Brisbane gets priority pick

[old55 21,203]

37 minutes ago, Diamond said:

"THE BRISBANE Lions have a good case to receive a priority pick this season, AFL CEO Gill McLachlan says."

This made me vomit with rage.

Mario from Doncaster?

[Coq au vin 754]

3 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Is this the same AFL who granted us the same compensation for Tom Scully that Geelong got for Gary Ablett as well as pick 3 for James Frawley (who most here didn't rate anyway and most in the industry saw as gross overcompensation)?  The same AFL that rid our club of incompetent administrators and football department personnel, paid out their contracts some of which had been recently extended despite the outcome from a tanking investigation still to be handed down, who put in a first class CEO, oversaw the appointment of a vastly improved Board and didn't impose draft penalties despite being found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute?  The same AFL who guaranteed our overdraft and gave our club funds in 2003 to help pay a tax bill (amongst other things) that had been hidden in the bottom draw of a desk when we were one step from insolvency?  

Is this the same AFL who has negotiated massive media rights deals that has subsequently provided poorer clubs with enough money to compete?  And you criticise them for not ridding us of Essendon which would most likely put the media rights deal at risk and as a result the survival of poorer clubs through lack of funding. Fancy the AFL wanting to help Brisbane become a competitive team which would do nothing but help the entire competition by giving them a priority pick which would grant them one player and push us from pick 40 something to 40 something plus 1 (assuming Hibbert costs our second round pick).  Gosh, what incompetence. 

Yep, we've been screwed, we deserve more because as a club over the last 10+ years we've been such a beacon of competence and success.

You should be careful what you wish for Sue because heaven help us if we got it.

 

The AFL gave Brisbane 3 premierships in a row through all kinds of concessions gifting them the best players available and lots of money and a good coach. Now they're trying the same with 2 more expansion clubs. They can get stuffed.

[Vogon Poetry 2,095]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

FFS the compensation is based on a particular draft pick. Where you finish on the ladder determines how valuable that pick is. It's not that hard and its an incorrect argument to bleat about Hawthorn getting pick 17 for Buddy and Melbourne gets pick 3 for Frawley.

Stop it.

Thanks jmrmac.  You're not the accurate one are you!  Where on earth did I mention Hawthorn getting pick 17 for buddy.  Whilst there are guidelines for FA compensation there is also AFL discretion.

[Dwight Schrute 16,711]

On 9/2/2016 at 1:50 PM, Vogon Poetry said:

Thanks jmrmac.  You're not the accurate one are you!  Where on earth did I mention Hawthorn getting pick 17 for buddy.  Whilst there are guidelines for FA compensation there is also AFL discretion.

James Frawley recieved band 1 compensation

Lance Franklin band 1 compensation

the only difference is one team was rubbish and the other won the flag. the discretion might mean offering a different band pick if Buddy signed for 100k a year but clearly he's better than that 

[Vogon Poetry 2,095]

1 hour ago, sue said:

Your argument  assumes that I was suggesting that it is the MFC that is in the firing line of the AFL.  I wasn't. 

You said " The AFL will do whatever it takes and if that means screwing the weak Vic clubs they will."  They're your words. There was no MFC exclusion.

MFC was the weakest of the the weak 2013 and they dragged us along by our bootlaces. They took us over, rebuilt us and have delivered by good management (and generosity) our best chance of success since the 90's. They don't do what they can to screw the weak Vic club, they do a fair bit to help them. Bullies, Dogs, MFC and Kanga's have all from time to time received help from the AFL and I suspect probably the Saints as well.  The AFL don't want to see any club fail, they want them all playing competitive footy because that drives attendances, memberships and ratings.  From that they earn money from sponsorships and media.  They are contracted for 9 games of AFL footy per week, what on earth are they going to do if they can't provide those?

IMO your view is seriously misguided.

 

[Vogon Poetry 2,095]

3 minutes ago, Abe said:

James Frawley recieved band 1 compensation

Lance Franklin band 1 compensation

the only difference is one team was rubbish and the other won the flag. the discretion might mean offering a different band pick if Buddy signed for 100k a year but clearly he's better than that 

Thanks Abe I knew all that.  But for the record I never mentioned Franklin's compensation so I don't know why you're addressing this to me.

