Steve Hocking Gone

[PhatBoy]

Got a question for the masses.

If Richmond was called Geelong, and they had won 17,19 and 2020, how many rules do you reckon Steve Hocking would have changed ?

Probably the exact same amount.

given that Richmond succeeding is actually a huge thing for the AFL and their coffers, I doubt anyone would just change the rules ‘because it’s Richmond.’

 

[blaisee]

Steve Hocking is exhibit A as to why the AFL is a joke and basically run like a country club.

Michael Warner is right, just a big old boys club, where the elites look after each other and suck from the teat of the masses, the masses being the cash cows, you and me.

 

[PhatBoy]

Steve Hocking is exhibit A as to why the AFL is a joke and basically run like a country club.

Michael Warner is right, just a big old boys club, where the elites look after each other and suck from the teat of the masses, the masses being the cash cows, you and me.

I agree without you about the boys club. Don’t have a problem with that at all.

but if they were just about sucking from the teat of the masses they would just maintain the status quo. Rule changes or not, Hocking or whoever else is still going to get paid an exhorbitant amount to do the job.

whether you agree with his changes or not - and even I as a non conspiracy theorist don’t agree with every decision he made in the role - you’d be hard pressed to say he wasn’t proactive about making changes

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

Probably the exact same amount.

given that Richmond succeeding is actually a huge thing for the AFL and their coffers, I doubt anyone would just change the rules ‘because it’s Richmond.’

I am confident he would NOT have thought the look of the game was needing changing, and possibly distupting the Geelong team strategy, if the teams were reversed.

 

[PhatBoy]

I am confident he would NOT have thought the look of the game was needing changing, and possibly distupting the Geelong team strategy, if the teams were reversed.

Im confident he would have

 

[PetterdHoisted]

I am confident he would NOT have thought the look of the game was needing changing, and possibly distupting the Geelong team strategy, if the teams were reversed.

How long ago was Hocking tapped up for the Geelong role?

How long ago did he know he was going to be tapped on the shoulder by AFLHQ?

The answer would strongly depend on that.

But there is just no transparency whatsoever.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Probably the exact same amount.

given that Richmond succeeding is actually a huge thing for the AFL and their coffers, I doubt anyone would just change the rules ‘because it’s Richmond.’

The AFL has acted against our interests in all sorts of ways, not just the rules. Look at the way they've jerked us around the calendar this year - most 6-day breaks of any club, most long breaks of any club, a single 7-day break, no chance to settle into a rhythm or find form. Pretty ordinary for the supporters, too.

Put simply, the AFL is afraid of Richmond growing too large and powerful. Our president said as much at a recent AGM (2018? 2019?). They like their mid-sized clubs and minnows dependent on the AFL tit.

 

[PhatBoy]

The AFL has acted against our interests in all sorts of ways, not just the rules. Look at the way they've jerked us around the calendar this year - most 6-day breaks of any club, most long breaks of any club, a single 7-day break, no chance to settle into a rhythm or find form. Pretty ordinary for the supporters, too.

Put simply, the AFL is afraid of Richmond growing too large and powerful. Our president said as much at a recent AGM (2018? 2019?). They like their mid-sized clubs and minnows dependent on the AFL tit.

Yeah that’s obvious, the way they look after Collingwood is proof of that. Mediocre little old Collingwood.

oh well if the RICHMOND president said it, that’s as good as gospel straight from Gil’s mouth. Why would the Richmond president have any leaning one way or the other when speaking about Richmond.

so you are treated poorly because you don’t have enough time between games and that’s compounded by having heaps of time off between games. Yes I suppose with four days of football per week they should just schedule every team on the same day each week so that every Thursday we get the exact same match up 23 weeks in a row

 

[PhatBoy]

Cats scheduling in terms of days between games:


6
10
6
7
6
7
6
7
8
7
12
8
6
8
8

It has taken literally until this weekend for us to have the same gap between games back to back.

ive heard some odd gripes before but this is something altogether new

 

[Jezzaubeautym8]

Steve Hocking is exhibit A as to why the AFL is a joke and basically run like a country club.

Michael Warner is right, just a big old boys club, where the elites look after each other and suck from the teat of the masses, the masses being the cash cows, you and me.

