Jump to content

Featured Replies

Give more AFL paid coaching experience to help Dew but giving picks is futile. Gold Coast need to build a culture and identity to become successful. It is what we are having to re-establish right now ourselves.

 

Yeah throw another kid in there, that'll help. Maybe they should buy them another NRL player.

For a club that's basically owned by the AFL they could do with being taken over by the league.

Edited by Supermercado

Hawks, Pies and Tigers are very supportive of GC getting the number 1 pick and would like to be consulted on who they pick so they can plan ahead for trading them in in 3 years time

 

The only way that GC$ will improve is to move away from the Gold Coast

It will not work, regardless of what dumb [censored] strategy the AFL employ

I would prefer it if they just folded the GC Suns up to be honest. Its a club no one asked for. The whole thing has pretty much been a failure from the get go, and no one wants to play for them if they can help it.


6 minutes ago, Demon Dude said:

I would prefer it if they just folded the GC Suns up to be honest. Its a club no one asked for. The whole thing has pretty much been a failure from the get go, and no one wants to play for them if they can help it.

send them to Tasmania... with the equivalent AFL support the team would fly with regular crowds of around 15k if not more

20 minutes ago, Demon Dude said:

I would prefer it if they just folded the GC Suns up to be honest. Its a club no one asked for. The whole thing has pretty much been a failure from the get go, and no one wants to play for them if they can help it.

Trouble is that the “9th” game on TV is worth $50 Mill a year

that is the only reason they exist. 

14 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Trouble is that the “9th” game on TV is worth $50 Mill a year

that is the only reason they exist. 

More than enough for a Tasmanian team then if correct.

The old chesnut that they need two teams in a local market to satisfy demand and keep up press coverage etc is so old hat. As you say.. it's a television game.

The Gold Coast is the graveyard of sporting clubs as we all know anyway.

Looks like GWS won't win the big one so watch out for the priority pick call from them in not too many years.......Only got 12k at the Showgrounds for what was a top of the table clash against Brisbane.. after ten years they aren't showing much growth.

Strangely enough one of GWS' biggest home crowds ever was against MFC at Manuka in Round 20 2017... (I suspect that was us in our hunt for a final.)

Edited by Diamond_Jim

 

We are one Jayden Hunt kick, one T-Mac grubber and one Wingard dropped mark off the bottom. Why aren't we "in the conversation"?

25 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

More than enough for a Tasmanian team then if correct.

The old chesnut that they need two teams in a local market to satisfy demand and keep up press coverage etc is so old hat. As you say.. it's a television game.

The Gold Coast is the graveyard of sporting clubs as we all know anyway.

Looks like GWS won't win the big one so watch out for the priority pick call from them in not too many years.......Only got 12k at the Showgrounds for what was a top of the table clash against Brisbane.. after ten years they aren't showing much growth.

Strangely enough one of GWS' biggest home crowds ever was against MFC at Manuka in Round 20 2017... (I suspect that was us in our hunt for a final.)

The AFL want the entire East Coast of Australia...

They already have Tassie under their wing...


44 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

More than enough for a Tasmanian team then if correct.

The old chesnut that they need two teams in a local market to satisfy demand and keep up press coverage etc is so old hat. As you say.. it's a television game.

The Gold Coast is the graveyard of sporting clubs as we all know anyway.

Looks like GWS won't win the big one so watch out for the priority pick call from them in not too many years.......Only got 12k at the Showgrounds for what was a top of the table clash against Brisbane.. after ten years they aren't showing much growth.

Strangely enough one of GWS' biggest home crowds ever was against MFC at Manuka in Round 20 2017... (I suspect that was us in our hunt for a final.)

No. To maintain the high value of TV rights and the sponsorship dollars which follow, the AFL needs two games on TV each week in Queensland and NSW. The only way to get that is to have two teams in each of Queensland and NSW. While Qld is a big land mass, it's not practical to base a team in tropical Qld, so the only potentially viable locations for a second club are the Gold Coast, Brisbane or the Sunshine Coast. The AFL would always have known that the Suns and the Giants would need longterm support. However, I doubt they would have expected Gold Coast to have been managed so abysmally.

 

What I despise about this is the sense of entitlement GCS and GWS have when it comes to money, picks and a premiership. They both have been gifted more than enough access to picks and salary cap relief. GWS has managed that process a lot better than GCS. 

 

Their problem isn't picks, it's retaining picks.  The AFL needs to help them retain players rather than throwing draft picks at the problem

Both teams initially should have been provided one player from every AFL side aged between 24-28, having played a certain amount of AFL Senior games and also on a certain salary.

they should then have received every fourth draft pick in the initial draft they were in starting at number 1, 4 8, 12 etc...

Above was fairly similar to what the Las Vegas Golden Knights received a few years back in the NHL. 

 

The truth is that the Gold Coast $un$ cost the AFL around $20 Mill a year

The TV deal with 9 games each round works out that Gold Coast contributes around $50 Mill a year. 

So the AFL is up around $30 Mill regardless of how Garbage GC$ is on the Park. 

Should they get more draft picks? No they should not. They need better people running the Club and more experienced coaches to work with Dew. 

