I didn't agree with the article but I think it is a good idea by the AFL to create a website that can act as an independant media outlet, the site has largely been boring up to now. If they want to make it more of a one stop shop for people interested in the AFL by including opinion pices then I think that's fine.

The MFC site could also do with a bit of that, I think you hold the website back a bit by limiting it's articles to MFC approved messages. Why couldn't the site have a members only online forum, or even an MFC players only fantasy league. The Canucks (NHL) they have a gameday thread. There are a number of issues with all of these types of things but none that can't be overcome.

Independent ? Lol of whom ? Its a mouth for the AFLs agenda . Couldn't be less independent if you tried.

Independent ? Lol of whom ? Its a mouth for the AFLs agenda . Couldn't be less independent if you tried.

It is, but it doesn't have to be.

It is, but it doesn't have to be.

It is what ?

Doesn't have to be what ?

A publication may publish opinion pieces (I for one dont think that AFL.com needs to run opinion pieces - there are enough media outlets already doing so) but the Editor needs to ensure that the opinion ( in fact any article) can at least stand up to logical and rigorous scrutiny.

Nice work hardtack

Ok so the views of Jason Phelan, an employee of afl.com.au, are the views of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL.

And the views of Geoff Slattery, managing editor of AFL Media, are the views of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL.

What's next ... the views of Andrew Demetriou's mouth are not necessarily those of Andrew Demetriou

Lets not forget that we had to TRADE for White, giving up pick 2 and 20 (or something like that). This can happen to any club at any time and we paid a fair price to get him. We will be unlikely to get that kind of return for a fresh faced number 1 pick.

Laughable that the editor had to come out justify why such an article was written. Justifying its intent is one thing, but failing to address the numerous flaws it contained does him no favours.

It is what ?

Doesn't have to be what ?

Easy tiger.

It is currently the "mouthpiece of the AFL", but it doesn't have to be. It can be an independant media outlet if it chooses, and it appears that it is making taking steps in that direction, albeit shaky ones. Right now the AFL website loses a lot of potential site visits to other sites because it just representes the opinion of the league, it's boring.

If this article was allowed to appear on the AFL's site then you can be sure that Andy Demetriou approves of its content.

Really?

Really?

No, not really. That's drawing a very long bow.

Lets not forget that we had to TRADE for White, giving up pick 2 and 20 (or something like that). This can happen to any club at any time and we paid a fair price to get him. We will be unlikely to get that kind of return for a fresh faced number 1 pick.

Laughable that the editor had to come out justify why such an article was written. Justifying its intent is one thing, but failing to address the numerous flaws it contained does him no favours.

Still misses the point - Jeff White was not about what picks we gave or how much he was paid. Fact one - he wanted to come home. Everything else is after the fact.

There is an interesting read on opinion journalism and as some posters have said that maybe opinion journalism has place on the AFL site.

http://rhetorica.net/archives/7666.html

To me these quotes are pivotal and why the article submitted by Phelan was garbage and why the editors of AFL.com have failed by allowing garbage to be printed.

"Like reporters, opinion journalists should operate as custodians of fact with a discipline of verification. " - Phelan FAIL

"opinion should be about changing hearts and minds with knowledge and wisdom" Phelan FAIL

I especially liked these quotes

I just sent him this email

Hi Geoff,

"The website must - and will - celebrate the game, but will never celebrate spin."

The original article was spin, it was propaganda to push the AFL's agenda. Your follow up was even worse, and for me, you and the AFL website have lost all credibility.

In your article you say, he debated the rights and wrongs of a potential (and unconfirmed) move of Tom Scully from Melbourne to Greater Western Sydney.

He did not do this, and to say otherwise is pure spin. The original article was a firm opinion on the issue, no debate, no wrongs, a straight one sided opinion. Lines such as "The fact that he's a No.1 draft pick makes it a sexier story, but it won't make the Demons' loss greater than that felt by any other club." How can losing a number one draft pick at 20 years old not be worse than losing a veteran like Campbell Brown who only has a couple of years left, and would be borderline best 22 in many teams? "If the Demons truly want to set themselves up as one of the power clubs of the next decade, they'll have to take the prospect of losing a promising and important player on the chin. " That doesn't even make sense?? If we want to be successful we have to let promising young players leave the club?

