No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXIX

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
muzhogg said:
I didn't bother buying into it, but I've just been reading yet another Cololololololingwood nuffy going on about their "record" fourpeat from the thirties.

Pretty common stuff and who cares really, but as the guy made a big deal of how his reason for bringing it up was because he loves the history of the game, I found it really interesting that he didn't actually include any historical context whatsoever.

So, for those that care, here's my very quick effort at putting it all in historical context...

First, the "record" fourpeat...

Was achieved under the Argus rules.

Basically this was a set of rules that varied slightly over time, but in 1930 they included the provision that the team with the best home/away record could challenge the eventual premier with the winner of that game being crowned premiers.

In 1930 Collinwood actually LOST the grand-final to Geelong, but under the Argus rules were entitled to then challenge Geelong. They won the resultant challenge to win their fourth premiership.

Needless to say their previous three had also been won under the Argus rules but as they won fair and square there were no rematches those years.

What's really interesting is that the Argus rules were dropped the next year because they were widely regarded as unfair.

So, Collingwood's four-peat was made possible by a rule which was regarded as unfair, came after they actually lost the grand final to Geelong, and which is no longer in effect.

If it was in effect, it would have allowed Richmond to challenge West Coast for the flag in 2018.

And if you think about the 2018 finals series you'll see why the Argus rules were regarded as unfair. In 2018 we were booted out in the prelim, and so would have had a week off between that game and any challenge game against WC. People didn't like the Argus rules because it meant the "top" team could benefit from a loss by getting a bye.

So, that's part one, now for part two...

Second, the Richmond 3 out of 4.

Just briefly the historical context is this...

Played with no right to a "second bite at the cherry" when we fell out of contention in 2018.
Played in an 18 team competition -- not in a 12 team comp.
Played under a set of rules imposing equalization on the comp. -- i.e. in a period where the comp. is actually designed to prevent prolonged dominance.

I don't think there's any denying that the Collingwood four-peat team of the 20s was the best team of their era, just as there's no denying that the current Richmond team is the best team of the present era, but claims that their "record" is some sort of achievement way beyond anything achieved by teams in the modern era have to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

I mean, who wouldn't like to assemble a team with absolutely no restrictions on who you can include, take six teams out of the competition before the season even starts, and then be allowed to replay the granny if you lost? That's the actual difference between the historical context of Collingwood's four-peat and modern footy.

Suddenly, Richmond's 3 out of 4 seems like a much better effort in comparison. As does Geelong's 3 out of 5 (the Hawks and Lions three-peats were good also, but the further back you go, the less teams there were and the impact of equalization was lower so it kind of got easier. To be clear, though, I'm not trying to suggest that their achievements were anything but a very good effort).

All the above is full of facts and logic so obviously I didn't bother posting it on the main board in response to a Collingwood supporter. Still, I thought you all might appreciate it.

Bottom line: I get why Collingwood supporters wet themselves over their "record" four-peat -- they have no modern achievements to speak of and they're not the brightest anyway so kind of miss the differences between modern footy and what was played almost a hundred years ago. Supporters of other teams who want to compare apples with apples don't, however, have any reason to be quite so impressed by "the Machine" as Collingwood supporters think we should be.
Click to expand...
There were about 5 teams when they won all the flags too
 
muzhogg said:
I didn't bother buying into it, but I've just been reading yet another Cololololololingwood nuffy going on about their "record" fourpeat from the thirties.

Pretty common stuff and who cares really, but as the guy made a big deal of how his reason for bringing it up was because he loves the history of the game, I found it really interesting that he didn't actually include any historical context whatsoever.

So, for those that care, here's my very quick effort at putting it all in historical context...

First, the "record" fourpeat...

Was achieved under the Argus rules.

Basically this was a set of rules that varied slightly over time, but in 1930 they included the provision that the team with the best home/away record could challenge the eventual premier with the winner of that game being crowned premiers.

In 1930 Collinwood actually LOST the grand-final to Geelong, but under the Argus rules were entitled to then challenge Geelong. They won the resultant challenge to win their fourth premiership.

