The Bulldogs and Umpires: Time for a Royal Commission?

Remove this Banner Ad

danster168

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2016
1,910
1,936
AFL Club
Melbourne
A priority pick is dependent on a team's current performance. Non applicable statem

Stop coming up with narratives to suit you agenda. They're getting sillier as you keep going. If you want to discuss Jamarra and the NGA rules, make your own thread. It's irrelevant in this discussion.

Father sons are also irrelevant to this discussion.
How is the NGA irrelevant to this thread? It's one if the most relevant points to my whole case of their being corruption for the dogs. They changed the rules after the dogs picked Hagan. Why did they do this? Because the AFL recognised it was unfair.
so they knew it was unfair a year before the draft but waited a year to compromise the competition like never before and grant a good team the number 1 pick. But of course you'll say 'oh, its just luck'. yeah its luck that gift-hagan was NGA but it's not luck at all that the afl waited until after the draft before changing the rules despite knowing the injustice of it 12 months ahead of time.
 

BarryMorgan

Premiership Player
Jan 17, 2013
3,354
6,412
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
You can 100% change the rules a year out. It doesn't need to be 18 months out. They've change rules mid season all the time. Or even later, such as priority pick decisions etc.

It was 100% unnecessary and unfair to wait for an already above avg team get the number 1 draft pick when they didn't deserve it. The obvious thing to do is change the decision before the competition becomes even more unfair. It's already the most compromised draft of any sport in the world. The dogs have been the most gifted with a plethora of father/sons and a number 1 draft pick NGA. who does Melb have? 1. Jack Viney. Other than that, no help from father sons or NGA prospects. That's why any future success by the dogs has a massive asterisk next to it.

The dees at least won their flags from successful tanking due to blatantly cheating. The dogs just get gifted father sons/nga prospects and umpire favouritism.
FTFY.
 

conrad_437

Club Legend
Jun 26, 2016
2,315
4,185
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
How is the NGA irrelevant to this thread? It's one if the most relevant points to my whole case of their being corruption for the dogs. They changed the rules after the dogs picked Hagan. Why did they do this? Because the AFL recognised it was unfair.
so they knew it was unfair a year before the draft but waited a year to compromise the competition like never before and grant a good team the number 1 pick. But of course you'll say 'oh, its just luck'. yeah its luck that gift-hagan was NGA but it's not luck at all that the afl waited until after the draft before changing the rules despite knowing the injustice of it 12 months ahead of time.
And if it were the opposite? Would you be saying that the AFL was favouring Adelaide/North Melbourne in changing the rule mid-year so that the Dogs, who have assisted in the developing of Ugle-Hagan over several years with the proviso that they would have access to him in an open draft, would be screwed? NGA academies have been set up for years with this happening. Thomas, Quaynor, Henry and Lachie Jones to name a couple who were taken in the first round. Jamarra was just the most high-profile case of the NGA academies and how they were flawed, but it would be the reminisce of the AFL to alter the rules mid-year after giving no indication in the past this would be the case, therefore screwing previous drafting and trading that had been undertaken in preparation to land Jamarra. Should we also look into potential AFL corruption with Geelong, only amending the F/S rule after Geelong were able to take the top talent at the time - Tom Hawkins?

Take a look around brother. You're the only one with the tin foil hat on. What does that tell you?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

danster168

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2016
1,910
1,936
AFL Club
Melbourne
And if it were the opposite? Would you be saying that the AFL was favouring Adelaide/North Melbourne in changing the rule mid-year so that the Dogs, who have assisted in the developing of Ugle-Hagan over several years with the proviso that they would have access to him in an open draft, would be screwed? NGA academies have been set up for years with this happening. Thomas, Quaynor, Henry and Lachie Jones to name a couple who were taken in the first round. Jamarra was just the most high-profile case of the NGA academies and how they were flawed, but it would be the reminisce of the AFL to alter the rules mid-year after giving no indication in the past this would be the case, therefore screwing previous drafting and trading that had been undertaken in preparation to land Jamarra. Should we also look into potential AFL corruption with Geelong, only amending the F/S rule after Geelong were able to take the top talent at the time - Tom Hawkins?

Take a look around brother. You're the only one with the tin foil hat on. What does that tell you?
I think you're overstating how far out clubs plan for drafting. Especially with live pick swaps, free agency and trading it's basically not all that necessary to plan too far ahead. For example, you drafted Bailey Smith as an inside mid and then all of a sudden Treloar joins the club and it shafts Smith out to a position that he sucked in for the first half of the season (the wing). There's so many variables. The dogs don't even need Ugle-Hagan. They've already got naughton and Bruce and Darcy (who was on the cards for some time). So it sort of throws all of your ideas about having to plan for a certain player out of the window.

