I love this from the Fat Controller

[Guest 36DD]

Geez this is a very interesting point. Why ... was it raining that day? Maybe it was because its not a Saturday.

How damn un-reasonable of that Queen having her holiday on a Monday. B)

not to sure what to make of your post above, thats the second time today that you've completely lost me, stumped, absolutely stumped.

i was responding to a previous post whereby it was claimed Demetriou likes the dee, I gave the queens birthday example to illustrate how much he "likes" us, not too sure where you were headed, have you been playing your records backwards again???

[Guest hangon007]

not to sure what to make of your post above, thats the second time today that you've completely lost me, stumped, absolutely stumped.

Please dont say this ... you make me very happy.

i was responding to a previous post whereby it was claimed Demetriou likes the dee, I gave the queens birthday example to illustrate how much he "likes" us, not too sure where you were headed, have you been playing your records backwards again???

I realised exactly what you were saying about AD ... I suggested it was not AD taking the game off us. I was us taking the game off ourselves.

But I did offer an excuse for us ... it may have been raining!!!! it was damn annoying the game was on a Monday for many Melbourne supporters.

[Hulett Packard III 166]

A lot of what Demetriou said about the raid on Tom Scully was disingenuous and misleading. Here's an example:-

He is quoted by Grant Baker in this article - Teams made poaching rules: AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou as saying that the movement of high-profile players early in their careers had been happening for a long time.

“It’s not new, it’s not the first time this has happened,” he said. “We’ve got short memoires. Jeff White was the No.1 draft pick and came back to Melbourne after one year.”

In fact, White was at Fremantle for three seasons playing 32 games for 18 goals. White wanted to come home and when he was traded to Melbourne, the Demons competed for his services on a level playing field against other clubs that operated under a similar salary cap.

Moreover, the Dockers received selection # 2 in the national draft (which was uncompromised) as well as an upgrade of an early second round pick. Fremantle traded the second pick to Richmond which used it on Brad Ottens.

In its wisdom the AFL then decided this wasn't enough and awarded the Dockers another early first round draft pick in the following draft - pick #5 in the 1999 AFL national draft.

So Mr. Demetriou - if you think the Scully situation is analagous to that of White, why not come out and compensate Melbourne with like for like if Scully goes?

The article ends:

In the event Scully leaves, Demetriou said the compensation offered to Melbourne would be fair.

“There’s a formula that the guys (AFL) are working through with the Players’ Association and that group and it’ll be fair – if that’s what happens.”

Demetriou has used Jeff White as the example (even if he was ignorant of the fact that White came home after three years, not one) so that should serve as a benchmark in considering the value of a young player originally selected at # 1. Picks 2 and 5 in the national draft and an upgrade to the second selection in the second round sound reasonable although given that the next draft is already heavily compromised its arguable that he could do even better and make the first selection # 1.

But please do not humour us by offering a mid and a late first round pick!

[Redleg 40,910]

A lot of what Demetriou said about the raid on Tom Scully was disingenuous and misleading. Here's an example:-

He is quoted by Grant Baker in this article - Teams made poaching rules: AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou as saying that the movement of high-profile players early in their careers had been happening for a long time.

“It’s not new, it’s not the first time this has happened,” he said. “We’ve got short memoires. Jeff White was the No.1 draft pick and came back to Melbourne after one year.”

In fact, White was at Fremantle for three seasons playing 32 games for 18 goals. White wanted to come home and when he was traded to Melbourne, the Demons competed for his services on a level playing field against other clubs that operated under a similar salary cap.

Moreover, the Dockers received selection # 2 in the national draft (which was uncompromised) as well as an upgrade of an early second round pick. Fremantle traded the second pick to Richmond which used it on Brad Ottens.

In its wisdom the AFL then decided this wasn't enough and awarded the Dockers another early first round draft pick in the following draft - pick #5 in the 1999 AFL national draft.

So Mr. Demetriou - if you think the Scully situation is analagous to that of White, why not come out and compensate Melbourne with like for like if Scully goes?

The article ends:

Demetriou has used Jeff White as the example (even if he was ignorant of the fact that White came home after three years, not one) so that should serve as a benchmark in considering the value of a young player originally selected at # 1. Picks 2 and 5 in the national draft and an upgrade to the second selection in the second round sound reasonable although given that the next draft is already heavily compromised its arguable that he could do even better and make the first selection # 1.

But please do not humour us by offering a mid and a late first round pick!

Good post.

[Whispering_Jack 30,065]

Good post.

I agree. Love your work Mr. Dailey.