So I guess this means Hocking did a great job

 

[Ron The Bear]

so you are treated poorly because you don’t have enough time between games and that’s compounded by having heaps of time off between games.

That's just a small thing. The AFL snubbed us for a redevelopment grant while giving shitloads to other clubs (notably Collingwood). They knocked us back repeatedly for an AFLW team.

You know what suits are like, they don't spell it out like "The AFL is scared of us". It was something like "concerned at Richmond's growth" and "we've learned not to rely on the AFL for any favours". It was obvious the belief at a very well-run club was that the AFL wasn't a partner we could trust.

Could throw in the free kick differential as well.

Club	2018	2019	2020	2021
Adel	+48	+73	+23	+25
Bris	+26	-3	+10	-10
Carl	+7	-46	-9	+21
Coll	+110	+89	+72	-11
Ess	-24	-10	-49	-8
Frem	-42	+17	+41	-14
Geel	+4	+25	-41	+11
G.C.	-45	+55	-11	-15
GWS	-53	-102	-21	+25
Haw	+2	-43	-70	-12
Melb	-8	-26	0	+16
N.M.	+85	+6	+42	+20
P.A.	-27	-4	+51	-5
Rich	-122	-30	-70	-68
St.K	-53	-34	-8	-22
Syd	-33	-59	+9	-13
W.C.	+81	+5	+17	+9
W.B.	+48	+91	+14	+53

Supporters have been well aware of all these things and a dozen others besides, but hey, winners are grinners. Throw in the Brandon Ellis compo stitch-up, the AFL manoeuvering of sponsors to other clubs, the scuttling of a game in India etc etc.

On the other hand I'm pretty sure the AFL was pleased to see us break through in 2017. One Richmond premiership was enough, however.

 

[PhatBoy]

That's just a small thing. The AFL snubbed us for a redevelopment grant while giving shitloads to other clubs (notably Collingwood). They knocked us back repeatedly for an AFLW team.

You know what suits are like, they don't spell it out like "The AFL is scared of us". It was something like "concerned at Richmond's growth" and "we've learned not to rely on the AFL for any favours". It was obvious the belief at a very well-run club was that the AFL wasn't a partner we could trust.

Could throw in the free kick differential as well.

Club	2018	2019	2020	2021
Adel	+48	+73	+23	+25
Bris	+26	-3	+10	-10
Carl	+7	-46	-9	+21
Coll	+110	+89	+72	-11
Ess	-24	-10	-49	-8
Frem	-42	+17	+41	-14
Geel	+4	+25	-41	+11
G.C.	-45	+55	-11	-15
GWS	-53	-102	-21	+25
Haw	+2	-43	-70	-12
Melb	-8	-26	0	+16
N.M.	+85	+6	+42	+20
P.A.	-27	-4	+51	-5
Rich	-122	-30	-70	-68
St.K	-53	-34	-8	-22
Syd	-33	-59	+9	-13
W.C.	+81	+5	+17	+9
W.B.	+48	+91	+14	+53

Supporters have been well aware of all these things and a dozen others besides, but hey, winners are grinners. Throw in the Brandon Ellis compo stitch-up, the AFL manoeuvering of sponsors to other clubs, the scuttling of a game in India etc etc.

On the other hand I'm pretty sure the AFL was pleased to see us break through in 2017. One Richmond premiership was enough, however.

So the assertion that the AFL doesn’t like rich powerful clubs is backed by Collingwood and Adelaide being among the most rewarded by free kicks, west coast are always in the positive as well.

 

[Ron The Bear]

So the assertion that the AFL doesn’t like rich powerful clubs is backed by Collingwood and Adelaide being among the most rewarded by free kicks, west coast are always in the positive as well.

I don't really care what other clubs are getting as long we're treated objectively.

 

[PhatBoy]

I don't really care what other clubs are getting as long we're treated objectively.

Well why make a baseless claim to back your comments when it appears it simply isn’t true

 

[Ron The Bear]

Well why make a baseless claim to back your comments when it appears it simply isn’t true

No club wants to cross swords with the AFL and get stabbed like Sydney did over Franklin.

The only thing I have that the AFL cares about is my patronage, and it's been withdrawn.

