Jump to content

rpfc

Life Member
  • Posts

    22,908
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    130

Everything posted by rpfc

  1. This won't stop those teams from getting those players though - it just means that when they get a great gift - they have to pay appropriately for it. Handing over another second round and third pick for a top 2 talent is not much of a bad deal anyway... If we wouldn't entertain trading ND2 for ND8 and ND9 in 2009 then getting ND2 (Heeney) for ND18, ND36, and ND37 is a pretty good deal for the Swans...
  2. Well, if the teams are paying 'around market price anyway' then the picks they give over won't change much at all and this new system will not bring poor results.
  3. Well, not to be cute, but where do you think the clubs get the money to pay for those academies?
  4. The problem is they have another one on the way this season. And it isn't just top picks - the Lions and Swans are taking a multitude of players up and down the draft that they have first dibs on - and while it is excellent that these kids are kept in the game - making these teams pay a more market price is not going to stop this development - it is just going to make the teams pay a fairer price.
  5. Fair enough. But piecemeal reform is one way to legislate - some people have issues with doing it one way and other people have issues with doing it the other way. I would remind anyone that reforms of the reforms are always necessary. ie. You never know all the unintended consequences and you will have to continue to refine whatever legislation you bring in. Sometimes when you want everything done at once, you get nothing done at all.
  6. How would trading future picks make the draft 'more of a lottery'? It just means that deals are easier to get done if you have a future draft picks to offer - perhaps the rumoured Dangerfield would have been done if we could offer a future pick. A coach like Roos would make excellent use of having more assets at his disposal during trade week.
  7. I don't really know what your issue is; all teams will be in the same boat. The advantages the academies have given the interstate teams is unfair and it being tied to the F/S is unfortunate but Sydney should have given up more for Heeney and we should have given up more for Viney. I don't think making the prices fairer for talent is anything but a good thing.
  8. And it is not designed to screw anyone except the teams in the top 4-6 teams that are getting talent without paying the proper price tag.
  9. This was mooted a few months back and I have no idea how Gillon can just say the following without thinking about how it would affect people's thinking: Landsberger throws in the 'Moneyball-like' reference because he is an idiot - again, MB is simply a recruiting strategy based on statistical analysis of existing players form. This is something altoghether different and revolutionary for how we have F/S and Academy players enter the league. This won't affect a situation like Stretch coming to us, it will however make Sydney pay more for Heeney as the article plays out. Giving each pick an intrinsic value is not ideal in our Teenage Lottery Draft but if teams have to surrender more picks for more talent then so be it. And, if it leads to trading future picks, and allowing trading on draft day then great - that will help the league too.
  10. Yeah, I love this stuff. Imagine the cries of the faithful when we adopted a Yankee song as our song. "This is just another hair-brained scheme to deflect attention from the fact that we let University score twice last week!" "I don't understand - what does a Grand Old Flag have to do with the Fuschias of Melbourne?" "This is just another case of American culture bleeding into our culture."
  11. Yes, AFL football is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. There is life before it, life after it, and life instead of it. Some people play football to enjoy the game and they feel they don't need it to sustain themselves.
  12. Call them Sweet Potatoes?
  13. And have a better lifestyle. There is a place down there that does excellent buttermilk pancakes with maple syrup, whipped butter and sausage.
  14. AFL Rule #87: Never draft a ruckman in the National Draft AFL Rule #87.1: Never recruit a ruckman under the age of 21. AFL Truism #4: The best ruckmen in the last decade have been Rookie List players (Cox and Sandilands).
  15. No doubt you are right, but you don't make a jump like the one we did last year through simple improved retention strategies. Fans are more excited and our numbers are mirroring last years and beating them - it's promising to say the least.
  16. The more the game changes, the more it stays the same. Call him a bookend or a tall forward or a CHF or whatever, I would say it is the single most important (and difficult) position on the ground. If we were talking about the most important area or line - it would be the midfield. But you need a platoon in there, one man cannot make a difference...
  17. This place is a beacon...
  18. The real downside would be a situation similar to Steve Nash in the NBA of the last couple years; he has purely been talked about as a 'cap figure' and a 'trade piece' as a opposed a player and a human being. But it's not like we don't dehumanise these people anyway - they are dogs or gods depending on your POV...
  19. It is a tricky issue, and I will say that even in the US - there is no rule that says all financial details need to be revealed - they just are. Whether leaked for curiosity's sake or the legion of agents over there simply want everyone to know the amounts they are getting for their clients. I will still argue that there is a benefit to the league itself but if the majority of the stakeholders of the game feel that personal player privacy overrides that then that is fine with me. However, I will reiterate that the sport is what we stakeholders make of it, and like a few other proposed rule changes that I am adamant about (the ability to trade without player acceptance) - the AFL is a workplace like no other in Australia.
  20. Again, I am not wedded to it like I am to other rule changes like your last line but the game decides what is a luxury or not. When people overlay normal practice of employer-employee relations onto the AFL I laugh, because as a public servant, I know that to be something of a fallacy - people in different jobs are treated differently... We contribute somewhat to the salaries of the players that we want to make transparent, we give the power to the management team that defines the list that these salaries make up - the structure of the league is what we make of it for the betterment of the game and the players left wanting to play in that structure can get paid in that structure.
  21. I would argue that managers are not the most trustworthy individuals and the chinese whispers in this arena would leave the honest traders (if there are any) and the self-represented players at a disadvantage. The vocation of a football player is quite different to any other I think you will agree and while I am empathetic about the privacy concerns of any individual - the clubs have certainly encroached into the privacy of the players over the past few years. Some of the more important changes we need to see like the trading of players without their consent is another issue that the players would argue is a stifling of their rights, but that is the unique vocation they have chosen. They forfeit, or should be made to forfeit, certain luxuries that the 'normal' person enjoys for the good of the game. And, again, they don't have to play AFL, if they do not wish to have their wage publically known, or if they do not wish to be traded to Fremantle, they do not have to play football. There is life before footy, life after it, and life instead of it.
  22. The AFL is at it again with letting their 'journalists' have a free voice of one meaningless paragraph on huge topics that seemingly never get discussed by actual footy journalists (although there are about 3 of those)... Today is Should player salaries be made public? http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-01-22/should-player-pay-be-public Now, this one is a tricky one, and I don't really hold a strong opinion on a desire to see it become public knowledge, however, the benefits of having it open are, IMO, quite obvious - if Player X knows exactly what Player Y is getting, then he can make a more informed decision on his own worth. Geelong made a mockery of the salary cap when they were enjoying their dominance form 2007 to 2011. Players might have known they were getting well paid relative to the teammates but not the competition. Their stars were underpaid and while that is the dream of every team's supporters to have players underpaid and outperform - it is against the ideals of a salary cap equalised game. Ablett should not have been comparing himself to Bartel's wage, but all the other very best players in the game. While player agents have some - to very good - knowledge on what people are being paid - having wages public would make it profoundly more an effective way of making sure players, and their representation, knew their market value. It also wouldn't hurt for the public to know the exact reasons how and why Sydney and Carlton can always apparently chase all the biggest names every year...
  23. Personally, I love playing with players like Matt Jones. Brave, solid skills, turn of speed, consistent, but when you are that type of player, the thing that will differentiate yourself from the other 5 or 6 that can do the same thing is skill execution in important areas of the ground and times of the game. A few of the things that Matt did last year are (not so) affectionately called 'coach killers' and it is a shame that he is defined by these brain fades but until he eradicates them - he is vulnerable.
×
×
  • Create New...