What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? (Part 1 - cont in Part 2)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm paying $49 but that's because I left the docos in for $10 which I didn't have to though. Last time got $55 instead of $75 for only 6 months.

True it might be a stretch for families on LI but surely given the age profile of BF a lot of the whingers are just young single blokes that probably spend 10 times that a month on booze and fast food.

To be fair I am a young single bloke and I could easily afford fox, but I use my parents Foxtel go instead :D
 
As many have said its only $39 a month and many others have said that is still a lot of money to a lot of people. My thoughts are thatmoney is taking precedence over all else.In WA the AFL have made sure they have bled/screwed us slowly to try and minimise the outcry.First they took away the NAB cup [ whatever you want to call it] now we are down to six direct Eagles games a year.Next year it will be none.How much more can Gil and his overpaid cronies screw out of us? Twilight GF? yay more money.Why dont we just give Gil the arse and give the game to Foxtel god knows they run it now.The Peoples Game?? Pigs arse!!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The bitching on BF about Foxtel as some sort of robbery is ridiculous. Just rang to cancel and got basic+sport+HD $39 a month for 12 months. Seriously what entertainment can you get for 10 bucks a week?

Netflix and the WWE network are two examples... but that's per month and not week.
This is about to become a huge issue after the awful cricket television rights were just announced.
 
In my opinion, Tom Boyd's performance hasn't justified his fat pay check.

That opinion is very unpopular among some Dogs fans.
Won em a grand final. I'd pay 10 million for that.
 
What is a “fake franchise”? I know you’re trying to get a rise out of people but I don’t understand that term
The AFL contains two diametrically opposed sets: real clubs and fake franchises.
In my opinion, Tom Boyd's performance hasn't justified his fat pay check.

That opinion is very unpopular among some Dogs fans.
I think they're misunderstanding the argument.

Clearly his output hitherto has not justified his exorbitant contract. However, that doesn't mean he didn't play an important role in the 2016 premiership. These two are not mutually exclusive.

Another question is could another player have given the same output for a much lower % of salary cap? The answer is a pretty obvious yes.
 
Liam Picken was their best player in the finals series. He should have got seven figures too.

Would you change the result in 2015 - if it meant that you had a young player on huge coin that delivered a tremendous match winning performance during the GF, but didn't play again after?

No Boyd and the Doggies don't win, it comes down to that at the end of the day.
 
Would you change the result in 2015 - if it meant that you had a young player on huge coin that delivered a tremendous match winning performance during the GF, but didn't play again after?
To start with, the legend of Tom Boyd's GF performance is becoming slightly overblown. He was definitely among their best. But people carry on like he won the game off his own boot.

He was very good that day, no question. But that one performance doesn't mean his performance overall has justified seven figures a year for however long. You can't justify a $7 million contract with one game. That's ridiculous.

Johannisen was also pretty good that day. Should he be on seven figures too?

No Boyd and the Doggies don't win, it comes down to that at the end of the day.
Same goes for Johannisen. Maybe Picken and Hamling too over the course of the finals series. So they have been on seven figures?
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

In my opinion, Tom Boyd's performance hasn't justified his fat pay check.

That opinion is very unpopular among some Dogs fans.
Rubbish. Not one dogs fan would say his performances justify the money.

They fact he was central to our flag, means we don't care. We'd do the same again.
 
To start with, the legend of Tom Boyd's GF performance is becoming slightly overblown. He was definitely among their best. But people carry on like he won the game off his own boot.

He was very good that day, no question. But that one performance doesn't mean his performance overall has justified seven figures a year for however long. You can't justify a $7 million contract with one game. That's ridiculous.

Johannisen was also pretty good that day. Should he be on seven figures too?

Same goes for Johannisen. Maybe Picken and Hamling too over the course of the finals series. So they have been on seven figures?

You're missing the point.

What JJ and Picken and everyone else on the day was great and their performances aren't being underplayed or questioned. No one is saying Boyd single handedly won the game for them either.

But without Boyd playing the way he did they don't win that match. That's what counts and that's why he's worth every dollar.
 
You're missing the point.
Doubt it.

What JJ and Picken and everyone else on the day was great and their performances aren't being underplayed or questioned. No one is saying Boyd single handedly won the game for them either.
So how would you justify him getting seven figures a year for several years after the GF when he's not even playing seniors?

But without Boyd playing the way he did they don't win that match. That's what counts and that's why he's worth every dollar.
You could say that about JJ or Hamling or Picken. So they should have been on seven figures too?
 
Tom Boyd's contract (well a contract over and above what his performances warranted) was necessary to secure his services.

His performance in the 2016 GF and performances before and since don't justify being a $1m a year player, but then neither do/did Tom Scully's.

The Dogs arguably don't win the 2016 GF without his efforts, but in a parallel universe who knows who takes his place and how the game unfolds.

The only things that really matter are that the decision to recruit Tom Boyd is already done and I have not met or come across on here a single Dogs fan who would go back to 2014 and undo signing Tom Boyd if it meant not winning the 2016 GF - which is all hypothetical banter.
 
Netflix and the WWE network are two examples... but that's per month and not week.
This is about to become a huge issue after the awful cricket television rights were just announced.
homerf86bcb80a50fba93d7712fa5241b4ac1.jpg.png
 
What is a “fake franchise”? I know you’re trying to get a rise out of people but I don’t understand that term
I'd like a better explanation too. Feels like it's just a term for the old VFL fanbase to throw shade at the successfully built interstate AFL clubs, to justify their pettiness on and off the field, year in year out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top