You listed all of those players and yes it's highly compromised but the AFL decided to change the rules just after the dogs lock in a 15 year key forward. They didn't change it after Quaynor or after Thomas or after Henry or after Jones. They changed it only after Ugle-Hagan. Coincidence? No.

And Melbourne put just as much work into Mac Andrew (if not more from all reports) than most of the previous NGA prospects. So it's grossly unfair. But that's why you get with a corrupt AFL system with their own agenda.
 

conrad_437

Club Legend
Jun 26, 2016
2,315
4,185
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I think you're overstating how far out clubs plan for drafting. Especially with live pick swaps, free agency and trading it's basically not all that necessary to plan too far ahead. For example, you drafted Bailey Smith as an inside mid and then all of a sudden Treloar joins the club and it shafts Smith out to a position that he sucked in for the first half of the season (the wing). There's so many variables. The dogs don't even need Ugle-Hagan. They've already got naughton and Bruce and Darcy (who was on the cards for some time). So it sort of throws all of your ideas about having to plan for a certain player out of the window.

You listed all of those players and yes it's highly compromised but the AFL decided to change the rules just after the dogs lock in a 15 year key forward. They didn't change it after Quaynor or after Thomas or after Henry or after Jones. They changed it only after Ugle-Hagan. Coincidence? No.

And Melbourne put just as much work into Mac Andrew (if not more from all reports) than most of the previous NGA prospects. So it's grossly unfair. But that's why you get with a corrupt AFL system with their own agenda.
Does unfairness equal corruption? Nothing is always going to be egalitarian. The NGA rorts had to end at some point, it's just unfortunate that it ended at that point in time for Melbourne, and fortunate the Dogs were able to benefit just in time. I've already outlined why you can't change an important draft rule 6 months out. It's just the way it is mate, and no amount of your flimsy reasoning can prove it wrong.

Anyway, you focus so much about the what, but what about the why? Why would the AFL favour the Bulldogs and go out of their way to have them achieve success? Why would they attempt to undermine the integrity of the competition to assist a small club that has shown little growth and little prospect of being anything other than that? We don't have any debt and don't require financial support from the AFL anymore. We certainly aren't a club that would benefit the AFL if we were to win a premiership. So please Daniel, outline to me your reasoning as to why the AFL are corrupt and are set on assisting the Bulldogs in such an on-field manner?
 

danster168

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2016
1,910
1,936
AFL Club
Melbourne
Does unfairness equal corruption? Nothing is always going to be egalitarian. The NGA rorts had to end at some point, it's just unfortunate that it ended at that point in time for Melbourne, and fortunate the Dogs were able to benefit just in time. I've already outlined why you can't change an important draft rule 6 months out. It's just the way it is mate, and no amount of your flimsy reasoning can prove it wrong.

Anyway, you focus so much about the what, but what about the why? Why would the AFL favour the Bulldogs and go out of their way to have them achieve success? Why would they attempt to undermine the integrity of the competition to assist a small club that has shown little growth and little prospect of being anything other than that? We don't have any debt and don't require financial support from the AFL anymore. We certainly aren't a club that would benefit the AFL if we were to win a premiership. So please Daniel, outline to me your reasoning as to why the AFL are corrupt and are set on assisting the Bulldogs in such an on-field manner?
It's not flimsy reasoning. I've outlined about 3 or 4 reasons as to why you can change drafting rules before the year. Only last week did Taj Woewodin declare that he declared Melbourne as the club he wanted to play for. What if he said no? Would that have changed 18 months of drafting thinking that we'd have a midfielder? No. Admittedly he isn't a high prospect but the principle is the same. no different to Marc Murphy not choosing Brisbane. That was decided long before the draft. So teams consistently have to act on the fly so the only thing flimsy is your inability to explain why the AFL couldn't have changed the rules before allowing the number 1 draft pick to go to a good team.

I'd suggest that the reason that the AFL favour the dogs would have something to do with a commercial sponsorship deal. I'd say it would be something along those lines. Maybe a trigger clause in a commercial contract that if the dogs win a flag or make top 4 then they'll pump more money into the afl and/or dogs. This really isn't too far fetched as this stuff happens everyday in other facets of life.
 
Last edited:

conrad_437

Club Legend
Jun 26, 2016
2,315
4,185
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
It's not flimsy reasoning. I've outlined about 3 or 4 reasons as to why you can change drafting rules before the year. Only last week did Taj Woewodin declare that he declared Melbourne as the club he wanted to play for. What if he said no? Would that have changed 18 months of drafting thinking that we'd have a midfielder? No. Admittedly he isn't a high prospect but the principle is the same. no different to Marc Murphy not choosing Brisbane. That was decided long before the draft. So teams consistently have to act on the fly so the only thing flimsy is your inability to explain why the AFL couldn't have changed the rules before allowing the number 1 draft pick to go to a good team.

