I cant believe this guy saying that it was Wards decision to go to GWS & the AFL was not to blame!

How this guy can defend the process were the draft is there to assist teams rebuilding their lists, then create a situation only to see these early picks leave the club after 2-3 yrs and get paid incomes equal to elite status players who have proven track records.

Understanding that we dont want expansion teams to be a uncompetitive, but hey go ask Melb 1964, Bulldogs 1954, Saints 1966,Rich 1980 thats 1 flag in 30yrs between 4 clubs

We all know who the AFL would rather win a flag before the above teams!

Some would say that the $2m/pa CEO at the helm of a billion-dollar sport really ought to have better things to do than retaliate to a player's mum just trying to convince people that her son has good values...

Sure earning his $500+ an hour there.

I liked his comment re Port Adelaide when queried by reporter about the state that Port were in. He retorted that Melbourne were in a far worse position not so long ago. We're still waiting for our 9 million. He is a joke.

He was right in this instance.

No one twisted Ward's arm.

Same with Scully.

Same with Dale Thomas who'd have been offered more than both of them.

If GWS want to pay well over the odds to build a list, he can't stop them.

If GWS want to pay well over the odds to build a list, he can't stop them.

He enabled them , why would he stop them .

The arrogance of the man in treating the supporters like idiots disgusts me .

He enabled them , why would he stop them .

The arrogance of the man in treating the supporters like idiots disgusts me .

Thats what gets me - the "treating us like idiots" factor.

Why not say what we all know

On expansion - "We have to create an unequal playing field as we need the expansion clubs to succeed. Clubs will feel short term pain but our league has been successful operating for over 100 years and whilst losing players to GW/GC17 will hurt some clubs in the short term we as custodians must look at the big picture" - whether you agree with the direction of the league or not - it is an honest statement

On tanking - "When clubs are out of the hunt for finals they start to focus on the next season and do what is right for the club - of course the players should get operations out the way early and youth will be tried and there will be experimentation on players positions. Will it effect the team winning a game of football ? Probably - but it is a fact that when footballers take the field they play to win". When the question comes - "but is that not losing for better draft picks" - you would answer "one of the greatest unknown is what 22 footballers will do on a football ground - Melb v Richmond is a perfect example - if that was losing for draft picks then it was an anxious strategy of relying on a kick after the siren" - again - this answer doesnt treat us like idiots.

That arrogant %^$##& would be better off not trying to spin something that is unspinnable

I don't understand how he's he's wrong?

Is it his fault Ward is a disloyal greedy pr***. Last time i checked, 400k for a 21yo was pretty good coin.

He didn't have to leave for 800k

As said above, daisy stayed for less and could have taken more.

It's not the AFL's fault gubby allen is overpaying (or is he?) for his squad...

He enabled them , why would he stop them .

The arrogance of the man in treating the supporters like idiots disgusts me .

This thing which galls me the most is the fact that the GWS is selectively cherry-picking the weaker teams in the competition with over-the-top offers funded by the AFL. So much for an equal playing field ! Not one "recruit" from a club in the top 8 ! The whole principle of the draft is to allow the clubs at the bottom to regenerate - the players being picked off were selected to be cornerstones of those clubs rebuild. I for one am sick of watching Collingwood, Essendon & Carlton on feature games every week .. have never been more disillusioned, and less interested, in the AFL than I am this year. Could not care less about this year's finals. Treat your customers with disdain and they will turn away as they are already !

Have they? As bad a state as most people say Port is in, they've only lost Nathan Krakouer so far.

They should be happy he is gone.

Richmond have lost no one of note.

Geelong, the most dominant team in the league, lost their best player.

Nor St Kilda.

The dogs have been a top 4 side the last few years, even if they are viewed as a "weaker club."

They pay the same salary cap as other clubs.

Brisbane lost 2 players last year partly as a result of Voss' atrocious list management decisions, putting players offside.

So far MFC have lost no one. You'd think out of 3 years of poaching, to lose 1 player is inevitable.

Adelaide have lost 2 good players, but I wouldn't call them a weak side.

Hawks lost Brown - not a weak side

Freo have lost Palmer - a bloke that wasn't in their 22, and they've only missed finals due to injuries en masse.

... Sorry, but your theory holds no weight.

Edited September 6, 201113 yr by Gareth Keenan

I don't understand how he's he's wrong?

Is it his fault Ward is a disloyal greedy pr***. Last time i checked, 400k for a 21yo was pretty good coin.

