Come on Comrades, enough of the ancient smoking ads!

We need more about Gill the Dill and why he must go.

28 minutes ago, DemonFrog said:

Come on Comrades, enough of the ancient smoking ads!

We need more about Gill the Dill and why he must go.

we don't have enough already??

19 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

we don't have enough already??

No, not until he does the honourable thing and Trucks Off!

IMO everyone who works for the AFL should be charged with bring the game in disrepute.

10 minutes ago, DemonFrog said:

No, not until he does the honourable thing and Trucks Off!

IMO everyone who works for the AFL should be charged with bring the game in disrepute.

Gee......as if the AFL hierarchy are ever going to listen to supporters.......apart from taking 30c of the bucket of overcooked greasy chips at the G last year

(ps I didn't smoke Gauloises because of the ads, it was because Serge Gainsbourg did

8 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Gee......as if the AFL hierarchy are ever going to listen to supporters.......apart from taking 30c of the bucket of overcooked greasy chips at the G last year

(ps I didn't smoke Gauloises because of the ads, it was because Serge Gainsbourg did

stuck to the navy cut eh, saty?

I wouldn't like to be remembered as part of the committee that stood by and did nothing when our National Sport became a Betting Past Time.

I can vividly remember one of the Headstones I passed one day, all it said was "be yea ready"

On 1/2/2016 at 9:37 PM, SaberFang said:

What about the award for Most Failed Appeals in an Anti-Doping Investigation?

Isn't James Hird the frontrunner at the moment? A terrific individual effort.

3 hours ago, DemonFrog said:

Come on Comrades, enough of the ancient smoking ads!

We need more about Gill the Dill and why he must go.

 

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

we don't have enough already??

 

3 hours ago, DemonFrog said:

No, not until he does the honourable thing and Trucks Off!

IMO everyone who works for the AFL should be charged with bring the game in disrepute.

Maybe he can hand in his resignation when Jobe hands back the Brownlow...

20 minutes ago, rjay said:

Maybe he can hand in his resignation when Jobe hands back the Brownlow...

So it will never happen?

On 1/30/2016 at 10:35 PM, Dr. Gonzo said:

Exactly what I was going to say.

The governance of the AFL is a joke, if it were a normal business they would've gone under long ago. They're just lucky they have a commodity people have an unflinching loyalty to or they'd be in trouble.

I think we're going to see over the next several years that the AFL are already in a lot of trouble, much like Cricket was in the wilderness for approx last 5-7 years, before it pulled itself out of it.

But, but... Gil made BILLIONS by signing away the game to the broadcasters!

I'm really staggered the broadcasters don't demand the AFL implement stronger methods of equalization. It's only a disservice to their ratings if this continues to devolve into an EPL-style competition where only a select number of teams can compete and play finals. What's the point of having so many teams if you have the same ones at the top winning all the time?

5 hours ago, DemonFrog said:

No, not until he does the honourable thing and Trucks Off!

IMO everyone who works for the AFL should be charged with bring the game in disrepute.

I notice that you use "he" in this sentence.  

Is that because it would be totally inappropriate to use "Gil" and "honourable" in the same sentence?

Here's some Gil related content for those not hankering for ancient ciggy ads or bashing saturation gambling ads (although the latter is always tempting ...)

When your only tool is hammer, all problems look like a nail.

So it is with Gil. Everything has to be solved with a deal.

Decisions seem to be impossible unless they're ones that please all parties.

It was our dear old Gil who came up with the concept of "not" punishing us for tanking. And giving us a totally unrelated fine for not making our beds and keeping our sock drawers tidy.The Dealmaker at his finest.

When ASADA hands you an interim report which is damning of of one of your clubs, do you follow the ADV rules that you signed up for and bring the hammer down on them? No, you make a deal. And let them negotiate their own punishment and a carefully worded agreement allowing them to claim they were never done for doping.

When your Brownlow medallist is sent down the river for doping, do you make the obvious decision to strip the medal, however regretfully? No, you give him time to let him talk his way out of it. I fully expect Gil to throw this open to the clubs for comment and input.

When some of your clubs lose players because they doped while at another club, and ask for top-ups, do you make a decision? No, you canvas the other clubs to see what they think and work your outcome around that. (Remind me why the AFL commission was invented in the first place?)