It was the AFL itself which set a precedent in deciding to compensate Fremantle by giving it pick 5 in addition to the previous deal of pick 2 and an upgrade to an early second round pick for losing Jeff White so that should be the benchmark for the "anomalous situation" created when a club loses a former # 1 pick so early in his career. Now that Demetriou has pointed to this example it's incumbent upon him to ensure that it's followed through so as to adhere to the precedent set by previous administrations.

[Guest hangon007]

A lot of what Demetriou said about the raid on Tom Scully was disingenuous and misleading. Here's an example:-

He is quoted by Grant Baker in this article - Teams made poaching rules: AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou as saying that the movement of high-profile players early in their careers had been happening for a long time.

“It’s not new, it’s not the first time this has happened,” he said. “We’ve got short memoires. Jeff White was the No.1 draft pick and came back to Melbourne after one year.”

In fact, White was at Fremantle for three seasons playing 32 games for 18 goals. White wanted to come home and when he was traded to Melbourne, the Demons competed for his services on a level playing field against other clubs that operated under a similar salary cap.

Moreover, the Dockers received selection # 2 in the national draft (which was uncompromised) as well as an upgrade of an early second round pick. Fremantle traded the second pick to Richmond which used it on Brad Ottens.

In its wisdom the AFL then decided this wasn't enough and awarded the Dockers another early first round draft pick in the following draft - pick #5 in the 1999 AFL national draft.

So Mr. Demetriou - if you think the Scully situation is analagous to that of White, why not come out and compensate Melbourne with like for like if Scully goes?

The article ends:

Demetriou has used Jeff White as the example (even if he was ignorant of the fact that White came home after three years, not one) so that should serve as a benchmark in considering the value of a young player originally selected at # 1. Picks 2 and 5 in the national draft and an upgrade to the second selection in the second round sound reasonable although given that the next draft is already heavily compromised its arguable that he could do even better and make the first selection # 1.

But please do not humour us by offering a mid and a late first round pick!

You are going down a very dangerous track with this one boys.

Good luck & I wish you well.

[old55 23,564]

I agree. Love your work Mr. Dailey.

It was the AFL itself which set a precedent in deciding to compensate Fremantle by giving it pick 5 in addition to the previous deal of pick 2 and an upgrade to an early second round pick for losing Jeff White so that should be the benchmark for the "anomalous situation" created when a club loses a former # 1 pick so early in his career. Now that Demetriou has pointed to this example it's incumbent upon him to ensure that it's followed through so as to adhere to the precedent set by previous administrations.

It's good to out the truth - that White was a 3 year player not one. But my understanding of the pick 5 to Fremantle was because it came out later with the Gutnick confession that MFC went over the salary cap at the time we enticed White to join us and Fremantle were unfairly disadvantaged - the pick was compensation for that.

[Whispering_Jack 30,065]

It's good to out the truth - that White was a 3 year player not one. But my understanding of the pick 5 to Fremantle was because it came out later with the Gutnick confession that MFC went over the salary cap at the time we enticed White to join us and Fremantle were unfairly disadvantaged - the pick was compensation for that.

You're 100% correct old but the thing is this.

The decision to grant Freo the extra pick was not part of the punitive measures against Melbourne. It was designed to ensure that, in the circumstances, the Dockers were properly compensated for the loss of Jeff White.

Therefore the precedent of giving two top five selections and a tweak of the second round pick must be exactly what the AFL thought was fair in White's case and, as stated above, should become the benchmark when a club loses a # 1 pick.

It's fairly straightforward to me and since it was a adopted by the AFL itself, and the AFL CEO has deemed the White/Scully situations as analagous, then voila - we have the precise measure of what is fair and reasonable compensation straight from the AFL.

[Whispering_Jack 30,065]

You are going down a very dangerous track with this one boys.

Good luck & I wish you well.

What makes it "dangerous"?

It's the AFL's own idea and the only precedent available of what to do in these circumstances.

[old55 23,564]

You're 100% correct old but the thing is this.

The decision to grant Freo the extra pick was not part of the punitive measures against Melbourne. It was designed to ensure that, in the circumstances, the Dockers were properly compensated for the loss of Jeff White.

Therefore the precedent of giving two top five selections and a tweak of the second round pick must be exactly what the AFL thought was fair in White's case and, as stated above, should become the benchmark when a club loses a # 1 pick.

It's fairly straightforward to me and since it was a adopted by the AFL itself, and the AFL CEO has deemed the White/Scully situations as analagous, then voila - we have the precise measure of what is fair and reasonable compensation straight from the AFL.

Your logic is impeccable Jack - unfortunately as we have both become aware - logic and consistency don't necessarily apply to the AFL.