I'd suggest that the reason that the AFL favour the dogs would have something to do with a commercial sponsorship deal. I'd say it would be something along those lines. Maybe a trigger clause in a commercial contract that if the dogs win a flag or make top 4 then they'll pump more money into the afl and/or dogs. This really isn't too far fetched as this stuff happens everyday in other facets of life.
"Something along those lines". Great.

Time for bed Daniel.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

danster168

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2016
1,910
1,936
AFL Club
Melbourne
Given the amount of priority picks the Dees have got over the journey, that's a very brave view.
oh were we actually good? i'm pretty sure it was unanimous that we were one of the worst teams of a generation. Priority picks were needed. Also, we botched the priority picks anyway. They didn't contribute to us rising up the ladder
 

danster168

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2016
1,910
1,936
AFL Club
Melbourne
We all had it in the arsenal, but it's too easy of a rebuttal :p
found not guilty.
also, are you saying that Melbourne were a good team during that time? Surely not. Tankiing or no tanking we deserved help during those years.
Completely diff from a good team getting help.
 

SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay

Seasoned Football Analyst
Aug 21, 2018
21,425
52,348
AFL Club
North Melbourne
oh were we actually good? i'm pretty sure it was unanimous that we were one of the worst teams of a generation. Priority picks were needed. Also, we botched the priority picks anyway. They didn't contribute to us rising up the ladder
No, that was the enormous AFL bailout that no other Melbourne side has ever got.

The Dogs at least worked their way out of the crap by winning and professionalising their operation to industry leading standard.

And by copying their entire no pokies community club strategy off North, but that's an argument for another day lol.
 

danster168

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2016
1,910
1,936
AFL Club
Melbourne
No, that was the enormous AFL bailout that no other Melbourne side has ever got.

The Dogs at least worked their way out of the crap by winning and professionalising their operation to industry leading standard.

And by copying their entire no pokies community club strategy off North, but that's an argument for another day lol.
which other melbourne team was as bad as us? You mention the dogs? dude, they were nowhere near as bad as us or for anywhere near as long. why are you even comparing the 2? Melbourne was as bad as fitzroy in their dark days. We deserved all help that we got.
You mention 'work your way out of it'. That's such a big cop out. You need to get your draft picks right. That's all that it comes down to.
 

conrad_437

Club Legend
Jun 26, 2016
2,315
4,185
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
found not guilty.
also, are you saying that Melbourne were a good team during that time? Surely not. Tankiing or no tanking we deserved help during those years.
Completely diff from a good team getting help.
So a tanking scandal is justified because you were a poor team and needed help?

The Bulldogs were a very poor team in the early 2000s and the early 2010s with extremely subpar facilities and a poor membership base. We worked our way out of that slump through good performances. You required an AFL bailout because you cheated.
 

danster168

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2016
1,910
1,936
AFL Club
Melbourne
So a tanking scandal is justified because you were a poor team and needed help?

The Bulldogs were a very poor team in the early 2000s and the early 2010s with extremely subpar facilities and a poor membership base. We worked our way out of that slump through good performances. You required an AFL bailout because you cheated.
Found not guilty mate. Can you not read?

Also, you were no where near as bad as us. The fact that you were a poor team doesn't mean you were as poor as us. In fact you were not even close to as bad as us. You worked your way out of it with father son selections.
 

Sentinel

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 15, 2012
5,385
15,708
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Found not guilty mate. Can you not read?

Also, you were no where near as bad as us. The fact that you were a poor team doesn't mean you were as poor as us. In fact you were not even close to as bad as us. You worked your way out of it with father son selections.
You reckon the AFL is "corrupt" in trying to give the Bulldogs a leg-up for whatever delusional reason that is in your head, yet it's a case of nothing to see here for the Demons and their $500k fine for 'not tanking'? And Melbourne's priority picks weren't a gift but an NGA pick was?

:tearsofjoy:
 

conrad_437

Club Legend
Jun 26, 2016
2,315
4,185
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Found not guilty mate. Can you not read?

Also, you were no where near as bad as us. The fact that you were a poor team doesn't mean you were as poor as us. In fact you were not even close to as bad as us. You worked your way out of it with father son selections.
Don't be disingenuine. The Melbourne Football Club was found not guilty of tanking, but the AFL did find Dean Bailey and Chris Connolly guilty of "acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the competition".

I'm sure (hope) you're smart enough to recognise that this is essentially a roundabout way of saying that the club essentially set out to lose games, i.e. tanking. It is also suggested by people a lot more involved with this saga than I am that the club was not sanctioned heavily (or at all) with draft picks and other penalties in an effort to ensure the club would survive, so poor was their on-and-off-field performances.

Yeah bro I believe you, the Dees didn't tank.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad