I am keeping CS accountable for not pushing MFC's interest.

Since I have no insight as to what CS and others did and didnt fight for/against I will go as far as saying I am disappointed in CS's response to Gary March's statement.

Gary March flagged in March 2010 the targeting of 1st and 2nd year players.

"We were all led to believe that the new clubs could take uncontracted stars, but we weren't aware their targets would be first- and second-year stars. If you suddenly allow that, then it defeats the whole purpose of the system. I'm not just talking about Dustin Martin. I haven't spoken to Melbourne or West Coast, but I would feel the same way about Jack Trengove, Tom Scully or Jack Watts or Nic Naitanui. As a football person, I don't think it's right.''

We can all take a shot at March and say he was very short sighted but CS's response to this was

''Gary March does not speak on behalf of our club,'' Schwab said. ''We understand what the rules are and Tim Harrington is working hard to make sure we keep all of our players and we are comfortable with that so I don't need Gary March speaking on behalf of the Melbourne Football Club.

''It's his concept, he can take it forward. We know what the rules are and will work within the rules.''

I am disappointed for one of two reasons and since we are not privvy to the goings on at the time of rules being set up I cannot determine which I am upset at.

I am either upset because CS foresaw the possible outcome of the rules in place, foresaw who could be targeted and did not shout it from the highest rooftop "not fair" so we know he was fighting the fight. Even if he changed his above statement to "we knew what the rules were and were always UNCOMFORTABLE with them but unfortunately have to work within them" gives me some belief that he fought the fight and lost.

OR

I am upset because CS did not foresee the implications of the rules.

Either way - I am upset at CS.

Edited June 17, 201114 yr by nutbean

Since I have no insight as to what CS and others did and didnt fight for/against I will go as far as saying I am disappointed in CS's response to Gary March's statement.

Gary March flagged in March 2010 the targeting of 1st and 2nd year players.

"We were all led to believe that the new clubs could take uncontracted stars, but we weren't aware their targets would be first- and second-year stars. If you suddenly allow that, then it defeats the whole purpose of the system. I'm not just talking about Dustin Martin. I haven't spoken to Melbourne or West Coast, but I would feel the same way about Jack Trengove, Tom Scully or Jack Watts or Nic Naitanui. As a football person, I don't think it's right.''

We can all take a shot at March and say he was very short sighted but CS's response to this was

''Gary March does not speak on behalf of our club,'' Schwab said. ''We understand what the rules are and Tim Harrington is working hard to make sure we keep all of our players and we are comfortable with that so I don't need Gary March speaking on behalf of the Melbourne Football Club.

''It's his concept, he can take it forward. We know what the rules are and will work within the rules.''

I am disappointed for one of two reasons and since we are not privvy to the goings on at the time of rules being set up I cannot determine which I am upset at.

I am either upset because CS foresaw the possible outcome of the rules in place, foresaw who could be targeted and did not shout it from the highest rooftop "not fair" so we know he was fighting the fight. Even if he changed his above statement to "we knew what the rules were and were always UNCOMFORTABLE with them but unfortunately have to work within them" gives me some belief that he fought the fight and lost.

OR

I am upset because CS did not foresee the implications of the rule.

Either way - I am upset at CS.

Fair comment....As a member i am disappointed i was not given this information either, Because i fully Support Gary March's comments.

If we lose our 1st & 2nd round picks because these rules were left unchallenged, then you can be sure Membership & sponsor revenue will drop off (again).

Thus why would CS agree to them, what was the motivation??

Thus why would CS agree to them, what was the motivation??

My point - either lack of foresight ( I hope not) or lack of noise by CS on his disapproval of the rules - there are no other explanations.

We ridicule Gary March but at least he straight out admitted lack of foresight.

Edited June 17, 201114 yr by nutbean

It's all very well to criticise, but I can't fathom any restrictions on who GWS could sign that would be 'fair' to all teams.

If players with less than 3 years service were excluded, teams losing 4th year players would be crying foul.