[Captain Jack Jordan 32]

mate i could label you extremely naive, it is not in his or the AFL's best interests to operate a fair and equitable competition, any thought's otherwise are merely pie in the sky...

was this the same Andrew Demetriou who threatened to take Queens Birthday off us because we were "just" getting 50,000 a few years back, c'mon mate, i love a good souvlaki as well but open your eyes

Somehow since Dimmy has been chief we've paid back debts ,stacked our list ,got the MCG back as our Home ,got new facilities and boosted our membership and we may even profit this year .

One comment about QB crowds does not an enemy make .We should devote our time thinking about how to beat Hawks ,Collingwood and Geelong .The AFL are not circling .The Filth are ,believe me ...

We should be pouring all our hate into destroying other clubs and let the afl help us along .I back Schwab against all administrative enemies .

[Guest hangon007]

What makes it "dangerous"?

It's the AFL's own idea and the only precedent available of what to do in these circumstances.

With all due respect, and as Cameron Schwab said in his radio interview, "we dont even want to go there."

If people cant see the 17 armies & the mighty AFL wanting to "kill" us down this track that is there choice.

Some just would prefer to live and fight another day ie Cameron Schwab ... but if you want to rock the boat dont let me stop you.

Personally, I would wait ... but its your call.

Edited July 23, 2011 by hangon007

[Dockett 32 1,239]

hangon007, on 23 July 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:

You are going down a very dangerous track with this one boys.

Good luck & I wish you well.

What makes it "dangerous"?

It's the AFL's own idea and the only precedent available of what to do in these circumstances.

Surely in the Scully scenario it would be difficult to find a more compelling argument for significant compensation with player age and contract value being the two key determinents "In the world according to Anderson". As stated by Whispering, there has been precedent with White, so ball clearly in the AFL's court to see what they come up with. Moving on however ( if the Scully transfer actually happens) one could assume there will be other clubs screaming for adequate compensation for lost players and we have already witnessed Eddy begin the posturing in a hypothetical Thomas case. I doubt if we are going to be the only club under fire here and it's possible we could do somewhat better than the rest. The next chapter in all of this should be an absolute corker!

[Captain Jack Jordan 32]

hangon007, on 23 July 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:

You are going down a very dangerous track with this one boys.

Good luck & I wish you well.

What makes it "dangerous"?

It's the AFL's own idea and the only precedent available of what to do in these circumstances.

Surely in the Scully scenario it would be difficult to find a more compelling argument for significant compensation with player age and contract value being the two key determinents "In the world according to Anderson". As stated by Whispering, there has been precedent with White, so ball clearly in the AFL's court to see what they come up with. Moving on however ( if the Scully transfer actually happens) one could assume there will be other clubs screaming for adequate compensation for lost players and we have already witnessed Eddy begin the posturing in a hypothetical Thomas case. I doubt if we are going to be the only club under fire here and it's possible we could do somewhat better than the rest. The next chapter in all of this should be an absolute corker!

Good point - we won't lose out either way.

[Guest hangon007]

hangon007, on 23 July 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:

You are going down a very dangerous track with this one boys.

Good luck & I wish you well.

What makes it "dangerous"?

It's the AFL's own idea and the only precedent available of what to do in these circumstances.

Surely in the Scully scenario it would be difficult to find a more compelling argument for significant compensation with player age and contract value being the two key determinents "In the world according to Anderson". As stated by Whispering, there has been precedent with White, so ball clearly in the AFL's court to see what they come up with. Moving on however ( if the Scully transfer actually happens) one could assume there will be other clubs screaming for adequate compensation for lost players and we have already witnessed Eddy begin the posturing in a hypothetical Thomas case. I doubt if we are going to be the only club under fire here and it's possible we could do somewhat better than the rest. The next chapter in all of this should be an absolute corker!

Ok ... Good luck. If he does go ... its up to you. Are you .... Sure some wont be disappointed if he doesn't go?

They are getting mighty pumped up about these "picks".

[Dockett 32 1,239]

Haven't made a comment on the Tom Scully thread Hang On as I simply have no idea as to Tom's position other than what he has said. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

What I can tell you is that either the will stay group or the wont stay group will be proven correct in about 8 weeks.

I am more interested how the AFL attempt to handle compensating clubs for loss of players however because it all looks very rubbery, particularly as no one knows the actual formula they will use, whether the basis of previous compensation precedent will come into the picture, whether the AFL will continue to make rules on the run (as per the third party arrangements),if compensation essentially ends up as a subjective assessment by some panel or perhaps if at some point the AFL will come totally clean and act a little differently than they have so far.

I wonder for instance what sort of compensation Hawthorn might deem fair if Sam Mitchell was to be "hypothetically" appointed captain of GWS as he's probably 8 - 10 years older than say Tom Scully or Ward from the Bulldogs and would have a much better CV including a premiership medal amoungst other things? From the AFL noises probably not worth much.I imagine Hawthorn would be tickled pink about that should it occur.

