GOODBYE MR. CHIP FRAWLEY

[beelzebub 23,392]

Im a little curious about the poll.. Showing roughly a 1/3 as thinking he'll stay.

A question to them then. As Jackson suggests, there's been an offer on the table for a while from us and he's not signed. He's waiting for a month to make a decision ? Coincidentally til the end of finals

As PJ says : "you'd think he would have signed if he were staying "

So, what does anyone base their answer that he's staying on ? Seems odd.

[nutbean 8,838]

  On 01/09/2014 at 23:47, beelzebub said:

Im a little curious about the poll.. Showing roughly a 1/3 as thinking he'll stay.

A question to them then. As Jackson suggests, there's been an offer on the table for a while from us and he's not signed. He's waiting for a month to make a decision ? Coincidentally til the end of finals

As PJ says : "you'd think he would have signed if he were staying "

So, what does anyone base their answer that he's staying on ? Seems odd.

This thread is a tad old as is the poll - If you did a poll now, I don't think that even Saty would believe he is staying.

[beelzebub 23,392]

  On 01/09/2014 at 23:51, nutbean said:

This thread is a tad old as is the poll - If you did a poll now, I don't think that even Saty would believe he is staying.

old. yes but some are still thinking hes staying.. thats all

[daisycutter 29,997]

  On 01/09/2014 at 23:46, nutbean said:

Agreed - the talk is he has met with the leadership group.

i would classify talking to the club's leadership group as a breech

talking to a single player who happened to be in the leadership group probably ok

[Jack Jack 415]

  On 02/09/2014 at 01:56, daisycutter said:

i would classify talking to the club's leadership group as a breech

talking to a single player who happened to be in the leadership group probably ok

Geelong have done this before. And I'm not aware of any fines or sanctions that they received for breaching any rules.

I'd like to see something similar to the NBA rules come into play, where by the teams cannot even engage with the player managers until the player is no longer under contract and becomes a free agent.

[Redleg 42,131]

We have a great new system in the AFL, labelled Free Agency.

What it is in simple terms, is the raping of weaker clubs by the stronger ones.

A team that is equal top on wins and has won 3 flags in the last 7 years, took our CHB last year and will allegedly take our FB this year.

Oh yes, but we will get compo they will say.

Yes we will get a ND pick, which if not traded will mean we will get a skinny 18 year old kid, to replace a strong, experienced player, in the peak years of his career.

[The Chazz 4,077]

  On 01/09/2014 at 23:26, Matt Demon said:

Ontop of FA coming in the AFL decided to bring in two expansion teams and take all the young talent. What hope did the clubs down the bottom have?

Don't use the expansion teams as an excuse, use our own incompetence. We had a window of about 2 draft periods to get it right. We didn't. Then the talent dried up because of the expansion teams.

In previous decades, if we stuffed up during our window like we did, we'd only wait a year or two and try again. We didn't have that "opportunity" this time around, so we have to wait until now to try again.

[Dockett 32 1,239]

Agreed Red. A ridiculously inequitable system falsely concocted by the players association ( Who IMO have greater voice than supporters who generate AFL revenue!) under the guise of giving borderline players a greater chance .

Handsomely welcomed , of course, by the stronger, richer, clubs who saw it as a great opportunity for abuse, rape and pillage and they have executed to perfection. ( We should have a thread on the best at this. Sydney & Hawthorn followed closely by Geelong and Collingwood would be my order.)

Realistically the scam devalues and re models the ND, completely distorts fair compensation and needs an urgent review.

[Pennant St Dee 13,428]

  On 01/09/2014 at 22:03, Jara said:

So true. Great post. It's not just free agency, though, it's everything about the creeping corporatization of the game ( ie rigged fixture, expansion clubs)

It all supports the clubs who were big when it came in (I suppose if it had happened fifty years ago, we would have been gloating)

I'm in complete despair about this. Just see no hope of us ever winning a flag. We'll be like the Bulldogs.