In terms of compensating teams with draft picks, if higher picks were awarded, it would only lead to another team's ability to rebuild being compromised.

you can be sure Membership & sponsor revenue will drop off (again).

"Again"?

Even after five bad playing seasons (2007-2011), membership has gone up by 50% (24,000 to 36,000). You say "again" as if it's a common occurrence.

My point - either lack of foresight ( I hope not) or lack of noise by CS on his disapproval of the rules - there are no other explanations.

We ridicule Gary March but at least he straight out admitted lack of foresight.

If it is lack of foresight on behalf of CS, why the hell did we go through the last 4 years of real pain just to have the heart ripped out again??

Not Happy Jan.

"Again"?

Even after five bad playing seasons (2007-2011), membership has gone up by 50% (24,000 to 36,000). You say "again" as if it's a common occurrence.

We will be in debt again is the Net Result. That is not unusual over the last 50 years.

Membership has gone up over the last 5 years because of Hope...if we have our Young guns poached within 2 years, you can kiss goodbye to a good slab of those new members.

It's all very well to criticise, but I can't fathom any restrictions on who GWS could sign that would be 'fair' to all teams.

If players with less than 3 years service were excluded, teams losing 4th year players would be crying foul.

In terms of compensating teams with draft picks, if higher picks were awarded, it would only lead to another team's ability to rebuild being compromised.

I can fathom restrictions thats are FAIRER - if the AFL has decided a line in the sand for free agency then they could have done the same for GWS and GC17 rules governing uncontracted players especially since these clubs were given a further concession of so much more money to spend. Early draft picks are given to a team in recognition of poor performance - the poor performance being by existing players. Allowing the transfer of 1st and 2nd year players, flies in the face of a tiered drafting system.

At least with players that GC17 took you can make a case that all of them had given "service" to their clubs. So if you draw the line at 25 years old - at least you had 7 years of service from a player of which the last 3 years you would hope would be near enough to their mature playing level.

Any system is not perfect but Gary March was 100% right - allowing the targeting of 1st and 2nd year footballers is not right.

In terms of compensating teams with draft picks, if higher picks were awarded, it would only lead to another team's ability to rebuild being compromised.

You can use this line of reasoning to argue for the removal of all compensation picks, can't you?

Unless you think that the idea of compensation is fundamentally wrong, then the issue is what is fair.

I put it to you that the compensation, as agreed upon by the Clubs, was not fair.

This seems pretty uncontroversial - I've already brought up the case of Ablett, and the rules were in fact changed.

You can use this line of reasoning to argue for the removal of all compensation picks, can't you?

Unless you think that the idea of compensation is fundamentally wrong, then the issue is what is fair.

I put it to you that the compensation, as agreed upon by the Clubs, was not fair.

This seems pretty uncontroversial - I've already brought up the case of Ablett, and the rules were in fact changed.

I think once you reach the point where the compensation picks come into play, the impact of another team being pushed back a peg is minimal.

I think once you reach the point where the compensation picks come into play, the impact of another team being pushed back a peg is minimal.

No, sorry i will never agree with that. Compensation for losing a high draft pick to a "Just add Water & Cash" to a new AFL team is very important.

I think once you reach the point where the compensation picks come into play, the impact of another team being pushed back a peg is minimal.

So what exactly are you arguing with the following?

In terms of compensating teams with draft picks, if higher picks were awarded, it would only lead to another team's ability to rebuild being compromised.

Good to see this thread has cracked 1000 replys. Anyone want to guess how many it will finish with?

Good to see this thread has cracked 1000 replys. Anyone want to guess how many it will finish with?

No, because it would be too easy.

So what exactly are you arguing with the following?

I have made an oversight.

My last comment is based on an incorrect assumption... and as a result the previous comment too. I think.

I'll look into it.

Edited June 17, 201114 yr by Artie Bucco

I have made an oversight.

My last comment is based on an incorrect assumption... and as a result the previous comment too. I think.

I'll look into it.

Okay...