For the record I believe the MFC have done a very good job with the difficult situation they have been put in by all concerned.

[Guest hangon007]

Haven't made a comment on the Tom Scully thread Hang On as I simply have no idea as to Tom's position other than what he has said. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

What I can tell you is that either the will stay group or the wont stay group will be proven correct in about 8 weeks.

I am more interested how the AFL attempt to handle compensating clubs for loss of players however because it all looks very rubbery, particularly as no one knows the actual formula they will use, whether the basis of previous compensation precedent will come into the picture, whether the AFL will continue to make rules on the run (as per the third party arrangements),if compensation essentially ends up as a subjective assessment by some panel or perhaps if at some point the AFL will come totally clean and act a little differently than they have so far.

I wonder for instance what sort of compensation Hawthorn might deem fair if Sam Mitchell was to be "hypothetically" appointed captain of GWS as he's probably 8 - 10 years older than say Tom Scully or Ward from the Bulldogs and would have a much better CV including a premiership medal amoungst other things? From the AFL noises probably not worth much.I imagine Hawthorn would be tickled pink about that should it occur.

For the record I believe the MFC have done a very good job with the difficult situation they have been put in by all concerned.

No problems. I just thought the rules had been set & agreed too. Sorry I dont know where this "precedent" stuff came from.

But if you want to give it a try ... Dont let me stop you.

[Striker475 696]

I must admit, I find interesting the Jeff White upgrade thing - I knew we traded pick 2 and the upgrade for him, but didn't know about the pick 5 issue. That seriously muddies the waters over what is fair compensation for a #1 draft pick early in their career.

Legal types - is there any sort of legal recourse over this? Curious whether there's some sort of way for sporting rules disagreements between club and lawmaker to be sorted.

[Tony Tea 2,809]

Legal types - is there any sort of legal recourse over this? Curious whether there's some sort of way for sporting rules disagreements between club and lawmaker to be sorted.

Melbourne would never set the lawyers on the AFL. The AFL would remove our assistance money and make us play every home game in Darwin for the next 5 years.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

Melbourne would never set the lawyers on the AFL. The AFL would remove our assistance money and make us play every home game in Darwin for the next 5 years.

Depends on how screwed we potentially become, if it comes to that.

[Guest hangon007]

Melbourne would never set the lawyers on the AFL. The AFL would remove our assistance money and make us play every home game in Darwin for the next 5 years.

The Darwin Demons ... that has an interesting ring to it. LJ & Ozzy would be rapt. But its their choice, if they make a decision they have to live with the possible consequences.

But do you really think the AFL would do that?

Edited July 23, 2011 by hangon007

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

A lot of what Demetriou said about the raid on Tom Scully was disingenuous and misleading. Here's an example:-

He is quoted by Grant Baker in this article - Teams made poaching rules: AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou as saying that the movement of high-profile players early in their careers had been happening for a long time.

"It's not new, it's not the first time this has happened," he said. "We've got short memoires. Jeff White was the No.1 draft pick and came back to Melbourne after one year."

In fact, White was at Fremantle for three seasons playing 32 games for 18 goals. White wanted to come home and when he was traded to Melbourne, the Demons competed for his services on a level playing field against other clubs that operated under a similar salary cap.

Moreover, the Dockers received selection # 2 in the national draft (which was uncompromised) as well as an upgrade of an early second round pick. Fremantle traded the second pick to Richmond which used it on Brad Ottens.

In its wisdom the AFL then decided this wasn't enough and awarded the Dockers another early first round draft pick in the following draft - pick #5 in the 1999 AFL national draft.

So Mr. Demetriou - if you think the Scully situation is analagous to that of White, why not come out and compensate Melbourne with like for like if Scully goes?

The article ends:

Demetriou has used Jeff White as the example (even if he was ignorant of the fact that White came home after three years, not one) so that should serve as a benchmark in considering the value of a young player originally selected at # 1. Picks 2 and 5 in the national draft and an upgrade to the second selection in the second round sound reasonable although given that the next draft is already heavily compromised its arguable that he could do even better and make the first selection # 1.

But please do not humour us by offering a mid and a late first round pick!

Lets hope the Fat Controller has been given a history lesson since then. And we make sure we hold the AFL to account when they try to spin this twisted BS into our compensation negotiations.

Still a great post Bean.

Thanks

Edited September 12, 2011 by Rusty Nails

[Guest Range.Rover]

The Fat Controller engineered the whole thing.

Demtetriou - Sheedy - Allen - Blucher - Scully

That's why they call 'im the Fat Controller.

The Fat Controller.