Following the CAS judgement on the Essendon 34, the AFL immediately put into place a set of rules relating to clubs affected by the loss of suspended players. These were made apparently without consulting the other AFL clubs and this was done on the basis that it would have been a health and safety issue to force the Bombers to go into a season 12 players light. 

The concessions to Essendon, the offending club in this sorry mess, were far ranging and generous. The AFL allowed the Bombers to elevate all rookies immediately and gave them the right to promote another ten players to their senior list from outside current AFL playing lists without affecting the club's salary cap. The Bombers have already been able to add a number of experienced former players and are continuing to comb the country for more players with which to replenish their list.

As for the other AFL clubs who lost players to suspension, they were allowed the immediate right to promote a rookie and that's all. While it can be argued that the clubs in question don't deserve any breaks because (with the exception of Port Adelaide with Angus Monfries) they recruited players already under investigation/charges for breaches of the WADA Code, this really begs the question. The AFL has made concessions to a club which was the offender in the drugs situation and yet the innocent clubs must go into the season short of players or, if they are belatedly allowed top up players, the Bombers have been allowed to jump the gun and sign players. 

Now this - Essendon and Port want Jamar

"The AFL has asked all clubs for their feedback on allowing affected clubs other than Essendon to be given special consideration. The clubs are expected to give a response by early next week."

How insulting is this part which suggests that the AFL will be influenced in its decision on top up players by the other clubs given there was no consultation on the Essendon concessions?

The AFL consults when it feels like it and likewise doesn't consult when it feels like not consulting. Like when other clubs put pressure on the AFL to not give draft relief to Melbourne on cockamamie grounds when the club clearly deserved a priority pick but was seen as a recent offender against AFL rules over tanking. 

Similarly, the AFL can't make a ruling over Jobe Watson's Brownlow by itself but has to consult with the player.

We're fast becoming a mess and risk losing ground to other clubs. The game needs competent decisive leadership, not the weak efforts we see from Gillon McLachlan.

 

 

Well said!

I guess that this should not come as too great a surprise WJ, after all he had a good mentor in AD!

W J

Maybe you should circulate your article to the other sixteen Clubs before they finalise their response? I so much want Port to trump Essendon and poach Jamar!

If Gawn is our only fit ruck going into the season, Id rather we were able to bring Jamar in, than Port or especially Essendon.

If Bombers have Luenberger and Jamar and Gawn gets a niggle, who are we going to have in the Ruck?

I understand Spencer Dawes and Frost have all not had clear Pre-seasons. Am I missing something?

9 minutes ago, CBDees said:

W J

Maybe you should circulate your article to the other sixteen Clubs before they finalise their response? I so much want Port to trump Essendon and poach Jamar!

The AFL is corrupt. Nothing new here. scandalous yes, unexpected ? No.

The AFL warrants a Royal Commission. It will never come.

Those tasked with looking after the game have lost their way and long since made Faustian deals.

5 minutes ago, Franky_31 said:

If Gawn is our only fit ruck going into the season, Id rather we were able to bring Jamar in, than Port or especially Essendon.

If Bombers have Luenberger and Jamar and Gawn gets a niggle, who are we going to have in the Ruck?

I understand Spencer Dawes and Frost have all not had clear Pre-seasons. Am I missing something?

Spencer had lost his fitness base due to the injuries last season, like Bernie Vince, had to do lap after lap until he is "fully fit" to join main squad

WJ does the AFL structure allow changes from within or without?

Broad question I know but I was thinking Board of Control and Charter challenge or externally a Public Enquiry, not quite sure of where I am heading here.

1 minute ago, willmoy said:

WJ does the AFL structure allow changes from within or without?

Broad question I know but I was thinking Board of Control and Charter challenge or externally a Public Enquiry, not quite sure of where I am heading here.

The other thing i cannot for the life of me understand why they(The AFL) are bringing all this public undesirable attention on their Board.  Who are?

2 minutes ago, willmoy said:

WJ does the AFL structure allow changes from within or without?

Broad question I know but I was thinking Board of Control and Charter challenge or externally a Public Enquiry, not quite sure of where I am heading here.

I'm not really all that well versed in the AFL's structure but I think it would be enormously difficult to unseat the entire AFL Commission.

On the other hand, it might not be that hard for the football community to impress on the AFL its concerns with the direction of the game. The AFL seems to see the pinnacle of its success in terms of the amount of $s it achieves in selling the media rights every five years. I'm not sure that the game is growing in terms of grass roots football or popularity with the young and we are being surpassed at junior levels by other sports including soccer and basketball both from a participation and interest point of view. 