I have made an oversight.

My last comment is based on an incorrect assumption... and as a result the previous comment too. I think.

I'll look into it.

I think you should.

Yeah, I think the system to determine the "timing" of the compensation picks is actually awful, because the value of the pick you are awarded is more determined by how your team is traveling as opposed to how much the player was worth.

Player worth determines round, then team performance determines exact position within that round.

I don't have a better solution though.

Is this really the issue being discussed, though?

It was just a passing though on the value of compensation scant.

My mind was squarely focused on what would be fair to exclude.

I think you should.

I have no idea what you're on about.

You're talking about something different altogether.

Just because i do not have all the Facts in front of me, I should not make any Comment...Those are the words of a Dictator Rhino...Aah yes Vlad, the Fat controller How right you are.

I agree WYL. Not having any facts at all has never stopped from fantasing the truth.

AFL...dictatorship....fat controller....conspiracies abound!!

No the AFL will not let GC or GWS fail, but they will happily watch while a few Victorian sides take a hit, and that will happen....just wait a few years. These Draft Concessions are just the start of it.

Brisbane's Financial situation was not due to GC or GWS i never said that..I am merely pointing out how vulnerable they are not living in a football state.

GWS & GC will both be in that category going forward

So it has no requirement to have individual club members vote on it.

If we lose our 1st & 2nd round picks because these rules were left unchallenged, then you can be sure Membership & sponsor revenue will drop off (again).

About as prophetic and accurate as the ACB have a disasterous 2010/11 crowd figures when WYL doomed the ACB. But of course, the Ashes were sold out..

We will be in debt again is the Net Result. That is not unusual over the last 50 years.

Membership has gone up over the last 5 years because of Hope...if we have our Young guns poached within 2 years, you can kiss goodbye to a good slab of those new members.

We're doomed. We're doomed.

No, because it would be too easy.

The Scully reply formula

Number of post per day in thread since thread commenced = 77

Expected date of Scully announcement of departure = Sept 29th (day G.Ablett announceed split last year)

Days until Sept 29 = 104

Additional posts to announcement = 8008

Add current posts = 1014 + 8008 = 9022

Forum Meltdown on September 29 = 140,000

Total posts = 149,022

I agree WYL. Not having any facts at all has never stopped from fantasing the truth.

AFL...dictatorship....fat controller....conspiracies abound!!

So it has no requirement to have individual club members vote on it.

About as prophetic and accurate as the ACB have a disasterous 2010/11 crowd figures when WYL doomed the ACB. But of course, the Ashes were sold out..

We're doomed. We're doomed.

Not your Best Effort Rhino...i expect much better. Lift Your Game.

Cricket is in such good shape at the moment isn't it. B)

Any system is not perfect but Gary March was 100% right - allowing the targeting of 1st and 2nd year footballers is not right.

Not sure about being right or wrong. However, March instructed his recruiting team to sign up their young guns & key players on long-term deals to avoid all this type of speculation & unwanted hysteria.

Martin ... signed & safe. Riewoldt .... signed & safe. Cotchin ... signed & safe. Astbury ... signed & safe. (Ignore the BS $$$$$ numbers the media was quoting ... key point is they got the job done on the players they want to keep moving forward.) Only player in doubt that they are minimally concerned about is Deledio out of contract end of next year ... However, drums are beating that the Tigers are working on him now.

Edited June 17, 201114 yr by hangon007

Now GWS is chasing Justin Beiber? How much money do they have?

Oh he'd be a hit at the Rooty Hill "Vegas of the West" RSL !!!

The Scully reply formula

Number of post per day in thread since thread commenced = 77

Expected date of Scully announcement of departure = Sept 29th (day G.Ablett announceed split last year)

Days until Sept 29 = 104

Additional posts to announcement = 8008

Add current posts = 1014 + 8008 = 9022

Forum Meltdown on September 29 = 140,000

Total posts = 149,022

Do the other 8 or 9 massive Tom Scully threads on the same topic in the archives count ?