The Talent Pool of kids is far too diluted as it is. 

Gold Coast will never be successful, but the franchise will make money as long as TV stations want to broadcast the game


Give them one; we have demonstrated clearly how little effect they have on developing strong culture which is what this inflated-pigskin caper is all about.  

1 hour ago, Robbie57 said:

What I despise about this is the sense of entitlement GCS and GWS have when it comes to money, picks and a premiership. They both have been gifted more than enough access to picks and salary cap relief. GWS has managed that process a lot better than GCS. 

 

The AFL was always going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. If the new franchises win premierships too early in their existence there will be complaints that the AFL made it too easy and it's unfair on clubs like Melbourne, St Kilda, Fremantle and the Bulldogs (although not any more) who have been waiting a long time. Conversely, if they don't win premierships, the expansion will be criticised as a failed experiment. 

 

6 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

We as a club and supporters have no right no whinge about other clubs getting priority picks. We received more than anyone about a decade ago and squandered them. The Suns clearly need one and are in their right to ask for one.

Lets stop whinging and just demand the club get better instead of the pathetic effort it’s served up this year.

We received 2 priority picks (Trengove, Blease). It’s hardly worth crowing about.

It also shows the value of it really. If your team’s that bad, the PP is no certainty to help by any means. 

Storm in a teacup IMO.

1 hour ago, The Stigga said:

Both teams initially should have been provided one player from every AFL side aged between 24-28, having played a certain amount of AFL Senior games and also on a certain salary.

they should then have received every fourth draft pick in the initial draft they were in starting at number 1, 4 8, 12 etc...

Above was fairly similar to what the Las Vegas Golden Knights received a few years back in the NHL. 

 

This is manifestly unfair to the teams that finished bottom 4 the year prior to this draft, although I agree this would have been a plausible approach.  

Freo finished bottom 4 in their first 8 years of footy, save one year where they finished 5th last I believe. GC, similar since its inception, has at least avoided bottom 4 on 2 occasions, being 2013 and 2014. They were actually trending better than freo was at that stage, so why on earth does the AFL owe them anything? Absolute farce. The very notion that other clubs should have to pay for the mismanagement of an expansion team that nobody even wanted is ludicrous. 


1 hour ago, Salems Lot said:

Give them one; we have demonstrated clearly how little effect they have on developing strong culture which is what this inflated-pigskin caper is all about.  

Cow hide ffs 

In 2016 they used pick 4, 7, 9, 10.  In 2018 they used pick 2, 3, 6.  That is 7 top 10 picks in a 24 month period.

They gambled badly in 2017 trade period, trading a raft of high 2nd round 2017/2018 picks to WCE for their 2018 1st round pick (approx pick #20).  Incompetent.

2019 #1 and 2 will get them Rowell and Anderson, rated the two best but are also best mates.  GCS figure they have a better chance of keeping them if they get both.  Hence the pp request.

Top picks don't matter if they can't develop them and look after them physically and medically. 

Apparently O'Meara and others complained about how their injuries were mis managed.  Could be deja vu with Rankine (2018 pick 3):  Hamstring injury in JLT game. Two months ago had a 'small' setback during rehab and is yet to play a game, anywhere. 

The AFL needs to put people and resources into development, medical, rehab etc.  It is the only feasible option. 

Priority picks gives GCS no incentive to sort themselves out and just makes them addicted to more and better draft picks only to become a nursery for other AFL clubs.

There are 7 games to go and GCS could easily not be last...unless they tank.  As we know this will hurt their culture more than not getting a pp. 

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

5 minutes ago, Smokey said:

Cow hide ffs 

you are correct .. it seems that the use of pig skin bladders as the internal part of the original rugby ball pre-dated AFL.

1860’s and 1870's - Rugby Ball and First Innovations

Richard Linton and William Gilbert owned shops near Rugby School in England. By the 1850’s they were the two main suppliers of balls for the school. These early balls were made using inflated pigs' bladders inside a leather ball, and the variation in the size of the bladders meant the balls were different sizes.2

Richard Linton introduced ‘indian rubber’ inner tubes into his balls in the 1860's, and a hand pump to blow up the balls. Linton also claimed to have invented the distinctive oval shape of the ball. Unfortunately for Linton, he did not patent any of these inventions and they were widely copied. 3

William Gilbert’s business also grew. By 1877 Gilberts were producing 2,600 balls per year and were increasing the number they exported overseas to Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.4

Rubber bladders meant that the 1870’s and 1880's saw standardization in the size of the ball. In 1872 the English Football Association revised its rules, and for the first time included measurements for the ball in their rules5 In Melbourne, for the first time, Australian Rules Football rules specified the size and shape of the ball:

http://boylesfootballphotos.net.au/article39-The-Same-Game-A-Different-Ball

 

In relation to charity picks, we have done OK over the journey.

 

Compare Geelong for instance and what they have scrounged with picks above 10, and it is remarkable.  For the sake of the comp, Gold Coast deserve 2 PP's to trade with other clubs.

We'll finish in the bottom 3 again this year so do we get a pick as well for being [censored]?

 

 


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

    • 79 replies
  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies