Priority Picks fair?

[MarkT]

Originally posted by kahuna71
Matt McGuire - Pick 21, anyone could have picked him but didn't.
Leigh Fisher - Pick 46, no star yet but is getting a game every week with the saints and contributing well.
Nick Dal Santo - Pick 12 and a superstar. 11 other teams could have picked him.

And many, many more. There are very low numbered duds and very high numbered superstars. If you have early picks it only means you have the choice. What you do with it is up to you, and many choices turn out to be wasted.

Ok so about this house swap then...

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by kahuna71
no, but it's a fairly safe bloody bet. clown, what world are you living in?

I would guess he's living in one near yours. Safe bet like pick 1 & 2 being better than pick 17? I know which bet I think is safer.

 

[kahuna71]

you got foxtel?

 

[Deej]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
The world has changed in 50 years Deej. We have a lot more egotistical Millionaires than we did 50 years ago (no offence intended).

Put your thinking cap on for a moment. If we went to open competition as you suggest, what would prevent a small number of clubs from pushing player salaries to levels the others couldn’t maintain? The result? Some clubs would over extend trying to make the grade and eventually fold, or others would resign themselves playing with lesser talent and less resources. Not an attractive prospect for all other than a small group of clubs.

“scaremongering” – Deej, you vote liberal don’t you?

I don't vote (i'm not and never have registered) but if i did vote i'd vote greens cause that's what's best for the world.

As for the AFL, i've said before i could live with a salary cap if it meant clubs wouldn't go under trying to match it with the big boys. That would eliminate your money problem thing and no draft would eliminate my problem with being constricted. I don't even mind rookies having a compulsory standard 2yr intial contract. I just want to be able to have a crack at everyone on a level footing.

 

[kahuna71]

Originally posted by MarkT
I would guess he's living in one near yours. Safe bet like pick 1 & 2 being better than pick 17? I know which bet I think is safer.

safER bet, but no guarantee. look at Fraser...

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by kahuna71
safER bet, but no guarantee. look at Fraser...

No problem with Fraser thanks but it's irrelevant. Whether or not he is the best of that draft is debatable. What isn't debatable is that he is ONE of the better players from that draft and picks 17 or so are not likely to net a player as valuable. Sure they can but how often do they?

 

[kahuna71]

Originally posted by Deej
I don't vote (i'm not and never have registered) but if i did vote i'd vote greens cause that's what's best for the world.

As for the AFL, i've said before i could live with a salary cap if it meant clubs wouldn't go under trying to match it with the big boys. That would eliminate your money problem thing and no draft would eliminate my problem with being constricted. I don't even mind rookies having a compulsory standard 2yr intial contract. I just want to be able to have a crack at everyone on a level footing.

finally some sense. could have said that without bagging st kilda for playing by the rules, telling us you're a millionaire, telling single mothers with seven kids that they can own a mercedes if they 'choose' and the other sixteen reams of drivel.

I don't agree, but it's not bad.

 

[kahuna71]

Originally posted by MarkT
No problem with Fraser thanks but it's irrelevant. Whether or not he is the best of that draft is debatable. What isn't debatable is that he is ONE of the better players from that draft and picks 17 or so are not likely to net a player as valuable. Sure they can but how often do they?

I don't know, and that's research that I'm not prepared to do! My point sticks without facts (and it's your's too from the other end).

and only joshing about fraser

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by MarkT
Lots of things happened in the 80's inside and outside of football. It was the era for over the top ambitions beyond means. Private ownership is another matter though and IMO it is the beginning of the end and shouldn;t be contemplated. If someone bought Collingwood they'd have it without me.

Agree, but ambitions beyond means is not limited to the 80's.

Ultimately it didn't happen - the AFL prospered in a difficult time. The only club that went broke did so without ever going on a spending spree.

Ultimately, why didn't it happen and why did the competition prosper? The commision - despite the obvious self interest. The salary cap and draft were fundamentals to the success. Fitzroy died principly because the cost of operating a club was more than the revenue they could generate. Melbourne are in a similar position now.