 

[blaisee]

I agree without you about the boys club. Don’t have a problem with that at all.

but if they were just about sucking from the teat of the masses they would just maintain the status quo. Rule changes or not, Hocking or whoever else is still going to get paid an exhorbitant amount to do the job.

whether you agree with his changes or not - and even I as a non conspiracy theorist don’t agree with every decision he made in the role - you’d be hard pressed to say he wasn’t proactive about making changes

If you mean pro active in making the game worse, then I agree 100%

 

[master bate]

I've seen some odd things in my time on here but Richmond being the victims of Steve Hocking whilst winning 3 of 4 flags might take the cake.

The bloke tried to open games up. Richmond played great attacking footy but were as stout defensively as anyone and watching teams being unable to move the ball against bad teams yet alone Richmond wasn't good for footy. The same rules that opened it up for everyone has also opened it up for Richmond when they've been healthy and on this year. As if that's hurt the Tigers.

Hocking has 3 big legacies:

1. Had a real go at trying to end congestion. Didn't succeed but he's given us something to work with.

2. Tried to prevent concussions with suspensions. Again, had a go.

3. Was part of the team that saw the game through 2020 and deserves praise for that.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I've seen some odd things in my time on here but Richmond being the victims of Steve Hocking whilst winning 3 of 4 flags might take the cake.

Not sure if anyone's actually interested enough to read these links or whether they just want to poo-poo the allegations without considering them.

Which team will be impacted most by 6-6-6 setup?

It's all well and good to laugh at Richmond when they're getting pipped on the line and they cop e.g. Paul Roos' "worst 47 seconds in football", and it also seems we're fair game to be torn down when we do get it right.

The AFL can **** off.

 

[PhatBoy]

Not sure if anyone's actually interested enough to read these links or whether they just want to poo-poo the allegations without considering them.

Which team will be impacted most by 6-6-6 setup?

It's all well and good to laugh at Richmond when they're getting pipped on the line and they cop e.g. Paul Roos' "worst 47 seconds in football", and it also seems we're fair game to be torn down when we do get it right.

The AFL can fu** off.

So in summary:

a rule that was brought in when Richmond were not the premier, negatively effected them the most, which was manifested by them winning the only two completed competitions since it was introduced, and was deliberately brought in as part of an anti Richmond push…… because the AFL were scared of the reigning preliminary finalists becoming bigger than the game

 

[Freshwater]

Steve Hocking gone. Good.

 

[Grin]

Probably the exact same amount.

given that Richmond succeeding is actually a huge thing for the AFL and their coffers, I doubt anyone would just change the rules ‘because it’s Richmond.’

Richmond's growth trajectory didn't much with success. Gillon McLaughlan and his mates can continue to stuff their pockets with cash gleaned from Richmonds loyal support base, Success or no. Geelong on the other hand needs to remain successful. Their fans are infamous for jumping off the bandwagon at the mere hint of a challenge.

I've seen some odd things in my time on here but Richmond being the victims of Steve Hocking whilst winning 3 of 4 flags might take the cake.

The bloke tried to open games up. Richmond played great attacking footy but were as stout defensively as anyone and watching teams being unable to move the ball against bad teams yet alone Richmond wasn't good for footy. The same rules that opened it up for everyone has also opened it up for Richmond when they've been healthy and on this year. As if that's hurt the Tigers.

Hocking has 3 big legacies:

1. Had a real go at trying to end congestion. Didn't succeed but he's given us something to work with.

2. Tried to prevent concussions with suspensions. Again, had a go.

3. Was part of the team that saw the game through 2020 and deserves praise for that.

So he was an abject failure at the first 2 and had precisely nothing to do with the third. Didn't even take a pay cut (not that anyone at AFL House would let the interests of the game stand between them and the millions they plunder from it)
So why do the mouth pieces of the AFL (whom you so dutifully ape) see him as such a great success?

 

[Grin]

So in summary:

a rule that was brought in when Richmond were not the premier, negatively effected them the most, which was manifested by them winning the only two completed competitions since it was introduced, and was deliberately brought in as part of an anti Richmond push…… because the AFL were scared of the reigning preliminary finalists becoming bigger than the game

Hang on. A few posts ago you were arguing that the rules were changed to counter the game that Richmond personified. You contradict yourself depending on whatever narrative you're pushing at any given moment.

