Beats

13 minutes ago, roy11 said:

This was posted in another thread by @hardtack

“Please see below the information I have been provided regarding the grand final guarantees.

 You will only be entitled to a refund if restrictions in your LGA restrict you from doing so.

 Due to the uncertainty around the location of this seasons’ Grand Final, we’d like to reiterate some restrictions of the Grand Final Guarantee product.

• If Melbourne are not a competing team in the Grand Final, the grand final guarantee product is non-refundable.
• If the Grand Final is played outside of Victoria under no COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, providing Melbourne are a competing team you are not eligible for a refund.
• If COVID-19 restrictions impede your ability to attend the Grand Final and Melbourne is a participating team, you are entitled to a refund of the Grand Final Guarantee product.

 If you have any further questions, please let us know.”

(link below)

 

 

Thanks - thought I’d seen that somewhere but wasn’t able to find it searching through the forums.

Have had a couple of posters reach out and the ticket is now spoken for providing we make it.

Go dees.

This is my first post on this forum in years. Bought a grand final guarantee this year, but am Melbourne based so won’t be able to go.
 

Just spoke to the membership line regarding whether it would be a refund or whether we can pass the barcode on to someone else. The membership lady said we can pass the barcode on to someone else… has anyone heard if they’ll offer refunds?
 

Would be happy to pass the barcode on to someone who can go, but will want to recoup the ~$230 or so I spent on the grand final guarantee…

2 hours ago, stuie said:

"Could you imagine a large resource company investing or developing an asset or new mine and saying we're not going to pay workers the same as we pay at the other mine?"

"It wouldn't happen because you have to invest in any new part of your business. You recognise there is some risk involved and that is how business works."

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/should-female-afl-players-get-paid-the-same-as-men/7817118

 

No it's not. The quote sounds like it's from an idealistic 2nd year arts student, rather than anyone with a rudimentary understanding of business.

2 hours ago, stuie said:

Ok, well their employment is as top level footballers. 

Their employment is as top level female footballers and it's important to make that differentiation. In reality they will likely be the 5th/ 6th/ 7th best Aussie rules league in Australia next year and the players will be paid accordingly. When the league is better and has longer seasons the players will be paid more, which is likely to be sooner rather than later.

On face value a minimum wage of $5,000 does seem low (average wage for the 8 game season is approximately $7,500 ($200,000 salary cap/ 27 players)) especially as they are likely to be out of pocket for incidentals (boots, insurance etc.), but I'll reserve judgment on whether it is fair or not until I've had a crack at the math.

I'd equate the Womens league to where Netball was at 5 years ago. Back then the players all worked full time jobs on top of a full time netball season (approx double the length of the AFLW season for similar payments per match). In 5 years time I'd expect the AFLW to at least be on par with where netball is now. 

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

Do you know this or are you reminiscing to the bad old days?  

Modern coaching involves a lot of "people management" not just tactics and motivation.

Whilst I suspect that someone like Neeld would do this, do you know that eg say Goodwin or Beveridge would regularly single out players in front of the group?  

Big call. 

Is it a big call? They spend hours reviewing game day footage, both 1 on 1 with coaches and in group meetings, that's a known. To say that a player doing something wrong isn't used as an example in learning exercises doesn't seem like a big call. I don't think that it's much of a stretch from that point to say that some players take it in their stride and learn from it, while others see it as constant criticism and it gets them down. I think Goodwin or Beveridge would single someone out in front of the group, if someone does something wrong, they would stop an exercise at training, call everyone in and point out what was done wrong and how to improve it. I would think that Goodwin or Beveridge would do it in a better manner than the likes of a Neeld, but that it would still be done, I've certainly seen it done in training in the last few years.

11 hours ago, Crystal Dees said:

Really? You think his outburst is confirmation the club didn't do enough!!! That's a big and very unfair call on Richmond. Would you say the same if it was Melbourne and you knew none of the facts?

I think quite a few were pretty quick to dismiss Brock Mcleans outbursts on tanking without knowing any of the facts. Not saying you did that, just pointing out an example of a club screwing up and a player going public on it.