Needless to say their previous three had also been won under the Argus rules but as they won fair and square there were no rematches those years.

What's really interesting is that the Argus rules were dropped the next year because they were widely regarded as unfair.

So, Collingwood's four-peat was made possible by a rule which was regarded as unfair, came after they actually lost the grand final to Geelong, and which is no longer in effect.

If it was in effect, it would have allowed Richmond to challenge West Coast for the flag in 2018.

And if you think about the 2018 finals series you'll see why the Argus rules were regarded as unfair. In 2018 we were booted out in the prelim, and so would have had a week off between that game and any challenge game against WC. People didn't like the Argus rules because it meant the "top" team could benefit from a loss by getting a bye.

So, that's part one, now for part two...

Second, the Richmond 3 out of 4.

Just briefly the historical context is this...

Played with no right to a "second bite at the cherry" when we fell out of contention in 2018.
Played in an 18 team competition -- not in a 12 team comp.
Played under a set of rules imposing equalization on the comp. -- i.e. in a period where the comp. is actually designed to prevent prolonged dominance.

I don't think there's any denying that the Collingwood four-peat team of the 20s was the best team of their era, just as there's no denying that the current Richmond team is the best team of the present era, but claims that their "record" is some sort of achievement way beyond anything achieved by teams in the modern era have to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

I mean, who wouldn't like to assemble a team with absolutely no restrictions on who you can include, take six teams out of the competition before the season even starts, and then be allowed to replay the granny if you lost? That's the actual difference between the historical context of Collingwood's four-peat and modern footy.

Suddenly, Richmond's 3 out of 4 seems like a much better effort in comparison. As does Geelong's 3 out of 5 (the Hawks and Lions three-peats were good also, but the further back you go, the less teams there were and the impact of equalization was lower so it kind of got easier. To be clear, though, I'm not trying to suggest that their achievements were anything but a very good effort).

All the above is full of facts and logic so obviously I didn't bother posting it on the main board in response to a Collingwood supporter. Still, I thought you all might appreciate it.

Bottom line: I get why Collingwood supporters wet themselves over their "record" four-peat -- they have no modern achievements to speak of and they're not the brightest anyway so kind of miss the differences between modern footy and what was played almost a hundred years ago. Supporters of other teams who want to compare apples with apples don't, however, have any reason to be quite so impressed by "the Machine" as Collingwood supporters think we should be.
Click to expand...
the pies premierships history is a joke

nobody was alive to see most of them

they are a joke in general as a club. they also have no legends of any note

peter daicos and lou richards are at the top of their list of legends. says a lot
 

Log in to remove this ad.

VB_longneck said:
the pies premierships history is a joke

nobody was alive to see most of them

they are a joke in general as a club. they also have no legends of any note

peter daicos and lou richards are at the top of their list of legends. says a lot
Click to expand...
You are doing them a disservice, how could you forget Darren "Pants" Millane!

Darren Millane - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Collingwood's 'double whammy' risks blowing up Adam Treloar AFL trade play | 7NEWS.com.au
 
4tune8 said:
Collingwood's 'double whammy' risks blowing up Adam Treloar AFL trade play | 7NEWS.com.au
Click to expand...

Double whammy not double hammy
 
muzhogg said:
So, basically, after all the OTHER issues surrounding Collingwood's mismanagement of their players and their salary cap they released Troloar without a clear agreement (i.e. in writing) as to what they would have to pay?

It's like taking out a loan to buy a car, discovering you can't afford the repayments, and selling the car without making clear that the buyer is responsible for the loan repayments. I mean, how utterly incompetent would you have to be not to make clear that you're selling the car along with the debt in your negotiations AND getting the buyer's agreement in writing?

For a supposedly professional organization to find themselves in a situation where there's no written agreement as to future payments is an absolute joke.

