agree that if Ablett is to come to Geelong in 2018 he will try to take a pay cut to facilitate it as Geelong are unlikely to be able (or want to) pay him a full million. Now he could do it the Cloke way or the Deledio way but either way most of us think it's what he would do. Now it's fairly clear that when he does that the new contract has to be approved by the AFL and they can either a) approve it, b) reject it or c) approve it with conditions. I assume you agree the rules allow that. My reason for referencing Franklin was the main argument I am hearing from most people (not you specifically) against this happening is a version of 'but the afl hasn't been using this power it has to block or put conditions in contracts for a long time so they won't do it now. My point is the Franklin example shows that just because they don't enforce a rule in a particular way 98 % of the time doesn't mean they won't enforce it in that way the other 2 % of the time if they think there is a compelling enough reason for them to in that case.

That's all I've ever been arguing. I've never argued that the AFL is making up some rule or having some vendetta against Geelong if it does that, nor have I ever said it's certain or even likely to happen. Just that it's possible and a possible complication in this case, and just because it hasn't happened a lot in the past doesn't mean it won't happen now. That's it. Obviously you have completely understood what I have been arguing to come to some of the conclusions you have. But anyway, sometimes those things happen.

Fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood you then...
Fair enough. It's possible we both misunderstood each other so sorry if that was the case.
 

Ricketz

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Posts
2,784
Likes
2,323
Location
Wagga Wagga
AFL Club
Geelong
I respect your opinion Ricketz. Your profile says that you've been around a while but I've only just noticed you recently. You seem like you know your stuff. The examples you bring up however, are nothing like the Ablett situation at all.

And FWIW people have definitely said that they would meddle but I'm not going to go down the road of bringing up old posts so that is for people to decide for themselves. I know what I've read though and it's all in this thread if people want to read it.

Keep posting mate. We need more like you!
Thanks Stan, the respect is mutual - I probably have a blind spot when it comes to the administrators, especially over the Essendon saga. Perhaps I should get over it :$
 

Shai

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Posts
4,577
Likes
3,526
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oz Bball, Equest, Net, Tenn, Voll
Exactly. Whether it's this year or next year Ablett is leaving and the AFL knows this. They also know that the best way in which to keep the Suns relevant isn't by holding on to Ablett, but by having the Suns be a successful club and winning lots of games over a long period. This is what the AFL will be more concerned about.
The bolded is most important for football up here.

If he comes 'home' in any circumstance (player or coach) I wouldn't be unhappy.
 

foodles05

Club Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Posts
1,202
Likes
1,669
AFL Club
Geelong
I don't think you have understood what I was saying. Basic background to what I was saying. When an uncontracted player (or free agent) switching clubs lodges a contract with a new club or a contracted player lodges a contract with a new club (this might be in the form of ripping up the contract with club A and signing a new one with club B ala Cloke or just lodging a new version of an existing contract where both club A and B pay part of it ala Deledio) the new contract has to be lodged with the AFL for approval. They can a) approve the contract as is b) reject it or c) approve it with conditions. I was referring to Franklin in the context that the AFL chose c). When players retire while under contract due to injury the player and club are routinely allowed to negotiate an agreement where the player only gets part of the money, or he gets all of the money but part of it goes in the club's injury payments (which sit outside the normal TPP) in either case allowing less cap burden for the club. Or they are allowed to put the player on the rookie list meaning he still gets all his contract money but only part of it is counted under the cap for those year(s)-this is what GWS have just done with Patfull. And when guys retire whilst contracted because they no longer wish to play (see Yarran, Garlett et al) clubs are routinely allowed to tear up the contract with no cap impact. Under the rules the AFL could in each of these cases force the clubs to bear the full contract they signed under their cap even though the player is no longer playing, but for whatever reasons they choose not to. However from what we have been told re the Franklin contract they approved it with a specific clause that if he retires before the 9 years for whatever reason he retires Sydney still have to bear his full salary under the cap for each of those years. I never suggested they 'made up' a rule in doing this, only that they enforced the existing rule in a way in which they hadn't previously enforced it in a heap of other recent cases. It stands to reason that it suited the AFL to do this otherwise they wouldn't have done it, as to why it suited them you'd have to ask them but obviously they aren't going to do something they don't usually do unless a) it suits them or b) they feel it is absolutely necessary for some compelling reason.

The relevance of this to the Ablett issue? Most agree that if Ablett is to come to Geelong in 2018 he will try to take a pay cut to facilitate it as Geelong are unlikely to be able (or want to) pay him a full million. Now he could do it the Cloke way or the Deledio way but either way most of us think it's what he would do. Now it's fairly clear that when he does that the new contract has to be approved by the AFL and they can either a) approve it, b) reject it or c) approve it with conditions. I assume you agree the rules allow that. My reason for referencing Franklin was the main argument I am hearing from most people (not you specifically) against this happening is a version of 'but the afl hasn't been using this power it has to block or put conditions in contracts for a long time so they won't do it now. My point is the Franklin example shows that just because they don't enforce a rule in a particular way 98 % of the time doesn't mean they won't enforce it in that way the other 2 % of the time if they think there is a compelling enough reason for them to in that case.

That's all I've ever been arguing. I've never argued that the AFL is making up some rule or having some vendetta against Geelong if it does that, nor have I ever said it's certain or even likely to happen. Just that it's possible and a possible complication in this case, and just because it hasn't happened a lot in the past doesn't mean it won't happen now. That's it. Obviously you have completely understood what I have been arguing to come to some of the conclusions you have. But anyway, sometimes those things happen.



Fair enough. It's possible we both misunderstood each other so sorry if that was the case.
What someone is yet to explain to me is why the AFL would block it or stop it? Whether they can or do is irrelevant! If as people are arguing the AFL is concerned with protecting their baby why would they block it. How is getting his money off their salary cap or getting Geelong to pay a portion of it a bad thing for GC. He is 33/34 and on heaps of money. Won't be part of their next successful period. I would be surprised if the AFL didn't come in and say you have to do it! Seriously if I was a GC supporter and was asked whether freeing up sc room to make a play for a free agent, who has a chance to be there when they are good, was a good idea I would be screaming do it now from the rooftops!! Come on people think about it before you post
 
Top Bottom