[Sir Why You Little 34,405]

4 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

You said " The AFL will do whatever it takes and if that means screwing the weak Vic clubs they will."  They're your words. There was no MFC exclusion.

MFC was the weakest of the the weak 2013 and they dragged us along by our bootlaces. They took us over, rebuilt us and have delivered by good management (and generosity) our best chance of success since the 90's. They don't do what they can to screw the weak Vic club, they do a fair bit to help them. Bullies, Dogs, MFC and Kanga's have all from time to time received help from the AFL and I suspect probably the Saints as well.  The AFL don't want to see any club fail, they want them all playing competitive footy because that drives attendances, memberships and ratings.  From that they earn money from sponsorships and media.  They are contracted for 9 games of AFL footy per week, what on earth are they going to do if they can't provide those?

IMO your view is seriously misguided.

 

I think 9 games is too many-Overload. I wouldn't be at all suprised if the number of teams is reduced within the next 10 years. 

9 Clubs in Metro Melbourne...Big ask, considering the same clubs fight for the GF each year

[Dwight Schrute 16,711]

On 9/2/2016 at 2:02 PM, Vogon Poetry said:

Thanks Abe I knew all that.  But for the record I never mentioned Franklin's compensation so I don't know why you're addressing this to me.

I was just attempting to highlight the fact that a lot of people do seem to miss is the compensation was exactly the same, the variable was the position of the club, the band 1 compensation was based on the same formula and pick 3 imo wasn't part of some under the table PP scheme by the AFL

i genuinely believe Frawley qualified as band 1 compensation and that's what we got

[sue 8,402]

51 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

You said " The AFL will do whatever it takes and if that means screwing the weak Vic clubs they will."  They're your words. There was no MFC exclusion.

MFC was the weakest of the the weak 2013 and they dragged us along by our bootlaces. They took us over, rebuilt us and have delivered by good management (and generosity) our best chance of success since the 90's. They don't do what they can to screw the weak Vic club, they do a fair bit to help them. Bullies, Dogs, MFC and Kanga's have all from time to time received help from the AFL and I suspect probably the Saints as well.  The AFL don't want to see any club fail, they want them all playing competitive footy because that drives attendances, memberships and ratings.  From that they earn money from sponsorships and media.  They are contracted for 9 games of AFL footy per week, what on earth are they going to do if they can't provide those?

IMO your view is seriously misguided.

 

The fact that I didn't specifically exclude the MFC from  being a weak club is nitpicking after I explained why we were not weak in a very special way in my reply to you.  You go on to make the same arguments again. 

But why do you think the AFL is wedded to 9 games per week other than under the current contracts. Of course if they were planning to axe any particular clubs, they'd keep them afloat until that contract was up or could be breached without consequences. 

Sure, having many clubs "drives attendances, memberships" etc, but I doubt if a business called the AFL was set up from scratch today, there would be so many Vic clubs - doesn't sound an efficient business model to me.  If I ran the AFL, I'd be always on the lookout to rationalise my business and approach the ideal model.

I admit my view may be seriously misguided since I can't eavesdrop on AFL heavies' meetings.   We are both speculating.  Perhaps your view is misguided instead of mine.

[Dee-licious 1,798]

At the end of the day, there is no light at the end of the tunnel for Brisbane and even if they are given an end of first round compo, they will loose it to Academy players if they dont trade it for an established player. 

Yes, we probably deserved a PP more than they did but we are an Australian-wide competition and we want all 18 teams to succeed (nope, not Collingwood), 17 teams to succeed (ah, yeah the Dons), 16 teams to succeed and be able to be watchable on a weekly basis. Even through the majority of our dark times we had Scully, Blease, Gysberts, Morton, Maric, Bate, all guys who we thought were going to help us get to a premiership. In their last game v St Kilda, if I was a Brisbane supporter, I'd be excited about Andrews, Mayes, Hipwood, Mathieson, Hammelmann, Taylor, and there is Shache on the sidelines. I also know I have Beams, Christianson, Martin, Zorko and Rockcliff and that's it. 12 players. 