All I can say is: please, Collingwood, keep up the good work! Between your on field failure and your off field incompetence, you're making AFL entertaining all year round. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
Click to expand...
If I was Treloar I don't know if I'd be trusting Pies to pay what they are supposed to. He may end up staying The AFL do seem to have a good understanding of clubs' responsibility to pay players as per their contract. It took us a long time to get Yarran off the books. Seems like Beams is not on their list anymore started at Pies in 2019 2 years to go.
I can see the Pies going to AFL cap in hand asking for StKilda or North level of help. Eddy wanting a CollingwoodCOLA I was always dodgy on Swans ability to honour the Buddy contract too.
 
VB_longneck said:
the pies premierships history is a joke

nobody was alive to see most of them

they are a joke in general as a club. they also have no legends of any note

peter daicos and lou richards are at the top of their list of legends. says a lot
Click to expand...
Lynden Dunn is an immortal of the club
 
tora tora tora said:
If I was Treloar I don't know if I'd be trusting Pies to pay what they are supposed to. He may end up staying The AFL do seem to have a good understanding of clubs' responsibility to pay players as per their contract. It took us a long time to get Yarran off the books. Seems like Beams is not on their list anymore started at Pies in 2019 2 years to go.
I can see the Pies going to AFL cap in hand asking for StKilda or North level of help. Eddy wanting a CollingwoodCOLA I was always dodgy on Swans ability to honour the Buddy contract too.
Click to expand...
From the article I just posted

" it doesn’t appear Collingwood will get any salary cap relief from the AFL for Dayne Beams’ payout. "

Re Treloar....I don't think his manager would leave him in limbo, it's more about the Filth trying to renegotiate with the Dogs.
 
VB_longneck said:
the pies premierships history is a joke

nobody was alive to see most of them

they are a joke in general as a club. they also have no legends of any note

peter daicos and lou richards are at the top of their list of legends. says a lot
Click to expand...
Gangsters and criminals financialy looking after the pies in the depression. No wonder they won 4 in a row.

No wonder the best players wanted to go there.

John Wren slipping players money back then was like Toby Mitchell saying to Lynch, here's 100k cash if you sign with the Tiges.

And the death threats... wow.
 
Last edited:
VB_longneck said:
the pies premierships history is a joke

nobody was alive to see most of them

they are a joke in general as a club. they also have no legends of any note

peter daicos and lou richards are at the top of their list of legends. says a lot
Click to expand...
The AFL should look into this what a farce it’s not a true 4peat Geelong have been robbed also of a premiership something needs to be done
 
‘That is our fault’: Bombers to address senior players after 8pm pay email left some angry

Essendon chief executive Xavier Campbell admits his club made a communication error after an email informing its players of a plan to withhold a portion of their salary this month reportedly left senior members upset.

The Age on Sunday afternoon revealed the Bombers had sent an email at around 8pm on Friday night, telling players of the club’s intention to hold back nine per cent of their wages, as a starting position, this month.

www.foxsports.com.au

‘That is our fault’: Bombers to address senior players after 8pm pay email left some angry

‘That is our fault’: Bombers backtrack after 8pm email leaves players fuming
www.foxsports.com.au www.foxsports.com.au

1606655580841.png
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Stars to be hit by new pay deal solution as Essendon apologises to players for planning to withhold part of their salary
AFL stars face more back-ended contracts in a situation that is being described as ‘a complete balls-up’.

It comes as Essendon was forced to apologise to its players.

Clubs have warned they face months of gruelling negotiations over a new pay deal as Essendon was forced to apologise to players over a botched attempt to withhold nine per cent of their salaries.

Collingwood is among the clubs which will be forced to ask stars to push part of their 2021 salaries into coming years only weeks after Adam Treloar’s back-ended deal resulted in catastrophe.

Essendon chief executive Xavier Campbell on Sunday admitted the Dons’ decision to withhold a portion of player salaries until the club worked on a solution to the pay deal was poorly communicated and wrong.

The league’s decision not to apply universal pay cuts to the nine per cent salary reduction for 2021 has been widely panned by player managers and clubs.

List managers were desperate for any pay cut to be applied across the board so all players would be in the same boat.