The way the AFL through the commission and publicly through its CEO's has been handling the many difficult issues it has faced in recent years has been appalling. These things influence the interest of the market but if you're not attracting the youth, the effects might not be felt until well into the future. In the meantime, the membership numbers for clubs might still be growing for a while for the time being but things might turn around before we know it.

The game's only bright spot in terms of growth is the participation of females but that won't be enough if we can't clean up our act on a number of other levels.

39 minutes ago, Franky_31 said:

If Gawn is our only fit ruck going into the season, Id rather we were able to bring Jamar in, than Port or especially Essendon.

If Bombers have Luenberger and Jamar and Gawn gets a niggle, who are we going to have in the Ruck?

I understand Spencer Dawes and Frost have all not had clear Pre-seasons. Am I missing something?

In the few Casey games I saw, Jamar was incapable of hitting the ball to a Casey player and was immobile and ineffective around the ground as well.

Just hope Gawn stays fit. If not we go with Spencer and pinch hit with with Pedo and the two Kings, who I know are not ready yet, but can at least get to a contest.

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

 

The AFL consults when it feels like it and likewise doesn't consult when it feels like not consulting. Like when other clubs put pressure on the AFL to not give draft relief to Melbourne on cockamamie grounds when the club clearly deserved a priority pick but was seen as a recent offender against AFL rules over tanking. 

Similarly, the AFL can't make a ruling over Jobe Watson's Brownlow by itself but has to consult with the player.

We're fast becoming a mess and risk losing ground to other clubs. The game needs competent decisive leadership, not the weak efforts we see from Gillon McLachlan.

 

 

Jack, the AFL has already consulted the other clubs on the Brownlow and the result was 16 to retain it and 2 to lose it. I will let you work out who the 2 are .

Well said WJ.  As usual the AFL makes it up on the run.  Any decently managed company of the AFL's size would have made plans and consulted with the clubs to cover all possible outcomes of the CAS, including that the players might be banned for a considerable time, however unlikely they thought that was in their private cuckoo-land.

15 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

 

The way the AFL through the commission and publicly through its CEO's has been handling the many difficult issues it has faced in recent years has been appalling. These things influence the interest of the market but if you're not attracting the youth, the effects might not be felt until well into the future. In the meantime, the membership numbers for clubs might still be growing for a while for the time being but things might turn around before we know it.

The game's only bright spot in terms of growth is the participation of females but that won't be enough if we can't clean up our act on a number of other levels.

Agree. The standard of AFL administration in the last few years has been poor.

I have been saying this for a while now, but "Dill the Likeable" runs the AFL by poll if it can't be hidden under the carpet (code for integrity unit).

Lets not make a decision until we see the poll result.

To my mind this is not leadership but some brand of following...

48 minutes ago, Franky_31 said:

If Gawn is our only fit ruck going into the season, Id rather we were able to bring Jamar in, than Port or especially Essendon.

If Bombers have Luenberger and Jamar and Gawn gets a niggle, who are we going to have in the Ruck?

I understand Spencer Dawes and Frost have all not had clear Pre-seasons. Am I missing something?

We could've kept Jamar going into 2016 regardless of the WADA findings but chose not to. Any current lack of depth in our ruck stocks would not be improved with a 32 yo who struggled to ruck effectively in 2015 and has not trained since September. This is one case of 'don't look back' IMO.

The root of the problem begins with running the organisation at the expense of ethics, morals & fairness. The AFL values profit above everything else. How can an organisation be run well into the future if this is the overall objective of its existence. It's only when ethical motives are taken into account & valued at least equally with making a profit that an organisation will be a valuable part of society into the future. 

In my opinion they will continue to sacrifice doing the right thing & put money, TV rights & "growing the game" above all other things.

The following is an extract from a book that I am reading at the moment:

The idea that business should advance the social good has been regaining its proper place in the last decade, helped along by the string of business scandals in recent years. As a case in point, in a 2009 speech James Murdoch, told the audience at the Edinburgh Television Festival that the "only reliable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit". Yet in the wake of the phone hacking scandal at News Corp.'s UK newspaper unit, his sister Elisabeth Murdoch could say to the same audience three years later that her brother "left something out", declaring "profit without purpose is a recipe for disaster." She went on to say, "Personally, I believe one of the biggest lessons of the past year has been the need for any organisation to discuss, affirm & institutionalize a rigorous set of values based on explicit statement of purpose." 