9 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I don't actually think it is or should be the 'responsability' of clubs to look after the welfare of their players.  They certainly shouldn't set up environments which are detrimental to a players welfare, however I don't think it is entirely their duty to manage a players welfare for them.

These are grown (be they mostly fairly young) adults and they need to take certain responsibility for their own actions and wellbeing.  Obviously, it's in everyones best interests for the club to be as supportive as possible, but that is different to them being held to account for managing a players wellfare for them, which it almost seems like this individual has the expectations of.

Unfortunately, you would find that a lot of football clubs are detrimental to a players welfare - as a regular worker you don't have weekly meetings to discuss your performance in depth. All it takes is for you to be having a bad week and for a coach to pull you aside and tell you you're not giving your all, that you're pathetic etc. Even worse if the coach doesn't pull you aside, but rather uses you as an example in front of the team. These sort of occurrences (which are regular at all clubs) are exactly why it is the responsibility of clubs to provide appropriate player welfare.

Just now, Night Crawler said:

It's Geelong's future pick. Not their own

Ahh that makes sense - AFL site just said a first round pick, assumed it was theirs

Carlton has traded for GWS pair Caleb Marchbank and Jarrod Pickett and as well as a second round pick in 2017. They give the Giants picks 45 and 58, both third-rounders, and a first round pick in 2017.

1 minute ago, Good Times Grimes said:

I don't....GWS do not need a #1 overall pick added to their list.

That's true... I think I would enjoy Carlton being punished more than GWS getting another #1 pick though, particularly if Marchbank and Pickett don't perform. Imagine the Carlton supporter meltdown.

God I hope Carlton finish last next year, gave up their future 1st round in the Marchbank deal.

Marchbank, Pickett and future 2nd (high 30's) for

45, 58 and future 1st (top 5?)

GC will have 7 picks in the first 2 rounds next year? (5 future picks + their own 2?)

O'meara deal being reported as done. Pick 10 and future 2nd round.

Just now, GCDee said:

Apparently Hawks need a future second round pick to snare Jager... Could we get our selves another Hawk offloading our 2017 second pick?

Future first for Isaac Smith? 

4 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Talk around that GWS may be stripped of draft picks over the Whitfield episode!!  Now wouldn't that make a lot of people happy!  A bit of poetic justice one would think.

Back to the draft: they might do a last minute deal to get 2017 early picks.  I don't usually hypothesise about picks but this would be nice:  GWS: a 2016 1st and 2nd round for MFC: 2017 1st round and 2016 #69 which has draft points value and 2017 3rd round.  We could always trade into 2017 later rounds next year.

Why do it: might get us the ruck/forward with their 2016 2nd round and give us a 1st round pick.  Of course we would only do it if we had a target in the 1st round.

Doable?

No - you can only trade a future 1st or package future 2nds+ - you cant trade a future first and third

4 minutes ago, A F said:

Dunn, Newton and Dawes. Michie may well go too.

Michie's a rookie, so wouldn't make a difference to our trade plans if he goes.

Vardy to WCE for pick 72? Surely we could have put up something better than that?

Jasper Pittard? Could be a key to the future, Leaving port is ocean bound. He spreads like butter. Not sure how wings fits. Would be a good get - has speed and decent disposal.

ANB+p29 = Pittard?

I hope it's not Gary Rohan.

1 hour ago, SFebey said:

I reckon Watts actually outperforms in the ruck, goes OK in there IMO.

Watts goes ok as a fourth midfielder (a lot of his dashes through the centre of the ground were when he was playing ruck), but he doesn't have the body/ strength to match it with most ruckman and his body simply wouldn't be able to take it long term.

1 minute ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

Dawes has been delisted 100 per cent. Will be announced tomorrow. So there is one spot

If Dunn is gone as part of the Rockliff trade that makes 2

1 minute ago, DemonDave said:

If we were to snag all 3 targets, and subsequently have to trade away this year and next year's 2nd rnd picks and probably a 3rd rounder as well, it leaves our national draft picks all very inconsequentially late in the order.