Instead some players will only accept a 3.5 per cent pay cut in total but 8.5 per cent next year, meaning clubs must back-end five per cent of those deals into 2022-23.

It will result in club salary caps shrinking significantly in 2022-23 compared to next season, meaning players out of contract next year will have to accept smaller deals.

The only hope for the AFL’s 18 clubs is that the salary cap will increase by 2022, giving them breathing room.

Many players will be reluctant to push their salaries back into later years given Treloar’s disastrous experience.

As one veteran list manager said on Sunday: “It’s a recipe for disaster. It’s a complete balls-up.”

Clubs exhausted by a season full of travel and making staff redundant will now spend the summer negotiating with every player on their list about their contracts and individual circumstances.

Collingwood is one of many clubs with a tight salary cap which will now be forced to go to some high-profile players and ask them to accept money towards the end of their contracts.

Western Bulldogs believe its side of the Treloar contract wrangle had them in a strong position as talks continue over how he is paid his $4.5 million, five-year salary.

The Dogs are adamant they were always clear about the exact portion they would pay of his $900,000 salary - believed to be $600,00 per season.

So the Pies and Treloar’s management will continue to talk about Collingwood paying the rest of the $300,000 per season he is owed until 2025.

As Essendon sorts out its salary cap picture, it had emailed players on Friday night and told them it was planning to withhold nine per cent of this month’s salary until it worked out a solution.

Furious players spoke to their managers and the AFLPA, with Campbell telling Nine Media on Sunday the decision was a mistake.

“We didn’t get the communication right and we own that. Our intention was to create a holding position for the next fortnight to allow us the time to meet properly with the playing group,“ Campbell said.

“I‘m disappointed that we didn’t consult properly with the players prior, and that is our fault. But we will do this over the next few days.”

Star players out of contract at the end of 2021, who will have a lesser pool of money as they seek to sign significant contracts, include Harry McKay, Patrick Cripps, Jeremy Howe, Jake Stringer, Clayton Oliver, Dion Prestia, Jack Billings and Marcus Bontempelli.


 
THE THIN MAN said:
Stars to be hit by new pay deal solution as Essendon apologises to players for planning to withhold part of their salary
AFL stars face more back-ended contracts in a situation that is being described as ‘a complete balls-up’.

It comes as Essendon was forced to apologise to its players.

Clubs have warned they face months of gruelling negotiations over a new pay deal as Essendon was forced to apologise to players over a botched attempt to withhold nine per cent of their salaries.

Collingwood is among the clubs which will be forced to ask stars to push part of their 2021 salaries into coming years only weeks after Adam Treloar’s back-ended deal resulted in catastrophe.

Essendon chief executive Xavier Campbell on Sunday admitted the Dons’ decision to withhold a portion of player salaries until the club worked on a solution to the pay deal was poorly communicated and wrong.

The league’s decision not to apply universal pay cuts to the nine per cent salary reduction for 2021 has been widely panned by player managers and clubs.

List managers were desperate for any pay cut to be applied across the board so all players would be in the same boat.

Instead some players will only accept a 3.5 per cent pay cut in total but 8.5 per cent next year, meaning clubs must back-end five per cent of those deals into 2022-23.

It will result in club salary caps shrinking significantly in 2022-23 compared to next season, meaning players out of contract next year will have to accept smaller deals.

The only hope for the AFL’s 18 clubs is that the salary cap will increase by 2022, giving them breathing room.

Many players will be reluctant to push their salaries back into later years given Treloar’s disastrous experience.

As one veteran list manager said on Sunday: “It’s a recipe for disaster. It’s a complete balls-up.”

Clubs exhausted by a season full of travel and making staff redundant will now spend the summer negotiating with every player on their list about their contracts and individual circumstances.

Collingwood is one of many clubs with a tight salary cap which will now be forced to go to some high-profile players and ask them to accept money towards the end of their contracts.

Western Bulldogs believe its side of the Treloar contract wrangle had them in a strong position as talks continue over how he is paid his $4.5 million, five-year salary.