Smirking bas&$!s from the big clubs love to see us down there, and have got absolutely no incentive to do anything about it. "Equalisation" is a myth, a bone tossed to the dog so that it doesn't roll over and die. All we provide is cannon fodder. If by chance we do ever get a decent player, he'll be off to Hawthorn etc by the time he's at his peak. Every one of our free agents have left us (think I'm right there) The players are mostly morons who don't understand the passion of those of us who are supporters.

Sorry for such a bitter post. Maybe out of bed on the wrong side this morning.

Footy's like the wider society; an accelerating division between the haves and the have-nots (as exemplified by the current morons in charge in Canberra - if you're rich, you're laughing, if you aren't, you're stuffed)

Equalisation is about letting us survive not moving forward, the AFL foolishly believe this will keep us happy hence our fixturing doesn't give us annual home fixtures against a fair few of the big drawing clubs

[Macca 17,126]

Bottom clubs (say the actual bottom 4 - 6 clubs) should be able to keep their compensation for a lost free agent (or 'free agents') even if they themselves bring in as many free agents as they like.

We should be in the market for free agents but we're not ... primarily because our compensation for a lost free agent (Frawley?) would be watered down.

Free agency has only been around for a couple of years but we as a club are already stuck in a cycle of losing free agents, hoping like hell for decent compensation and at the same time being hamstrung in bringing free agents in.

[SaberFang 7,151]

We've had it rough but arguably the Saints have had it worse. Goddard, Dal Santo and almost Riewoldt.

Roos is spot on that free agency is actually bad for players overall, as the lucky talented minority will begin receiving hyper inflated salaries, leaving very little share of the pie for the overwhelming majority of talented-but-not-elite players.

Of course, once that becomes a problem the AFLPA will then start their campaign for the removal of the salary cap, again under the false pretense of helping the "poor, underpaid, suffering" fringe players. And we all know what clubs would love that outcome and lobby AFL House to make it happen.

[Macca 17,126]

  On 02/09/2014 at 04:02, Lamashtu said:

We've had it rough but arguably the Saints have had it worse. Goddard, Dal Santo and almost Riewoldt.

Roos is spot on that free agency is actually bad for players overall, as the small minority will begin receiving inflated salaries, leaving very little for the remaining majority.

Of course, once that becomes a problem the AFLPA will then start their campaign for the removal of the salary cap, again under the guise of helping the "poor, underpaid, suffering" majority. And we all know what clubs would love that outcome and lobby AFL House to make it happen.

Good point and the Saints are another example of what free agency has created ... the law of unintended consequences kicks in.

Much like the priority pick made tanking a bigger problem, the lure of an early draft pick for a lost free agent is now another issue for bottom clubs. Why risk having that pick being watered down by bringing in free agents?

As a general rule, I can't see any of the bottom clubs bringing in any free agents whilst they're in the process of losing a quality free agent.

In fact, apart from a few "delisted" free agents being signed, none of the bottom 5 clubs from 2013 brought in a free agent.

At the end of the previous year (2012 ... the first year of free agency) only 2 teams out of the bottom 5 clubs signed up a free agent ... the GCS signed up Tom Murphy but the Suns were in no danger of losing a free agent and besides all that, Murphy is hardly an A grade player.

The other club who signed up a free agent at the end of 2012 was us - we signed up Byrnes but in retrospect, we probably should have traded for him or signed him as a delisted free agent.

The same thing could happen this year and if that did happen, we'd have 3 years where none of the bottom 5 clubs have signed up a quality free agent. Compare that to the better performed clubs.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

  On 02/09/2014 at 03:57, Macca said:

Bottom clubs (say the actual bottom 4 - 6 clubs) should be able to keep their compensation for a lost free agent (or 'free agents') even if they themselves bring in as many free agents as they like.

We should be in the market for free agents but we're not ... primarily because our compensation for a lost free agent (Frawley?) would be watered down.

Free agency has only been around for a couple of years but we as a club are already stuck in a cycle of losing free agents, hoping like hell for decent compensation and at the same time being hamstrung in bringing free agents in.

Exactly, I've never understood that. The team bringing in the free agent gets to do so at no penalty or compromise to their draft position, but if the team that loses a player to free agency wants to utilise that system it will dilute the compensation they were fairly awarded for their loss.