He didn't have to leave for 800k

As said above, daisy stayed for less and could have taken more.

It's not the AFL's fault gubby allen is overpaying (or is he?) for his squad...

My issue is that AFL continually espouses an "equal" competition.

What they have done has given all clubs a salary cap but have given larger concessions to two clubs over the last two years ( and next year). This nonsense that they have an extra 10 players is dribble when you recognise that the vast majority of their lists are draftees on fixed low salaries for two years.

So in a competitive player market all clubs are rolling up to an auction with a wallet full of money but the AFL has tucked an extra couple of 50's in the back pocket of GC and GWS.

If Scully or Ward go to Richmond or Collingwood then their respective clubs have not done their homework and put their best foot forward. For this example everyone involved is on a level playing field. I have no problem.

The reason Gubby Allen can overpay ( or pay more) his squad is the AFL has gifted them more TPP than the rest of the competition.

Each club has to sell the dream to their players to stay and not move for the bucks. But Dimwit should acknowledge that the structure he has sanctioned allows GWS to pay more money to get uncontracted players.

This is what riles me when Dimwit talked of Scully and likens it to Jeff White.

Beside the fact that Jeff White wanted to come back Melbourne and would have gone to a number of Melbourne based clubs Freo and MFC had the same cap to play with. So it was competitive. I know I am getting to get shot down here because I believe that we rorted the Cap in those years but the principle is simple - if we all have the same money to play with then let the best man win.

Dimwit needs to acknowledge that he has given GWS ( and GC) a competitive advantage going into player auctions. If he does that and says it for the long term good of the game I have no problem. Its his refusal to acknowledge the obvious that gets up my nose

He enabled them , why would he stop them .

The arrogance of the man in treating the supporters like idiots disgusts me .

I think in this case he's probably justified.

Case in point.

This thing which galls me the most is the fact that the GWS is selectively cherry-picking the weaker teams in the competition with over-the-top offers funded by the AFL. So much for an equal playing field ! Not one "recruit" from a club in the top 8 ! The whole principle of the draft is to allow the clubs at the bottom to regenerate - the players being picked off were selected to be cornerstones of those clubs rebuild. I for one am sick of watching Collingwood, Essendon & Carlton on feature games every week .. have never been more disillusioned, and less interested, in the AFL than I am this year. Could not care less about this year's finals. Treat your customers with disdain and they will turn away as they are already !

That's just patently wrong.

Daisy Thomas? Swan?

Do you honestly think GWS wouldn't want gun players from any club? Of course they would. It's just that the stronger clubs have more going for them than the weaker clubs (in many ways, including ability to set up players for life after football), so those players are less likely to leave.

It's good how when people want to knife politicians they always start with Mr.

Very apt in this case too considering he's the highest paid politician in Australia and doesn't even have to worry about being chucked out of office.

I know what the irritation is.

The money is obscene.

But if Tom makes the bonehead decision to leave as a 20 year old who has done very little then that is his perogative.

They need the extra money to lure the boneheads and I am fine with that.

Would have hoped for an age limit but we are where we are.

It is Tom's decision and his alone.

He is making his bed, let's hope it stays in East Malvern...

That's just patently wrong.

Daisy Thomas? Swan?

Do you honestly think GWS wouldn't want gun players from any club? Of course they would. It's just that the stronger clubs have more going for them than the weaker clubs (in many ways, including ability to set up players for life after football), so those players are less likely to leave.

The offers to the young players in question are way out of whack with what they could reasonably expect - $6m for Tom Scully at this stage of his career is absurd by any reasonable measure. Thomas has runs on the board, and is playing in a very successful team and is being very well looked after at Collingwood. GWS just gave hime some leverage. I suspect the real truth is that GWS is simply not a very attractive proposition to established players in good clubs - who wants to play for 5 years of beltings when you can look forward to successes now ?

I know what the irritation is.

The money is obscene.

But if Tom makes the bonehead decision to leave as a 20 year old who has done very little then that is his perogative.

They need the extra money to lure the boneheads and I am fine with that.

Would have hoped for an age limit but we are where we are.

It is Tom's decision and his alone.

He is making his bed, let's hope it stays in East Malvern...

I agree with everything you say but I just wish Dimwit would say that we had to create a structure to get boneheads up to GWS. We need them to get talent and we need them to be successful. Long term picture Short term pain - suck it up Stephanie.

If he said that then thats all good - we all know that - but Dimwit trying to wash his hands of the entire matter. Yes, ultimately it is up to the players to make a decision but make no mistake it is an AFL adventure that has caused players to have to make these decisions.