In comparison in 2013 we were excited about The TOUMP, Viney, who we just drafted. Howe, Trenners, Grimes, Tappy, that McDonald kid who started to show a bit, Watts (still), maybe Blease and Strauss (still). We also had Jones, Frawley, Dunn, Garland, Davey. Finally, we were very excited about what the Hogan, Dawes and Clark forward line was going to look like. 

There was a lot more hope about Melbourne's future than there currently is around Brisbane. I dont have the statistic but the one about the lack of first rounders on their list rings true. Maybe they have a young Gawn on their list who is yet to emerge or Jetta who hasnt found his place yet. Chances are that Brisbane will need to cull like crazy as there is not much to build with and the issue is the talent who are not getting games at GWS aren't going to Queensland, they are coming to Victoria. This is why Academy's are still very important. 

In summary, there is a bigger potato farm on the Brisbane list than there was on ours in 2013 and the Melbourne list in 2013 had a lot of first round picks (13 or 14?) where Brissy does not. They need a hand because their house is on fire, and it is not our place to stand in the way. 

[What 18,810]

Excuse me for having no sympathy for an interstate team that was given Fitzroys best players and then won 3 flags in a row

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

3 minutes ago, Dee-licious said:

At the end of the day, there is no light at the end of the tunnel for Brisbane and even if they are given an end of first round compo, they will loose it to Academy players if they dont trade it for an established player. 

Yes, we probably deserved a PP more than they did but we are an Australian-wide competition and we want all 18 teams to succeed (nope, not Collingwood), 17 teams to succeed (ah, yeah the Dons), 16 teams to succeed and be able to be watchable on a weekly basis. Even through the majority of our dark times we had Scully, Blease, Gysberts, Morton, Maric, Bate, all guys who we thought were going to help us get to a premiership. In their last game v St Kilda, if I was a Brisbane supporter, I'd be excited about Andrews, Mayes, Hipwood, Mathieson, Hammelmann, Taylor, and there is Shache on the sidelines. I also know I have Beams, Christianson, Martin, Zorko and Rockcliff and that's it. 12 players. 

In comparison in 2013 we were excited about The TOUMP, Viney, who we just drafted. Howe, Trenners, Grimes, Tappy, that McDonald kid who started to show a bit, Watts (still), maybe Blease and Strauss (still). We also had Jones, Frawley, Dunn, Garland, Davey. Finally, we were very excited about what the Hogan, Dawes and Clark forward line was going to look like. 

There was a lot more hope about Melbourne's future than there currently is around Brisbane. I dont have the statistic but the one about the lack of first rounders on their list rings true. Maybe they have a young Gawn on their list who is yet to emerge or Jetta who hasnt found his place yet. Chances are that Brisbane will need to cull like crazy as there is not much to build with and the issue is the talent who are not getting games at GWS aren't going to Queensland, they are coming to Victoria. This is why Academy's are still very important. 

In summary, there is a bigger potato farm on the Brisbane list than there was on ours in 2013 and the Melbourne list in 2013 had a lot of first round picks (13 or 14?) where Brissy does not. They need a hand because their house is on fire, and it is not our place to stand in the way. 

I disagree DL, I think Brisbane's list is better than ours in 2013. We had nothing even close to the quality of Rockliff, Zorko or Hanley. They have Beams as well when he gets back from injury. Stef Martin is a much better ruckman than Jamar was in 2013.

[Vogon Poetry 2,095]

8 minutes ago, sue said:

The fact that I didn't specifically exclude the MFC from  being a weak club is nitpicking after I explained why we were not weak in a very special way in my reply to you.  You go on to make the same arguments again. 

But why do you think the AFL is wedded to 9 games per week other than under the current contracts. Of course if they were planning to axe any particular clubs, they'd keep them afloat until that contract was up or could be breached without consequences. 

Sure, having many clubs "drives attendances, memberships" etc, but I doubt if a business called the AFL was set up from scratch today, there would be so many Vic clubs - doesn't sound an efficient business model to me.  If I ran the AFL, I'd be always on the lookout to rationalise my business and approach the ideal model.