Yet despite this growing consensus, it is probably fair to say that the implicit assumptions in the marketplace are that making money is the main thing in life, that business is fundamentally about accumulating and wielding power, and that maximising profit within legal limits is an end to itself.

25 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Jack, the AFL has already consulted the other clubs on the Brownlow and the result was 16 to retain it and 2 to lose it. I will let you work out who the 2 are .

Sorry, how do you know this?

Well said, Jack. A technical point though: I am not convinced that Gill ever had the plot in the first place, making it technically impossible to lose it ....

46 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Jack, the AFL has already consulted the other clubs on the Brownlow and the result was 16 to retain it and 2 to lose it. I will let you work out who the 2 are .

Another example of the AFL going it alone, and adopting different standards to the rest of the World's sporting bodies. In any other sport, medals/trophies "won" whilst using performance-enhancing (banned) drugs would be automatically forfeited!

3 hours ago, beelzebub said:

The AFL is corrupt. Nothing new here. scandalous yes, unexpected ? No.

The AFL warrants a Royal Commission. It will never come.

Those tasked with looking after the game have lost their way and long since made Faustian deals.

You have the perfect nom de plume to quote Faust, but why bring Cam Schwab into it again

Top up players are being picked to make the 22 stronger, this isn't fair, they should only be allowed to be selected for matches in the event Essendon cannot field a team out of their remaining players imo

3 hours ago, Redleg said:

Jack, the AFL has already consulted the other clubs on the Brownlow and the result was 16 to retain it and 2 to lose it. I will let you work out who the 2 are .

Apparently from this mornings "Age" the AFL have asked the Clubs (apart from Essendon) their opinion on whether St. Kilda and Port should be allowed to contract top up players.

The Clubs "have privately argued that in the case of Ryder, Jake Carlisle and Crameri it was a case of buyer beware and they knew the risk of suspension when they recruited the players". No mention was made of MFC.

Why did the AFL's sudden penchant to consult not apply to making new rules to apply to Essendon. Those new rules affect the other Clubs so surely they should have been consulted. Sounds like the new rules are being made under the cover of Workcover Rules so a bit like "we cant comment whilst under investigation".

The VFL- AFL was set up to protect the interests of all Clubs. It would seem to me that the AFL makes very selective decisions. 

i'm confused now. how could gill lose something he never had?

5 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Following the CAS judgement on the Essendon 34, the AFL immediately put into place a set of rules relating to clubs affected by the loss of suspended players. These were made apparently without consulting the other AFL clubs and this was done on the basis that it would have been a health and safety issue to force the Bombers to go into a season 12 players light. 

The concessions to Essendon, the offending club in this sorry mess, were far ranging and generous. The AFL allowed the Bombers to elevate all rookies immediately and gave them the right to promote another ten players to their senior list from outside current AFL playing lists without affecting the club's salary cap. The Bombers have already been able to add a number of experienced former players and are continuing to comb the country for more players with which to replenish their list.

As for the other AFL clubs who lost players to suspension, they were allowed the immediate right to promote a rookie and that's all. While it can be argued that the clubs in question don't deserve any breaks because (with the exception of Port Adelaide with Angus Monfries) they recruited players already under investigation/charges for breaches of the WADA Code, this really begs the question. The AFL has made concessions to a club which was the offender in the drugs situation and yet the innocent clubs must go into the season short of players or, if they are belatedly allowed top up players, the Bombers have been allowed to jump the gun and sign players. 

Now this - Essendon and Port want Jamar

"The AFL has asked all clubs for their feedback on allowing affected clubs other than Essendon to be given special consideration. The clubs are expected to give a response by early next week."

How insulting is this part which suggests that the AFL will be influenced in its decision on top up players by the other clubs given there was no consultation on the Essendon concessions?

The AFL consults when it feels like it and likewise doesn't consult when it feels like not consulting. Like when other clubs put pressure on the AFL to not give draft relief to Melbourne on cockamamie grounds when the club clearly deserved a priority pick but was seen as a recent offender against AFL rules over tanking. 

Similarly, the AFL can't make a ruling over Jobe Watson's Brownlow by itself but has to consult with the player.

We're fast becoming a mess and risk losing ground to other clubs. The game needs competent decisive leadership, not the weak efforts we see from Gillon McLachlan.

 

 

The AFL should have only allowed top up players on the basis that each replaced player is treated as an UFA at the end of the season. Additionally the club should not be eligible for finals. Imagine if the EFC make the finals as the result of their experienced top up players.