In end though, I don't think clubs should be completely protected from themselves. That's a view not amny probably share but nonetheless it's mine. It's really relevant to salary cap issue though and not PP's or even draft issues. If you had open slather but with a salary cap I can;t see how the spending issue and the rich v poor is any different to what it is now. They are seperate issues.

They are not completely protected. Clubs could still fold and directors aren't protected from creditors.

The salary cap and draft are both relevant. Different issues but they are both designed to spread the talent evenly.

I can understand the arguement that he P/P is too much help to a club, as was the premise of this thread (getting back to the topic), but to attribute any success clubs receiving these attain, is way too simplistic. Tim Watson could have had the squad we had today, and I'd bet the house he wouldn't get us playing the way we are now, let alone in the finals.

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by Deej
I don't vote (i'm not and never have registered) but if i did vote i'd vote greens cause that's what's best for the world.

LOL - they'd kick you out quick smart if you expressed some of your philosophies.

As for the AFL, i've said before i could live with a salary cap if it meant clubs wouldn't go under trying to match it with the big boys. That would eliminate your money problem thing and no draft would eliminate my problem with being constricted. I don't even mind rookies having a compulsory standard 2yr intial contract. I just want to be able to have a crack at everyone on a level footing.

Wouldn't have a problem either if all clubs paid exactly the same amount. All 100%. No concessions, no 92.5%

 

[Deej]

Originally posted by kahuna71
finally some sense. could have said that without bagging st kilda for playing by the rules, telling us you're a millionaire, telling single mothers with seven kids that they can own a mercedes if they 'choose' and the other sixteen reams of drivel.

I don't agree, but it's not bad.

If i bagged stkilda it wasn't for playing by the rules as you say i did. You HAVE received handouts through draft benefits, handouts under my definition anyway. It is not stkilda's fault, it is the system, i never said otherwise - go read my posts, all of em, i'm thoroughly consistent on my stance and it was (amongst others) you who rubbed me up the wrong way in your blind defensiveness of your club. If you actually bothered to read my posts and think for a second you'd see a consistent stance on this issue from my direction, and it aint inspired by a pro-carlton agenda.

And anyone in this world can do anything they want to, people are always responsible for their own actions and can determine their own destiny. Money does not rule everything.

 

[FuManchu]

Priority pick, I'm all for them this year, wouldn't mind being able to pay 115% of the salary cap either.

 

[Port01]

Originally posted by kahuna71
Nick Dal Santo - Pick 12 and a superstar. 11 other teams could have picked him

2 of those picks before him were St Kilda's also. Was drafting Xavier Clarke or Luke Ball before him a mistake?

Brian Harris was pick 71 that draft and is playing very well in a below average side. Now there is a smoky. Pick 12 is before half the better teams have even had a go.

 

[MarkT]

I'll say one thing for Deej, he has been consistent with his views on these issues and that is in spite of the fact Carlton are a PP and early draft pick candidate.

 

[Joffaboy]

What I have established by reading the past 6 pages is

a) Deej has received handouts in his life
b) Deej slammed the Saints then said he didn't
c) Deej doesn't want a draft or SC, then wanted a SC
d) Deej didn't care if clubs fold then said he didn't mind if they stuck around as long as they didn't try to compete.

Doesn't sound too consistant to me MarkT, but then again thats just my opinion.

Seems as though the traditionally lesser clubs like the Saints, Roos, Bulldogs, Cars etc can stay in the Deej brave new world, as long as they know their place, which of course is to be an easy four points during the H&A and never, never, be pretentious enough to even harbour thoughts of competing with the born to rule Carlton and their obviously superior supporters.

Well sorry Deej, your brave world almost wrecked the league in the mid 80's, the clubs brought in the AFL commission so as to by pass destructive and selfish views like yours.

A couple of points.