Blatantly set up to keep the draw cards up the top whilst the little guys walk on the spot. Very unfair

[WhyAlwaysMe 237]

Hey Mum, is he gone yet, is he gone yet, is he gone yet.

[Pipefitter 2,225]

Theres a bit of woe is me from us from losing a few spuds to free agency, when the likes of Franklin, Goddard, and Thomas have moved in free agency.

[beelzebub 23,392]

  On 02/09/2014 at 11:37, Pipefitter said:

Theres a bit of woe is me from us from losing a few spuds to free agency, when the likes of Franklin, Goddard, and Thomas have moved in free agency.

shh !!! you might just be right

[Uncle Fester 2,848]

  On 02/09/2014 at 11:37, Pipefitter said:

Theres a bit of woe is me from us from losing a few spuds to free agency, when the likes of Franklin, Goddard, and Thomas have moved in free agency.

I'll give you Buddy and Goddard.

Daisy not so much.

[Deecisive 1,709]

When you look at it Free Agency is of considerable value to GWS and Goldcoast both are unlikely to have players who are free agents, as such they can buy who ever they like with no loss of compensation. If melbourne did not have Frawley as a free agent then we could bid for a number of free agents as we are likely to have room in our salary cap, not saying they would be attracted to Melbourne but they could certainly be courted. Sides will need to tie up free agents by their 6th year otherwise trade them and get what you can before they go into their 7th year, as keeping them only inhibits your teams ability to attract free agents at no penalty to you.

[demoniac 1,337]

  On 02/09/2014 at 04:02, Lamashtu said:

We've had it rough but arguably the Saints have had it worse. Goddard, Dal Santo and almost Riewoldt.

Roos is spot on that free agency is actually bad for players overall, as the lucky talented minority will begin receiving hyper inflated salaries, leaving very little share of the pie for the overwhelming majority of talented-but-not-elite players.

Of course, once that becomes a problem the AFLPA will then start their campaign for the removal of the salary cap, again under the false pretense of helping the "poor, underpaid, suffering" fringe players. And we all know what clubs would love that outcome and lobby AFL House to make it happen.

In the salary cap era players have consistently chosen on field success over maximising contracts. Players have stayed at successful clubs when they could have moved for a better contract and players have moved to a successful club for equal too or less than their original club offered.

The real impact on players is that hundreds off them will be at clubs that will never have a real chance of making a prelim much less winning a flag.

[Jara 1,153]

  On 01/09/2014 at 22:16, Ethan Tremblay said:

FA isn't going anywhere, deal with it. I'm glad they're smirking, we'll wipe it off their faces. Life isn't fair and even, suck it up.

Some people work hard to get where they are, judging by your political view and post, hand outs and a free ride is your preferred option.

Hey Ethan - sorry for late post - been busy all day. Good point, though. You're right - there are lifters and leaners out there, and we've been leaners for eight years now. No, by god, fifty! Pathetic.

And it's all our fault! Hand outs galore - why, we even got Scully and Blease. And have had the nerve to ask for more. We deserve to be punished. Let's go the Full Hockey - let's give massive subsidies to Gina - er, sorry, Hawthorn, or Eddie or Geelong. They worked hard to get where they are. Give them our best players. They can have the blockbusters, the Friday nights. Let's slash our health and education - I mean player development - programs - riff-raff like us don't deserve such things.

As you imply, we'll be better for it in the long run. The very, very long run. I feel better already.

[DemonOX 8,856]

Any info come out of the meeting between Frawley and Roos?

They were meeting today apparently.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

Frawley delayed the meeting for another month

[olisik 4,060]

  On 03/09/2014 at 11:26, sweet dee said:

Frawley delayed the meeting for another month

cant beleive his giving us the run around. All he cares about is himself.

[chook fowler 19,761]

Self important plonker. Hope to God he goes.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

That was a joke. Didn't hear anything about his supposed meeting with Roosy today, but the lack of any news tells me he still hasn't made up his mind yet..