Interesting point you make about the disclaimer. "The views in this story are those of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL" . Two points - 1. If it was the opinion of an AFL website writer that GWS will not succeed or that Andrew Demetriou was not fit for his job and should be sacked immediately, would you run it? 2. If all articles are the views of the author, and you and they AFL do not interfere, what do you do all day, spell check?

Interesting that you choose to use the word spin, because that is exactly what your article was.

Thomo

The original article was a firm opinion on the issue, no debate, no wrongs, a straight one sided opinion.

And to repeat what I said earlier - for an opinion to have credibility it may not necessarily be backed by fact but needs to be backed by logic and reason and the article was devoid of both. A fair reasonable person should be able to look at a differing opinion and say " I don't necessarily agree but I can understand the basis for your opinion". ( to this end I respect that opinion that TS may sign with GWS for the lure of bigger money but in absense of facts confirming that he has already done so (statements exist to the contrary) and in defiance of logic and reason as to why he would do so now, I cant respect the opinion that he has signed already )

It is the editors role to ensure articles published have facts that are verifiable or failing that have opinions that can be backed by reason and logic" FAIL

...for an opinion to have credibility it may not necessarily be backed by fact but needs to be backed by logic and reason...

Never stopped the HUN.

Or The Age for that matter.

No, not really. That's drawing a very long bow.

I agree with Sid, Nasher. Articles on the AFL site support the AFL position - find an article on there critical of the AFL.

We all agree that it's an absolute shitter that Scully is in range of the GWS concessions but we're unintended collateral damage. This situation wasn't anticipated when WE helped draw up the rules. Where's the cut-off age - see the Marc Murphy example? Maybe they should've made the rules the same as the free agency rules, but consistency is not one of the AFL's strong points and the cat is out of the bag now because GCS didn't have those rules. The only way Tom could come out of GWS's scope is if the AFL had a quiet word in their ear and said "lay off" - but reading that article it doesn't seem likely to happen.

Articles/opinion-pieces currently released on the AFLs site remind me of info-mercials . They're supposed to look ridgey-didge unbiased sell but we know they're just a long winded ad! Also a bit like a set piece in the local paper ie a write up about a product but it's just part of the package deal sold by the paper. It's not 'real' it's a sham ( wow)

Goebbels would be mightily impressed with how slick the Vlad-machine works.

Never stopped the HUN.

Or The Age for that matter.

Couldnt agree more - however the major difference is that these papers are (supposedly) independent and do not operate under the AFL Banner. If there is to be opinion pieces under the AFL Banner then they have to have a duty of care to be "fair and reasonable" to all their clubs that they represent.

Whilst I am not certain I would like to challenge the editor to list me all of the other "opinion" pieces put on AFL.com ( as opposed to puff and fluff pieces). Direct me to the opinion pieces about Nixon, direct me to the opinion pieces about Fevola, direct me to any opinion pieces about hot controversial topics. And when I am directed to these pieces let me see their reasonable logic used. On hot topics they may list facts but to my knowledge never venture opinion/editorial

I would suggest that what we have seen here is the first. It is not shabby factual article, it is a shabby opinion/editorial not based faulty illogical premises.

are you a Chiaki Kuriyama (aka Gogo Yubari) fan? :-)

how can you not be?

Nice work hardtack

Ok so the views of Jason Phelan, an employee of afl.com.au, are the views of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL.

And the views of Geoff Slattery, managing editor of AFL Media, are the views of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL.

What's next ... the views of Andrew Demetriou's mouth are not necessarily those of Andrew Demetriou

Exactly. At what point does the AFL have any views at all? If that statement becomes overused, it becomes meaningless. It's similar to the "no offense, but I hate you" routine. Hiding behind a catch-all line such as that can easily become counter-productive.

I agree with Sid, Nasher. Articles on the AFL site support the AFL position - find an article on there critical of the AFL.

We all agree that it's an absolute shitter that Scully is in range of the GWS concessions but we're unintended collateral damage. This situation wasn't anticipated when WE helped draw up the rules.