I have said before and repeat - this would be a hell of a lot more palatable if they age (23?) or contract ( 2nd contract) restricted GWS/ GC access to players.

I cant believe this guy saying that it was Wards decision to go to GWS & the AFL was not to blame!

How this guy can defend the process were the draft is there to assist teams rebuilding their lists, then create a situation only to see these early picks leave the club after 2-3 yrs and get paid incomes equal to elite status players who have proven track records.

Understanding that we dont want expansion teams to be a uncompetitive, but hey go ask Melb 1964, Bulldogs 1954, Saints 1966,Rich 1980 thats 1 flag in 30yrs between 4 clubs

We all know who the AFL would rather win a flag before the above teams!

I hate that guy with a passion, he is the biggest hypocrite ever to walk the earth. He goes on about gambling and some other issues affecting the integrity of the game. At the same time he is throwing all the AFL's money ruining some clubs just so they can have a team in the slums of West Sydney.

I know what the irritation is.

The money is obscene.

But if Tom makes the bonehead decision to leave as a 20 year old who has done very little then that is his perogative.

They need the extra money to lure the boneheads and I am fine with that.

Would have hoped for an age limit but we are where we are.

It is Tom's decision and his alone.

He is making his bed, let's hope it stays in East Malvern...

I hope he stays but I don't think so. He will lose all respect from AFL supporters just like Ward has done. The thing I hope more than anything is that GWS fails which I'm pretty certain it will, then they can go to Tasmania which they should have done in the first place.

Edited September 7, 201113 yr by baysidedave

The offers to the young players in question are way out of whack with what they could reasonably expect - $6m for Tom Scully at this stage of his career is absurd by any reasonable measure. Thomas has runs on the board, and is playing in a very successful team and is being very well looked after at Collingwood. GWS just gave hime some leverage. I suspect the real truth is that GWS is simply not a very attractive proposition to established players in good clubs - who wants to play for 5 years of beltings when you can look forward to successes now ?

Agree with that.

He was right in this instance.

No one twisted Ward's arm.

Same with Scully.

Same with Dale Thomas who'd have been offered more than both of them.

If GWS want to pay well over the odds to build a list, he can't stop them.

Rubbish.

There is NO league in the WORLD that would ever, EVER see a team NOT be able to match an opposing team's offer for a 2nd year player in a salary cap and drafting system.

ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!

Teams cannot match GWS/GC offers. The AFL knows this. It wouldn't have instilled these rules if it didn't.

Rubbish.

There is NO league in the WORLD that would ever, EVER see a team NOT be able to match an opposing team's offer for a 2nd year player in a salary cap and drafting system.

ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!

Teams cannot match GWS/GC offers. The AFL knows this. It wouldn't have instilled these rules if it didn't.

NFL and NBA don't have such short contracts for rookies so it does render your argument somewhat moot.

Should be longer contracts for first round picks though...

NFL and NBA don't have such short contracts for rookies so it does render your argument somewhat moot.

Should be longer contracts for first round picks though...

I'm not sure about this. Drafted players have no choice about where they end up. Locking them in for three years without any ability for them to negotiate pay or conditions would seem akin to slavery.

I'm not sure about this. Drafted players have no choice about where they end up. Locking them in for three years without any ability for them to negotiate pay or conditions would seem akin to slavery.

That's a little bit of an exaggeration...

NBA has 2 year fixed contract and a further two year 'club option.'

It's good money, and they don't get an option of going to even the club that chose them - they can be traded immediately.

It's a sport. You can make the rules. I think 3 years for first rounders isn't too onerous.

It certainly isn't slavery...

The offers to the young players in question are way out of whack with what they could reasonably expect - $6m for Tom Scully at this stage of his career is absurd by any reasonable measure. Thomas has runs on the board, and is playing in a very successful team and is being very well looked after at Collingwood. GWS just gave hime some leverage. I suspect the real truth is that GWS is simply not a very attractive proposition to established players in good clubs - who wants to play for 5 years of beltings when you can look forward to successes now ?

Anyone ever consider that this is why they are targeting 20 year olds? Older players, having a little more life experience, a little more idea of how their career and contracts are going to go and perhaps a broader perspective, will look at GWS and see a train wreck and possibly the end of their career. The best of them will refuse to go, and the ones who will take the money are those who have few prospects of success and financial reward at their own club. This being the case they target kids who are more likely to be dazzled by the big shiny dollar signs and the promises of quick glory that sensible people can see through.