1) AFL was set up for the benefit of Australian Rules not just the "big" four in Melbourne.Their brief was to expand the game and maximise revenue. They have been spectacularily successful in both.
2) With this in mind the AFL has decide profit maximisation will be best suited by 16 clubs in the AFL.
3) The way to keep these 16 club viable is to make sure the playing lists are evenly spread, this increases revenue and interest in the code Australia wide (not just in Lygon St.) 16 teams means profit maximisation through broadcast rights.
4) If it was open slather in the AFL the following would occur.

At least 5 clubs in Melbourne would fold. This equates to about 100,000 paid up members so there is $13 million dollars straight out of the system. Add another $3.5 mill for loss of mercandise.

If we assume only 10% of supporters are members, this means up to one million AFL supporters would be lost to the game.

Broadcast rights would shrink, and costs would rise. But hey thats what Deej wants, because these lesser clubs and their pesky supporters want success.

5) I am sick of people like Deej who whine and post that the only reason we have any success is because of handouts. This is so simplistic on so many levels. It completely ignores trading, it completely ignores making decisions that are for long term (eg Ball being allowed to sit out the first year). It ignores the incredible work the administration has done to ensure that the finances of the club have been turned around, it ignores that membership has increased over 10,000 in two years, and we have the highest ave attendance of any club in the league.

It is because the owner of these opinions obviously believes that nobody else except the superior humans at Carlton can manage a football club. Well it has been proven that this is patently not the case, the born to rule mob at Princess Park with their incredible sense of entitlement have cocked up big time in the past few years.
However this is passed off as an AFL conspirarcy to wreck the Carlton brand, it couldn't possible be because the CFC admin completely f***ed up. On the other hand STKFC area rabble and pathetic and could not ever possibly get their act together, they only got it because of handouts, no hard work, no changing attitude, no building the list and its mindset from scratch, oh no the AFL in its never ending quest to create conspirarcies has just given it to them.

Well bad luck, this, just like everything except for that 2 hours once a week when the team you support plays, is a sideshow.

If we ever manage to snag a flag with this list, do you think I, or JeffDunne or Fred, or Fireman or any other Sainst fan will give a toss what the likes of you lot think?

If you do, well i have news for you.

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Port01
2 of those picks before him were St Kilda's also. Was drafting Xavier Clarke or Luke Ball before him a mistake?

Brian Harris was pick 71 that draft and is playing very well in a below average side. Now there is a smoky. Pick 12 is before half the better teams have even had a go.

any team could have traded their star forward for his pick.

 

[Cat In A Hat]

In the same period since 1998 Geelong has drafted from bad picks. Geelong has been middle of the ladder never being complete right offs but never being flag contenders yet seems to be stung by St Kilda etc. Geelong except for 2000 has not traded picks and infact has had more first round picks than years due to trading players for picks yet havent had a pick under 7 yet have had to rely on some good draft ling (#38 1999), Enright (#47 1999), Kingsley (for Draft pick 40), Mooney (as part of the Colbert Deal), McCarthy (#69 2001), Tenace (a lucky pick #8 2003) and Mackie (#7 2002 - a smokie).

1999

Own Draft Picks
8: Joel Corey
17: Ezra Bray
23: Daniel Foster
38: Cameron Ling

For Leigh Colber

15: David Spriggs
47: Corey Enright
Trade: Cameron Mooeny

For Michael Mansfield
31: Paul Chapman


2000

1st Round traded for Justin Murphy in dud draft
2nd Round traded for Mitchell White in dud draft
44: Josh Hunt
Trade: Kent Kingsley

2001

Own Draft Picks
8: James Bartel
24: Steve Johnson
40: Gary Ablett Junior
69: Matt McCarthy
81: David Johnson

For Clint Bizzell
17: James Kelly
41: Henry Playfair

For Justin Murphy
23: Charlie Gardiner

2002
7: Andrew Mackie
23: Tom Lonergan
36: Tim Callan
Elevated: Jarad Rooke
Trade: Ben Finnin

2003
8: Kane Tenace
22: Cameron Thurley
38: Mark Blake
42: Matthew Spencer


Kosi, Ball Reiwoldt and Goddard would certainly help and please St Kilda dont hesitate to give us all of them or even one..