It also raises a list management issue given that we'd be bringing 3 new players in (and i assume 1 out with Dunn to the Lions). We've only chopped 3 players so far in grimes, Jones & terlich, so in order to make the minimum number of draft picks which i believe is 3, we'd still need to cut 2 more players from our primary list.

Or trade someone...

Assuming spreads like butter refers to the way they play - hard running, smooth outside player

Assuming spreads wings refers to the club they're leaving having a bird for a mascot - Eagles, Crows, Sydney, Hawks, Pies

Assuming Ocean-bound refers to their last name - thinks shaw, cliff, water etc.

Hmm, is it Luke Shuey? He spreads like butter on the outside, is spreading his wings leaving the eagles nest and if you fill your shoe with alcohol and then drink it, its called a shuey, which is something I regularly do when I'm at the ocean.

Just now, Danelska said:

Im a late comer - who the fekk is T$?

Tom Scully. *shudder*

3 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Here:  http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-16/trade-wrap-motlop-set-to-stay-at-cattery

"The proposed deal that would send Hawks Billy Hartung and Brendan Whitecross to the Brisbane Lions for one of the Lions' early second-round picks, No.16, No.19 or No.21, is no closer to being finalised and could fall over...The clubs still can't agree on elements of the deal, and one source close to the negotiations expected the proposed trade would be abandoned, a turn of events that would further complicate the Hawks' negotiations with Gold Coast on Jaeger O'Meara". 

Quite amazing if Hawks lose Mitchell and Lewis, take a huge whack in their PR and supporter backlash, then not get there BIG FISH, JO'M.

While its fun to watch the Hawks reputation as smart operators getting a bit tarnished, I'm sad for O'Meara.  He is the meat in the sandwich.

Don't feel bad for him, what he's doing isn't all that different to T$. He's played 27 games in 4 seasons (T$ had played 31 in 2). He isn't going home for personal reasons, he's going interstate for money or success. He hasn't done enough in AFL terms to be able to demand where he goes.

13 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I've been out of the loop, why are people mad at Generation dee for posting the Rockliff information?

Vegan Pottery and others have been on his back because he a) either had confidential info and passed it on (naming where he got it in the process) or b) made up the rumour.  

48 minutes ago, Go the Biff said:

Just out of interest, does anyone have any specifics on Rockliff has allegedly done to earn this rep ? Is he a complete dirtbag of a bloke or perhaps just nit a very good captain ?

Think Brent Moloney - not a bad bloke, but a massive ego and not the brightest bulb.

30 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

I made this point a few weeks back. If true it is an enormous loophole...... why limit it to coaching.... the job could be anything

Surely you cannot commit to a job after football and it is outside the salary cap.

For example we want to get Garland out of our salary cap so we offer him his existing salary plus a one year sweetener to retire from the MFC list and be an "on field mentor" at Casey. It cannot be that easy.

It isn't - Garland's salary would still be counted towards the salary cap for that year, despite no longer being on our list.

If he gets a pay rise when he transitions in to coaching, the club is then paying someone 2-3x the average wage of an assistant coach (which counts towards the coaching department soft cap).

18 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

Why doesnt the media just say his dad is ill and this is what Hogan has to weigh up about going home or not. Yes I know its a private family matter but when people like Damo on radio today say there is a private family matter or something along those lines people are going to speculate.

Do you remember what the general public reaction was when Dayne Beams went home because his dad had cancer? A lot of uninformed people giving certified references on the character of someone they've never met. 

3 hours ago, demonoid said:

I'm with you. Totally inappropriate comment. "If someone tells you you have offended them, you don't get to decide whether you have or not" Louis CK

"you're offended? So f*&^% what?" - Steven Fry

41 minutes ago, binman said:

You cannot be serious? The worst case scenario? That would be him leaving. 

If he chooses to exercise his right to honour the last year of his contract, as is his right, do you honestly believe the club will trade him this year to enure they get a primo deal? Of course they won't. Because it would be stupid and the current fd is not stupid.

The worst case scenario is him staying on un-contracted, and then leaving at the end of next year. We all know we've been burnt by players doing this before and just look at the media circus around it this year - that is going to get much, much worse if he sticks around un-contracted, and it's not something Goodwin would want to be dealing with in his first year as coach.