I admit my view may be seriously misguided since I can't eavesdrop on AFL heavies' meetings.   We are both speculating.  Perhaps your view is misguided instead of mine.

I wasn't nitpicking Sue, I just quoted you and then explained why the MFC fitted your definition.  And don't think for a moment the name Melbourne is any protection to being made redundant, there is no "London" in the EPL.  If MFC were to disappear it would cause the least disruption to the AFL of any Vic team, we have the least number of supporters as evidenced by the Morgan poll and I'd contend after our performance over the last 10 years one of the smallest supporter bases amongst kids. 

The AFL is wedded to 9 games because that's what the media agreement says.  TV wants games to show and they want good quality games.  That's why the AFL is trying to make all clubs competitive.  Less games means less content and that means less money.  The AFL is unlikely to want to reduce content volume and they will want to increase content quality and they are doing that by helping weak clubs, imposing draft and salary cap conditions and FD spending limits.

Over the last 15 or so years the AFL has had the chance to reduce the number of AFL clubs but haven't.  In fact they've gone out of their way to maintain and increase them.  They did not force Bullies to relocate to GWS (or was it North, can't remember).  You suggest that "if the AFL was starting from scratch" we'd have a different model.  So what?  We've got what we have and the AFL is showing no signs of reducing the number of clubs.  Whilst neither of us can eavesdrop on the AFL we can look at their philosophies, policies and actions and there is nothing in them to suggest a reduction in the number of teams.

I'd contend that my view is based on the evidence of the AFL behaviour and yours is contrary to it.

[sue 8,402]

21 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

...

  You suggest that "if the AFL was starting from scratch" we'd have a different model.  So what? ...

The 'so what' is as I said - if you are running a business and you know that the best model has say 14 teams, you might be tempted to do things to move away from what you historically inherited.   You say there is no evidence they would want to axe Vic clubs; I have friends who were Fitzroy and South Melb supporters.  Yes, that was a while ago, but I wish I shared your confidence that it won't happen in future.  The AFL empire builders will do whatever it takes to expand and consolidate their empire.  

[Vogon Poetry 2,095]

2 hours ago, sue said:

The 'so what' is as I said - if you are running a business and you know that the best model has say 14 teams, you might be tempted to do things to move away from what you historically inherited.   You say there is no evidence they would want to axe Vic clubs; I have friends who were Fitzroy and South Melb supporters.  Yes, that was a while ago, but I wish I shared your confidence that it won't happen in future.  The AFL empire builders will do whatever it takes to expand and consolidate their empire.  

Help me here.  You're worried about what happened 30 years ago because it sets a president for what might happen today despite all indications to the contrary and then support the your assertion that the AFL will reduce the number of clubs with "The AFL empire builders will do whatever it takes to EXPAND and consolidate their empire".

I'm confused but lets leave it there, I doubt we'll make much progress.

[Dee-licious 1,798]

3 hours ago, Choke said:

I disagree DL, I think Brisbane's list is better than ours in 2013. We had nothing even close to the quality of Rockliff, Zorko or Hanley. They have Beams as well when he gets back from injury. Stef Martin is a much better ruckman than Jamar was in 2013.

I'll agree that the quality of the top few you've mentioned that what we had - Jones hadn't hit his stride yet, Jamar was on the way down, would be really interesting to see what the comparison of output of midfield. Obviously in sheer numbers Rocky dominates, but effective stats maybe. Anywho, I do think that the top end is quite good, but there isn't hope for the future. Zorko's peak was this season. Rocky's ???? Hanley was a couple of years ago, Stef was last year. If Brissy dont get help either through trading or the AFL and they loose Rocky which is looking likely, next season will make this season look like a dream. It's all well and good having Schace and Hipwood but if you cant get the ball to them....

[sue 8,402]

55 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Help me here.  You're worried about what happened 30 years ago because it sets a president for what might happen today despite all indications to the contrary and then support the your assertion that the AFL will reduce the number of clubs with "The AFL empire builders will do whatever it takes to EXPAND and consolidate their empire".