 

[GeeCat]

Originally posted by Cat In A Hat
2000

1st Round traded for Justin Murphy in dud draft
2nd Round traded for Mitchell White in dud draft
44: Josh Hunt
Trade: Kent Kingsley

Don't try to cover up the fact that we traded poorly in that year by stating it was dud draft. Instead of Murphy or White we could have picked up a Drew Petrie, Graham Johncock, Adam McPhee, Jamie Charman, Richard Hadley, Mark Coughlan, or Daniel Kerr. Accept it and move on.

 

[Blue Boyz]

Originally posted by Fred
You obviously forget how North got their first flag.

Money.

Good point Fred but make that TWO North flags, '75 and '77, plus a place in every GF between '74 to '78, all bought straight from the cheque book!!!!!!

 

[1jasonoz]

Originally posted by Blue Boyz
Good point Fred but make that TWO North flags, '75 and '77, plus a place in every GF between '74 to '78, all bought straight from the cheque book!!!!!!

Yes we got 3 good players under the 10 year rule; Doug Wade, John Rantall and Barry Davis. All of whom where right at the end of their respective careers, ala Carey. Also all 3 where no longer at the club when we won it again in 1977. What we did have was some excellent players already at the club, plus the ones the club recruited like all other clubs did; David Dench, Keith Greig(won 2 Brownlows), Schima(300+ gamer), Barry Cable, Malcom Blight, Sam Keckovich, Brent Croswell, John Burns, Arnold Briedis, Phil Baker, Peter Keenan, Xavier Tanner etc. The list goe's on. North had the core of a very good side when the 3 players where recruited under the 10 year rule, but the thing which really helped us to be successful, was one Ronald Dale Barrassi.

 

[Third Ring]

Originally posted by skipper kelly
What kind of handouts are you referring to in relation to te beach people?

welfare

 

[Deej]

Joffa this post is just as bad as anything pugsville has ever produced on www.voy.com/52178/ absolutely full of mistruths and misrepresentations of what i have said and what my stance is. I will reply to a few things but not all.

Originally posted by Joffaboy
What I have established by reading the past 6 pages is

a) Deej has received handouts in his life

Not since i took control of my own life and choices i haven't joffaboy but if you want to count me going to primary school as an example of me being a handout recipient then by all means go for it.

Originally posted by Joffaboy
b) Deej slammed the Saints then said he didn't

I slammed them but not for the reasons you lot are saying, that's what i wrote, scroll back and re-read it for yourself. Do you actually care about being acurate before you try to shoot down my views?

Originally posted by Joffaboy
c) Deej doesn't want a draft or SC, then wanted a SC

I've always been consistent that i'd be ok with a salary cap in the interests of keeping lesser clubs in business. Again, go back and re-read my posts.

Originally posted by Joffaboy
d) Deej didn't care if clubs fold then said he didn't mind if they stuck around as long as they didn't try to compete.

Have no idea where you pulled this one, a complete fabrication.

Originally posted by Joffaboy
Seems as though the traditionally lesser clubs like the Saints, Roos, Bulldogs, Cars etc can stay in the Deej brave new world, as long as they know their place, which of course is to be an easy four points during the H&A and never, never, be pretentious enough to even harbour thoughts of competing with the born to rule Carlton and their obviously superior supporters.

If you are a better run club than us in an open competition you will beat us fair and square.

Originally posted by Joffaboy
At least 5 clubs in Melbourne would fold. This equates to about 100,000 paid up members so there is $13 million dollars straight out of the system. Add another $3.5 mill for loss of mercandise.

Ooooooo scarey doom and gloom prophecist!

What proof do you have that this would happen? Any precedents or are we just trotting out afl propoganda again?