The Dogs are adamant they were always clear about the exact portion they would pay of his $900,000 salary - believed to be $600,00 per season.

So the Pies and Treloar’s management will continue to talk about Collingwood paying the rest of the $300,000 per season he is owed until 2025.

As Essendon sorts out its salary cap picture, it had emailed players on Friday night and told them it was planning to withhold nine per cent of this month’s salary until it worked out a solution.

Furious players spoke to their managers and the AFLPA, with Campbell telling Nine Media on Sunday the decision was a mistake.

“We didn’t get the communication right and we own that. Our intention was to create a holding position for the next fortnight to allow us the time to meet properly with the playing group,“ Campbell said.

“I‘m disappointed that we didn’t consult properly with the players prior, and that is our fault. But we will do this over the next few days.”

Star players out of contract at the end of 2021, who will have a lesser pool of money as they seek to sign significant contracts, include Harry McKay, Patrick Cripps, Jeremy Howe, Jake Stringer, Clayton Oliver, Dion Prestia, Jack Billings and Marcus Bontempelli.


Click to expand...
Harry McKay star player?
 
So the Pies have miscalculated and also tried a dodgy in their salary cap repair. <world's smallest violin>

The Bombers have peeved their entire playing list with poor 'negotiations' > i.e. they didn't negotiate and just announced crap that the players will hate. <world's smallest violin>

The AFL didn't have the guts and/or professionalism to manage the salaries of players properly, leaving clubs in limbo and with a chaotic garbage situation. I suspect the Tigers have managed this correctly, openly and fairly. But even more ill will generated, and along with the lack of knowledge of list sizes etc aclear demonstration of the kindergarten approach of the AFL management. <Entire world's smallest orchestra + a baseball bat poleaxe>

Actually quite an amusing off season already.

Looks like the Pies will have to lose another well paid player next year, maybe 2. Brilliant administration. And the morale of the Bombers must be sky high :rolleyes: 🤣
 
Dr Tigris said:
So the Pies have miscalculated and also tried a dodgy in their salary cap repair. <world's smallest violin>

The Bombers have peeved their entire playing list with poor 'negotiations' > i.e. they didn't negotiate and just announced crap that the players will hate. <world's smallest violin>

The AFL didn't have the guts and/or professionalism to manage the salaries of players properly, leaving clubs in limbo and with a chaotic garbage situation. I suspect the Tigers have managed this correctly, openly and fairly. But even more ill will generated, and along with the lack of knowledge of list sizes etc aclear demonstration of the kindergarten approach of the AFL management. <Entire world's smallest orchestra + a baseball bat poleaxe>

Actually quite an amusing off season already.

Looks like the Pies will have to lose another well paid player next year, maybe 2. Brilliant administration. And the morale of the Bombers must be sky high :rolleyes: 🤣
Click to expand...

And yet both clubs will still be premiership favourites in April/May/June and July according to the media.
 
Ceehook said:
listening to the CEO of North being interviewed
Dimma has something to answer for

"growth " and "growth mind set" are the new catch phrases

in 2021 we drown in them in our honey.
Click to expand...

EFA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Groupie_
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXIX
119 120 121 122 123
Replies
3K
Views
54K
lumpinee
lumpinee
lumpinee
  • Locked
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXVIII
400 401 402 403 404
Replies
10K
Views
217K
tropicaltiger
tropicaltiger
T
  • Locked
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXVII
424 425 426 427 428
Replies
11K
Views
197K
DickieKnee
DickieKnee
Meteoric Rise
Toast New Years AA Observations 2024....
Replies
15
Views
868
JAKLAUGHING
JAKLAUGHING
Hank Heavenly
  • Locked
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXVI
502 503 504 505 506
Replies
13K
Views
286K
tigers12
T
Tony Harrison
  • Locked
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXV
372 373 374 375 376
Replies
9K
Views
252K
kozi
kozi
SavDog23
  • Locked
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXIV
428 429 430 431 432
Replies
11K
Views
223K
Groupie_
Groupie_

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top