I'm sick of hearing this from the Clubs. I believe that there are some intelligent people working at the top of footy Clubs, so I find it beyond belief that Clubs didn't think 'hmm, so hopw will this compensation formula will we get if one of our best players is poached, and is it fair?' or 'how would we feel about our contracted players signing up with GC/GWS while they still have up to a season left on their contract?'.

Exactly. At what point does the AFL have any views at all? If that statement becomes overused, it becomes meaningless. It's similar to the "no offense, but I hate you" routine. Hiding behind a catch-all line such as that can easily become counter-productive.

I sent him an email telling Mr Slattery that he or his editors had failed in their job as the job is to look at all material for publication and challenge facts where there are facts to ensure they are verifiable and challenge opinions where there are opinions to ensure the opinions are not illogical/without reason. I challenged him to let me write an article on why the AFL had failed in their thinking in not capping the availability of uncontracted players by a certain length of service/age.

You can argue 5 years or 7 years or even 4 years service to a club enables uncontracted footballers be targeted (I personally believe 24 is minimum) but you cannot argue that it is defeating the purpose of the draft to have a system where poor onfield performance is recognised by access to the better players ( read better draft picks) only to see these players possibly being poached after 2 seasons ( read Scully/Martin/NicNat.

I also noted that their is enough opinion in main stream media and by being under the AFL banner and selectively choosing what to give an opinion on( albeit with the disclaimer that "my opinion is not my opinion") the AFL is lending itself to complaints of singling out certain clubs for either praise or damnation.

I'm sick of hearing this from the Clubs. I believe that there are some intelligent people working at the top of footy Clubs, so I find it beyond belief that Clubs didn't think 'hmm, so what compensation will we get if one of our best players is poached, and is it fair?' (ie. Ablett) or 'how would we feel about our young kids being targetted?' (ie. a Watts/Scully type).

What can I say? Cameron Schwab was on the AFL sub-committee that formed the rules.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/compo-backflip/story-e6frf9jf-1225848254060

The compensation rule committee consists of Ian Robson (Essendon chief executive), Cameron Schwab (Melbourne chief executive), Steven Trigg (Adelaide chief executive), Andrew Ireland (Sydney chief executive), Graeme Allan (Greater Western Sydney football boss), Stephen Wells (Geelong recruiting manager) and Derek Hine (Collingwood recruiting manager).

Here's my 2c worth on all this:

- The AFL strategy to expand in NSW and Qld and have a match there every week is sound

- The AFL is justified in wanting to give GC and GWS a massive leg up for this strategy to succeed

- IMO Tom Scully is the most guaranteed star we've had at the club since Robert Flower and to lose him to GWS would have a significant impact on our ability to win the flag we all covet

- Our CEO (who I think is doing a superb job) was on the committee who framed the rules so those MFC supporters bleating about them when one of our players gets caught up in it, don't have a leg to stand on

- To suggest that Tom Scully warrants more compensation than Gary Ablett or Marc Murphy is laughable.

- Andrew Demetriou was forced to publicly defend the indefensible wrt to our "alleged" tanking in 2009 and I suspect we privately lost AFL sympathy associated with our acquisition of Tom and I don't expect any special assistance

- GWS has $1M extra in the TPP which makes $9M but they are limited to $70K per 1st year player so even if they have 40 of them that leaves $6M to spend on uncontracted players

- I find it completely believable that they'd pitch a 6 year $6M deal to Tom with many of those millions front loaded in the first year or two, then he'll be on a more equitable salary in later years and GWS will put the initial payment to him (and GWS team-mates) as a "sign-on" bonus necessary to get him across.

- Football is not a "normal" job and footballers aren't motivated just by money

- We need to do everything reasonable and within the rules to retain Tom but that doesn't mean trying to match or even nearly match the GWS $ offer because it will have a big negative impact on our ability to remunerate other players fairly.

- We need to pitch mateship, premiership success, the MCG, living in Victoria and career after football playing days to Tom

- And John Worsforld said, a few round here need to: "Harden up princess!"

That 2c is prudent advice.

If you play for my team I'll give you 10c over 5 years instead of 2c and front load the contract so you get 5c in the first year.

Match that people !!!!

If you play for my team I'll give you 10c over 5 years instead of 2c and front load the contract so you get 5c in the first year.

Match that people !!!!

• Mateship
  
• Melbournefc
  
• MCG
  
• Premiership
  
• Career