When one of your marquee clubs is sent down the river for doping, do you make an instant decision to let them top-up? Funnily enough, yes you do! Because otherwise could compromise a bigger deal you've made ... the TV rights deal.

Vlad hung around too long, but he was never afraid to make a decision. The game has got a sour taste about it currently, and strong decisions are needed, not trying to please everyone or playing favourites for "legacy clubs".

Adrian Anderson, for all the flak he's copped, at least got out with his integrity intact. History may judge him more kindly than we at MFC do.

On 7/2/2016 at 1:00 AM, SaberFang said:

But, but... Gil made BILLIONS by signing away the game to the broadcasters!

I'm really staggered the broadcasters don't demand the AFL implement stronger methods of equalization. It's only a disservice to their ratings if this continues to devolve into an EPL-style competition where only a select number of teams can compete and play finals. What's the point of having so many teams if you have the same ones at the top winning all the time?

The fact that the broadcasters could even be in a position to do that is a joke. But, they are. That could be a very good argument for them if they were to put pressure on the AFL. That isn't the broadcasters fault either. It is the fault of the AFL to allow themselves to get so hankered down by business. Now the shape of our great game can be drastically influenced - or changed - at the will of broadcasters. That is the trouble with running the AFL as a business, you make deals taking things into account (like sponsorship and broadcasting), then it makes it near impossible to cut back on either. The end result is that TV rights and sponsorship practically run the game. Free agency, player movement, and other things that ruin the game - wouldn't exist if it wasn't run as a business. Players have become nothing but commodities. The game itself (the end product) is absolutely rubbish, and it is rubbish because the AFL are not running it as a game. I would like to see them strip it all right back, but, they couldn't do it now even if they wanted to. The game is stuffed, the best hope we have is to ensure the rules at least remain the same - so the players can just play the game in its most basic form. Rant over.

Edited February 7, 20169 yr by KingDingAling

If we ever had any doubt about the AFL leaking to the press:  "I was utterly dismayed to learn of the blatant backgrounding to journalists by the AFL in an attempt to discredit me"  From the woman who was the target of Dusty's attention.  http://www.theage.com.au/national/afls-dustin-martin-said-sorry-so-why-does-the-victim-feel-betrayed-20160204-gmlbrd.html#ixzz3zW0AweVL  The woman would know about AFL 'backgrounding to journalists' as she works for Channel 7. 

Also, the article relates some fairly low acts by the AFL investigators (who would have been acting under Gil's instructions 'guidance') eg:  'During her dealings with some officials she felt pressured to downplay the event and says she was told details of Martin's private life that were, frankly, none of her business. So those who were trying to protect Martin, actually betrayed him.'  The investigators showed no respect at all for Dusty nor the woman. 

I mention this not to reopen discussion of that incident (has been done to death elsewhere) but to highlight the AFL's callous, stop at nothing approach to people.   They were both victims of the AFL's pathological need for 'brand protection'!!

To think that Gil is a member of 'Male Champions for Change'!  What a mockery, he should resign that post. Won't happen of course - further evidence of so  much of his work being mere 'window dressing'.

Edited February 7, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Another voice in the wilderness calling out the AFL's weakness: http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/02/08/afl-commission-lacks-courage-counts/

"Both times, the AFL will have consulted with other people who have clear conflicts of interest. Watson with his own medal and the other clubs preventing a competitive advantage to teams losing players through suspension...It’s time the AFL and the commission develop enough conviction in their thoughts to back themselves to make the right decisions without weight added from people on the outside."

Shame the more serious mainstream media don't say the same.  Credit to Greg Healy for speaking his mind.  He seems the only one:  Gerard Whateley is sitting quietly on the sidelines.  Patrick Smith is writing puff pieces about membership numbers and Caro is still on holidays.  She is one of the very few who does, at times, take aim at the AFL...I'm hoping when she returns that she will be a voice for the good.