Originally posted by Joffaboy
If we assume only 10% of supporters are members, this means up to one million AFL supporters would be lost to the game.

Broadcast rights would shrink, and costs would rise. But hey thats what Deej wants, because these lesser clubs and their pesky supporters want success.

Funny, I didn't notice that I had ever had this view, that this is what i WANTED. Can you please post a link?

Originally posted by Joffaboy
5) I am sick of people like Deej who whine and post that the only reason we have any success is because of handouts. This is so simplistic on so many levels. It completely ignores trading, it completely ignores making decisions that are for long term

Did you even read one of my posts in any entirity or are you just living in defensiveville?

It is a major factor, not the only factor. I said that before too but you obviously missed it.

 

[Blue Boyz]

Originally posted by 1jasonoz
Yes we got 3 good players under the 10 year rule; Doug Wade, John Rantall and Barry Davis. All of whom where right at the end of their respective careers, ala Carey. Also all 3 where no longer at the club when we won it again in 1977. What we did have was some excellent players already at the club, plus the ones the club recruited like all other clubs did; David Dench, Keith Greig(won 2 Brownlows), Schima(300+ gamer), Barry Cable, Malcom Blight, Sam Keckovich, Brent Croswell, John Burns, Arnold Briedis, Phil Baker, Peter Keenan, Xavier Tanner etc. The list goe's on. North had the core of a very good side when the 3 players where recruited under the 10 year rule, but the thing which really helped us to be successful, was one Ronald Dale Barrassi.

True North recruited very well from their Melbourne suburban and country zones but the reality is club's administration led capablely by Allen Aylett, Ron Joesph, Barry Cheatley and Albert Mantello were definitely on the front foot with cheque book and recruited many many top class players from interstate with Blight, Cable, Burns, Graham Melrose, Richard Mikelceck (spelling??), Ray Huppartz, Russel Ebert and Graham Cornes to name just a few.

Not to mentioned recruiting (poaching?) Crosswell, Kennan, Johnny Cassin and Garry Dempsey etc from other VFL clubs. True they didn't all play in flag teams but North were not against using cheque book recruiting when it they wanted to prolong their time at the top after being cellar dwellars for all of the 60's and early 70's. Money was the only way they could go up.

As for recruiting Wade, Davis and Rantall under the short lived10 year rule,
there was certainly plenty of interest from other league clubs for their services but North offered too much cash for them to say no.

The reason I mention all this is that hear some much crap from younger, ill informed or ignorant Big Footy fans that Carlton "bought all their flags" where as all other clubs got their's legitmately. Footy fans from the '70's and 80's would well remember that Collingwood tried for years to buy a flag and were unsuccessful, Richmond had an enormous amount of bought and poached players in early 70's teams, just to a couple of other clubs not adverst to cheque book recruiting.

You raise some valid points in argument Jazon, all I am doing is attempting to introduce a bit of historical balance into the argument.

 

[skywalk750]

The Draft

#1 - 9th on Ladder
#2 - 16th "
#3 - 10th "
#4 - 15th "
#5 - 11th
#6 - 14th
#7 - 12th
#8 - 13th
#9 - 8th
#10 - 7th
#11 - 6th
#12 - 5th

- so on

Wouldnt this be a much fairer draft process? Try to fail and you will be punished like the pathetic scum you are, fight valiantly like the Kangas ect and you will get the first pick for just missing out.

 

[skipper kelly]

Originally posted by skywalk750
The Draft

#1 - 9th on Ladder
#2 - 16th "
#3 - 10th "
#4 - 15th "
#5 - 11th
#6 - 14th
#7 - 12th
#8 - 13th
#9 - 8th
#10 - 7th
#11 - 6th
#12 - 5th

- so on

Wouldnt this be a much fairer draft process? Try to fail and you will be punished like the pathetic scum you are, fight valiantly like the Kangas ect and you will get the first pick for just missing out.

no.