Palatable Tanking

[dominguez]

No offence to anyone but as I Calton supporter I'm loving the irony, not just on this board but those of other clubs too, given the crap we copped for tanking. Always interesting when the shoe is on the other foot, We weren't the first and certainly won't be the last while the PP system exists.

It's not a good look when an assistant coach comes out and admits tanking though.

 

[eagles rule]

It's not a good look when an assistant coach comes out and admits tanking though.

A good case of career suicide after the AFL got through with him.

 

[Side Bet]

No offence to anyone but as I Calton supporter I'm loving the irony, not just on this board but those of other clubs too, given the crap we copped for tanking. Always interesting when the shoe is on the other foot, We weren't the first and certainly won't be the last while the PP system exists.

Just to get you up to speed (as I think you are making an arguement on assumed facts rather than reading this thread carefully)

I think it is fair to say (FFC ppl correct me where you disagree)
- No-one on this board thinks tanking OK
- No-one on this board would say our players don't try
- Most people on this board think our coach is NOT resting players who don't need it
- No-one on this board is so arrogant to think we are not in trouble, or may be dealing in shady territory

The DIFFERENCE is that we are discussing if rolling over 14 players is tanking.

In the broader media, the defintion of tanking is only related to players (short sighted and shows a lack of understanding of players who need to be re-signed etc).

The general consensus amongst footy fans is the administration MAY be included too.

Taking it one step further - what I have suggested is that the Bond Model may just be 'Palatable Tanking'. IMO the AFL needs to change the rules, not only for the draft but trading, I was wondering what others thought... we could not win many games this season as our list is too young and dependant on senior players who will needs breaks (carrying team for the season).

We are big and ugly enough to discuss this... so feel free to contribute with an honest opinion.

 

[Barnzy]

the way we are going i think two priority picks next year are a real possibility as well

There are no P.P's in 2010 when the GC take all the picks.

 

[dominguez]

There are no P.P's in 2010 when the GC take all the picks.

Link?

 

[Barnzy]

Link?

2010 National Draft

9x 1st round picks - 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 (all priority picks suspended) and the first pick of every other round (i.e. pick 26 and 43)
Ability to sign a upto 16 uncontracted players from all 16 other AFL clubs in 2010 (AFL clubs losing players will be compensated with future draft pick per AFL formula determining player value)

 

[dominguez]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

 

[estibador]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

I tried to tell you guys that the other day. Nobody ever bloody listens to me around here.

 

[Barnzy]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

Neither was I until the other day. I saw it on another footy forum, he said it was a link from the GC website. It will eliminate almost all forms of tanking next year but probably is the reason why this year is going to get very, very ugly because clubs will want the P.P and the best picks they can possibly get before it's too late.

 

[kp junior]

There's going to be the all time greatest tank off this year, with 5 or 6 teams all having a crack at 16th. Carlton may yet change tack and join the race for Scully

 

[dominguez]

Neither was I until the other day. I saw it on another footy forum, he said it was a link from the GC website. It will eliminate almost all forms of tanking next year but probably is the reason why this year is going to get very, very ugly because clubs will want the P.P and the best picks they can possibly get before it's too late.

Clubs have the option of "banking" the pick they get for losing a player to GC for up to 3 years. Maybe PP will be allocated next season but they'll be banked?

If there are no PP's in 2010 then that should be the end of them. Otherwise the AFL are essentially saying "If you win less than 4.5 games you get a priority selection. Unless ofcourse it clashes with GC entering the comp." What a load of bollocks.

 

[dominguez]

I tried to tell you guys that the other day. Nobody ever bloody listens to me around here.

Sorry Esti, I don't recall reading your post. If I did I would have believed you.

 

[Nodgey]

Funny how the draft and PPs and removal of zones etc. have all been implemented to even up the competition...

And most people seem to agree that the comp is now more even than ever. "What a great comp we have" blah blah blah "any team can beat any other team on any given day" yadda yadda yadda.

Yet despite all this, we have 2 teams who look very much like they will win less than 5 games in a year 2 years in a row and end up with a first round Priority Pick.

And there's something just a little bit fishy about that if you ask me.


In the industry where I work, the issue of conflict of interest is important. And it's not just the case of a conflict existing, but whether one could exist.

Whether tanking occurs or not is debateable, and we all have our views on that. But it is time that the AFL did something to at least remove the perception that tanking occurs. And IMHO the best way to do that is to remove the PP all together.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

I think there needs to be a PP, but it shouldn't be that high up. Maybe after the first 8 or first 16 picks.

 

[Side Bet]

Funny how the draft and PPs and removal of zones etc. have all been implemented to even up the competition...

And most people seem to agree that the comp is now more even than ever. "What a great comp we have" blah blah blah "any team can beat any other team on any given day" yadda yadda yadda.

Yet despite all this, we have 2 teams who look very much like they will win less than 5 games in a year 2 years in a row and end up with a first round Priority Pick.

And there's something just a little bit fishy about that if you ask me.


In the industry where I work, the issue of conflict of interest is important. And it's not just the case of a conflict existing, but whether one could exist.

Whether tanking occurs or not is debateable, and we all have our views on that. But it is time that the AFL did something to at least remove the perception that tanking occurs. And IMHO the best way to do that is to remove the PP all together.

Same story with me work too mate - it's a joke. What is worse is that all the other agendas out there make it more of a mess. Just look at Woosh safely signed up for 2 years... if they don't win one more it may result in a case of a club bringing the game into disrepute.