On 05/02/2016 at 1:31 AM, Colin B. Flaubert said:

In some ways, the WADA decision, while devastating for the game, may finally put the preppy knobs who run the AFL back in their place.
They seem to think that they are bigger than they really are. The amount of time and research they put into spinning certain matters and their meddling in other investigations to 'protect the image of the code' has merely compounded a set of issues and left them open like a festering sore. By trying to sweep things under the carpet, they allow situations to grow until they become as big as the Essendon imbroglio. 
WADA finally let the AFL know that they aren't so big that they can manufacture an outcome for whatever they want. After all, who outside Australia gives a rats about AFL? We love it for sure but should a certain administration organization purporting to represent a certain percentage of a country's population in a greater global society decide what codes it gets to pay attention and what it gets to ignore? Give me a break.

 

I wish that were true but without the media holding a blowtorch to them it will just sweep away eventually and things will return to normal. It's not like they're going to have another problem like WADA again anything soon, something that is beyond their control.

The AFL has become the laughing stock of Australian sport.Will the clowns in charge arrest this slide before the whole world joins in with accusing fingers ?

 

Unfortunately for me I don't like watching any other sport than AFL.  Otherwise I'd be off.

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Another voice in the wilderness calling out the AFL's weakness: http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/02/08/afl-commission-lacks-courage-counts/

"Both times, the AFL will have consulted with other people who have clear conflicts of interest. Watson with his own medal and the other clubs preventing a competitive advantage to teams losing players through suspension...It’s time the AFL and the commission develop enough conviction in their thoughts to back themselves to make the right decisions without weight added from people on the outside."

Shame the more serious mainstream media don't say the same.  Credit to Greg Healy for speaking his mind.  He seems the only one:  Gerard Whateley is sitting quietly on the sidelines.  Patrick Smith is writing puff pieces about membership numbers and Caro is still on holidays.  She is one of the very few who does, at times, take aim at the AFL...I'm hoping when she returns that she will be a voice for the good.

Don't bet on it 'Lucifer', Caro is a big, big fan of "Dill the Likeable".

She also takes very calculated aim & usually has been fed by the AFL, she is very close to city hall.

15 hours ago, Dr John Dee said:

Isn't James Hird the frontrunner at the moment? A terrific individual effort.

The Players union must now be hot on his heels Dr.

Caro  I've found seldom lines up the AFL per se, her targets are clubs or individuals.

1 hour ago, sue said:

Unfortunately for me I don't like watching any other sport than AFL.  Otherwise I'd be off.

Sue my list has diminished  substantially over the last decade.

My favourites of a decade ago have been seduced by too much money or fallen under Drug / Gambling influence.

If the MFC faded away Like you I would not have much left.

12 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

Here's some Gil related content for those not hankering for ancient ciggy ads or bashing saturation gambling ads (although the latter is always tempting ...)

When your only tool is hammer, all problems look like a nail.

So it is with Gil. Everything has to be solved with a deal.

Decisions seem to be impossible unless they're ones that please all parties.

It was our dear old Gil who came up with the concept of "not" punishing us for tanking. And giving us a totally unrelated fine for not making our beds and keeping our sock drawers tidy.The Dealmaker at his finest.

When ASADA hands you an interim report which is damning of of one of your clubs, do you follow the ADV rules that you signed up for and bring the hammer down on them? No, you make a deal. And let them negotiate their own punishment and a carefully worded agreement allowing them to claim they were never done for doping.

When your Brownlow medallist is sent down the river for doping, do you make the obvious decision to strip the medal, however regretfully? No, you give him time to let him talk his way out of it. I fully expect Gil to throw this open to the clubs for comment and input.

When some of your clubs lose players because they doped while at another club, and ask for top-ups, do you make a decision? No, you canvas the other clubs to see what they think and work your outcome around that. (Remind me why the AFL commission was invented in the first place?)

When one of your marquee clubs is sent down the river for doping, do you make an instant decision to let them top-up? Funnily enough, yes you do! Because otherwise could compromise a bigger deal you've made ... the TV rights deal.

Vlad hung around too long, but he was never afraid to make a decision. The game has got a sour taste about it currently, and strong decisions are needed, not trying to please everyone or playing favourites for "legacy clubs".

Adrian Anderson, for all the flak he's copped, at least got out with his integrity intact. History may judge him more kindly than we at MFC do.

Right on Mate

send that to Slobbo and AFL House...

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Right on Mate

send that to Slobbo and AFL House...

probably still sleeping his last efforts off !! Zzzzz