But let's talk facts. Richmond won the premiership in 2017 and the minor premiership in 2018 and looked like they were on the verge of becoming a dominant team for years to come. History proved that correct.
These rules were brought in after the 2018 and 2020 seasons.
Your attempt to make an argument based on trying to misrepresent the reality at the time doesn't strengthen your argument. On the contrary. That you feel the need mislead and misrepresent the facts demonstrates how weak your position is.

That aside, use basic common sense. Look at what the rule changes were trying to achieve. Look at what sort of game plans they were designed to counter. Try and think for yourself. You don't always have to blindly follow the AFL narrative, pushed by their mouth pieces in the media.

 

[PhatBoy]

Richmond's growth trajectory didn't much with success. Gillon McLaughlan and his mates can continue to stuff their pockets with cash gleaned from Richmonds loyal support base, Success or no. Geelong on the other hand needs to remain successful. Their fans are infamous for jumping off the bandwagon at the mere hint of a challenge.



So he was an abject failure at the first 2 and had precisely nothing to do with the third. Didn't even take a pay cut (not that anyone at AFL House would let the interests of the game stand between them and the millions they plunder from it)
So why do the mouth pieces of the AFL (whom you so dutifully ape) see him as such a great success?

Yeah the absolute definition of a mid tier club who for 33 seasons has never won less than 7 games in a season (and even a seven win season happened once) and has only once gone more than 2 seasons without playing finals (we missed 3 years at one point) had really fluctuated a lot and it was a desperate time for the AFL financial department during that barren spell at the bottom of the ladder…..


why do you call me a mouthpiece of the AFL when, if you actually shake the rage from your eyelids, you will see that aside from calling Hocking proactive, I have not complimented him once on the actual job he did?

 

[PhatBoy]

Hang on. A few posts ago you were arguing that the rules were changed to counter the game that Richmond personified. You contradict yourself depending on whatever narrative you're pushing at any given moment.

But let's talk facts. Richmond won the premiership in 2017 and the minor premiership in 2018 and looked like they were on the verge of becoming a dominant team for years to come. History proved that correct.
These rules were brought in after the 2018 and 2020 seasons.
Your attempt to make an argument based on trying to misrepresent the reality at the time doesn't strengthen your argument. On the contrary. That you feel the need mislead and misrepresent the facts demonstrates how weak your position is.

That aside, use basic common sense. Look at what the rule changes were trying to achieve. Look at what sort of game plans they were designed to counter. Try and think for yourself. You don't always have to blindly follow the AFL narrative, pushed by their mouth pieces in the media.

The stand rule yes. The 6-6-6 rule to me is just a common sense way of trying to get clusters away from the ball, something that every team was doing to some degree anyway

But **** it, I’m sick of this stupid argument. You guys win.

everythung is about stopping Richmond, no decision in the last three years has been done with any motivation other than to spite richmond, none of the rules were designed to try and improve the game or the aesthetic, they were all
Bought in because the AFL has this massive anti richmond task force that they funnel 90 per cent of their revenue to, because back in the day Paul Bulliss probably nailed a close relative of Gil McLachlan’s.

happy?

 

[Grin]

The stand rule yes. The 6-6-6 rule to me is just a common sense way of trying to get clusters away from the ball, something that every team was doing to some degree anyway

But fu** it, I’m sick of this stupid argument. You guys win.

everythung is about stopping Richmond, no decision in the last three years has been done with any motivation other than to spite richmond, none of the rules were designed to try and improve the game or the aesthetic, they were all
Bought in because the AFL has this massive anti richmond task force that they funnel 90 per cent of their revenue to, because back in the day Paul Bulliss probably nailed a close relative of Gil McLachlan’s.

happy?

Mildly bemused by your pathetic response. Blurting some straw man argument (no decision in the last three years has been done with any motivation other than to spite richmond) and storming away in a huff because you've been out reasoned with basic facts and fairly straightforward observations.
You constantly shift your your position, mislead and make dishonest statements, then sulk like a spoilt brat when your flawed arguments are so easily countered.