I'm confused but lets leave it there, I doubt we'll make much progress.

I'll make this my last comment since we'll never agree and only time will tell.  But to help you with your confusion, the AFL can EXPAND its empire and still have fewer teams in Victoria.  Moreover, you can even expand an empire in terms of $ and executive salaries with fewer teams regardless of location.

[SaberFang 7,141]

So basically, team loses coach, plays like [censored] because they clearly couldn't stand the bloke, and as a result the AFL gives them a priority pick?

What an insult. Basket-case of a club. The AFL needs to fix their back of house and pay for some facilities, but throwing a PP at them is not the way to solve Brisbane.

However, I would be very favourable to a "priority draft adjustment" occurring, where Brisbane's pick 2 is switched with Essendon's pick 1, just because Essendon have zero claim to get that pick this year. It is beyond farcical.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,389]

I couldn't care either way if they get one. If it was another Vic club I might be outraged but let's be honest Brisbane are a basketcase and noone wants that. The only thing is I doubt it will help much - they need their off field sorted out as a priority. They've got the academies to address the go home factor but it will take time. A PP this year won't do jack unless they trade it out for a ready to go player or downgrade it ala the Tyson/Salem deal and get a 2 for 1

[manny100 1,000]

For the sake of Queensland football the AFL should pull one out of left field - give the Lions a PP before the commencement of the pre season. This will prevent shad dealings to get O'Meara through to the Dons via the pre season draft or force the GC to take an inferior value pick. At the same time the Lions may be able to pick up an ok player.

 

[faultydet 7,593]

32 minutes ago, manny100 said:

For the sake of Queensland football the AFL should pull one out of left field - give the Lions a PP before the commencement of the pre season. This will prevent shad dealings to get O'Meara through to the Dons via the pre season draft or force the GC to take an inferior value pick. At the same time the Lions may be able to pick up an ok player.

 

Yes. They could disguise it as allowing the Lions to pick up an extra experienced player, while giving them first crack at O'Meara for free via P.S.D, and forcing clubs to give a good deal to G.C.

 

And it makes things harder for essedon.

 

Nice thinking.

[Whispering_Jack 27,883]

I think the Lions might have a good case for draft assistance but the AFL needs to be consistent when handing benefits out to its clubs. Having refused Melbourne on two occasions at times when its playing record was far worse than Brisbane's, the AFL set a benchmark as to what was required and in fact, the Lions supported and endorsed that position. If they languish for another 2 or 3 years then they can come back and apply again.

[Moonshadow 16,099]

Give the pick 1 on the proviso they must trade it to a bottom 8 club (not Ess)

[Dr. Gonzo 22,389]

4 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

I think the Lions might have a good case for draft assistance but the AFL needs to be consistent when handing benefits out to its clubs. Having refused Melbourne on two occasions at times when its playing record was far worse than Brisbane's, the AFL set a benchmark as to what was required and in fact, the Lions supported and endorsed that position. If they languish for another 2 or 3 years then they can come back and apply again.

Doesn't our situation prove that we didn't actually need a priority pick but rather to get ourselves right off field? The best the AFL could do would be to help the Lions with their new facility, get some off field stability and help with debt reduction/off field marketing. A priority pick probably won't do much for them, not in the short term at least.

[manny100 1,000]

The AFL has a potential serious O H & S problem looming. With the bottom teams loaded with young 18, 19 year olds and injuries playing kids week in/week sometimes when they are not ready physically or mentally for the regular rigors sooner or later it may well come back to bite the AFL on the bottom. We were regularly resting tired players this season but we had the luxury of a reasonable year with injuries - the Lions, GC and Freo were crushed with injuries. The AFL has an obligation to ensure the kids are not pushed beyond their limits and may have to allow bottom clubs (who should have salary CAP room) an extra couple or more of spots on their lists to be filled by older players. Alternatively shorten the time games are played for, reduce the arena size and number of players etc, etc.

So perhaps a few picks of players of players 21 or older before the National draft for the bottom teams already loaded with kids would be a better option. Maybe lucky to get a VB, Saad, Barlow or Adams etc.