rpfc

It's ok, I'll take my word for it.

My post was in two parts - the first three lines were about your worries, the rest was about the damnation of Frawley by posters. It will not be as simple as a 'farm for better clubs' and with any model - if you don't draft well you're stuffed.

He's trying to sell him down because we have to bid for him and it will cost a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

No it won't. As long as there is a cap there will be chances for talent to move in both directions. And players holding out for their value is good for the competition. Clubs getting players to stay on smaller contracts is bad for the competition. In the US, it is extremely rare for teams to re-sign players outside of the offseason and even outside of the offseason that they are off-contract. I am sorry, calm down and get used to it. It is their job and future and Frawley taking his time doesn't faze me at all. We either keep him or we have a top 6 pick and a spare $700k. Clubs dither on players and see their options - players have every right to do the same. It's not a failure of leadership.

Yes, you would. What a tagger...

His change in form is noticeable to those of us who have been watching him since he kicked three goals against Geelong one Friday Night about 8 years ago. He has been tried as a forward, as a mid, as a tagger, and a couple times as a defender. In 2013 he nailed what has been so elusive and he worked on his on field discipline and, as he mentioned in that article announcing his deal, his leadership. He is a different player and as I said above he has himself and hard work and persistence to thank for that. But it also the patience of a few coaching groups and personnel managers to thank too. Players improve. We have seen it with Dunn, we have seen it with the work-in-progress Watts, we are seeing it with Pedersen and with Jetta and with Matt Jones. The best example is Nathan Jones. What a player he is! He has come on from what he showed in his first 6 years. Subjective analysis is just that and Demonland is full of it, and sometimes so are posters... Lynden has left the faux bravado and the jumper punching behind and he is the better player for it.

It allowed Geelong to extend their run as they kept so many of their stars. We will never see something like Geelong again as the three drafts where they got their best players 1999-2001 meant that they were all around the same age and when the entered Vets status a few years ago Geelong were able to the each $120k outside the cap. That meant that they had an extra $1m to give to some very good players. I can fully understand why the AFL is doing away with it. We may see a return to some form of it but they have a couple years to think of something.

Yes, and he deserves his contract but it is as depth. His start to the year was good, and his desire and acceptance to play injured until Jamar came back was selfless and admirable but Gawn is streeting past him as the second ruck option. If Spencer is 'Jamar insurance' that is smart, but that is all I see right now.

Yes, it did, especially for clubs like us who don't pay the whole cap. We can carry over as much as 5% of the cap ~$500k into the next season(s) on top of the cap.

Most of you said goodbye to Watts after his appearance on the footy show. FA has brought a new world, get used to players re-signing later and later.

So he wants to change policy now and then he will change his mind and lobby for the old policy in a few years time? I don't think you give enough credit to Jackson and those interested in an equalised league. The NFL shares revenues and different teams, and smaller teams, can, and do, compete for the title. It isn't the answer, but it is a part of the answer.

The eloquence is in the paraphrasing by Peter Ryan... As for your bolded sentence - there is a big IF that comes after that isn't there? IF there is sharing of match day revenues. On the question of whether Jackson would like to share match day revenues into the future - he has already seen the top with Essendon and the bottom with Melbourne and he thinks there should be sharing of gate receipts and match day revenue. I would be surprised if he was being insincere now.

The salary cap next year will be over $10m. Do the people that are throwing arbitrary numbers out and extolling that someone "shouldn't be paid that" have a reference point? Unfortunately, we don't have a open source where all the salaries of players are known. So the comparison of who should be paid what is very tough. The cap has increased from $8m to $10m in 4 years. So in real terms - if a player earning $400k in 2010 his exact equivalent would be earning $500k this year. Someone earning $800k in 2015 will be earning approx. $950k if given the equivalent salary 4 years later. To simplify - wages goin' up.

I would hope Jackson continues his fight for equalisation that he eloquently stated here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-02-26/share-the-wealth-jackson And the reality is - due to the inequities of the draw - we are going to get a bump in our distribution from the AFL. If the draw stays the way it is now with the bigger clubs getting their desires met and the odd good team getting some Prime Time games - then the sharing of the wealth as Jackson says in that article is essential. So what I would say to that question is Jackson wants to make it moot - in that article he wants gate receipts and match day revenue shared across the clubs. This is how the NFL helps to achieve its standing as the league with the most parity.

The fixture rewards teams that pull crowds - not teams that win games. This is the problem. And 'fighting a doomed equalisation argument'? The irony is that today an equalisation document was released that noted and accepted the inequities of the draw. There is nothing wrong with the desire to have a fair fixture.

This is one of those times when Dunn has the persistence of others, aswell as himself, to thank for his success. 2005 was his first year and 2013 was the first time he turned into a solid pro who cemented himself in the best 22. I am glad we don't have to worry about a very capable third tall down back with excellent skills for three years. Well done!

Where are you getting this Freo nonsense from?

We are not trying to equalise the competition with 2 win teams with a 52 percentage. Nothing can help you sell that. But are we trying to sell that? No, we are trying to forget that. You talk about 'poor' teams like they would all play VFL-level football against good teams. We are so starved of a simple middling team we think that all teams down the bottom of the ladder are as inept as we have been the last few years. How would we go with 22 Friday night games this year? In both performance and interest? Quite effing well. And what would you say Peter Jackson would say to someone who thinks a 'good draw' is irrelevant?

How can something be 'in the past' and be a myth that didn't happen? It's like saying Game of Thrones is a Fantasy/Period piece.

The draw defines the showcase of your brand. How you can be so dismissive of it is hard to understand. It is a part of the answer to equalisation of the league.

I think Ebert made himself look like that. He was trying to milk a free IMO.

The AFL stepped in because of the state of the club - and I would argue that the recent Tanking investigation is a part of that. But it is a rich tapestry of nonsense that led to Jackson being parachuted in not just that longwinded and, in my view, misguided investigation With the killer blow being the insipid start to 2013 onfield.

Multiple gameplans is a form of mixed messaging... And it is simply confidence that Bail got on the end of that kick. Ability of both players to see it as a possibility (because what the hell was that?), and confidence.

In theory - no. The FA concept would mean that players go to the best deal and the talent is spread across the competition. In reality - well, it's there for all to see. Players will take pay cuts to stay at clubs in contention, and even pay cuts to leave for clubs in contention. AFL Free Agency has a way to go before it is doing what it intends to do.

The AFL fought long and hard not to have a set percentage and GRRM is right - it is close to a quarter. Most sports pay players much, much more than coaches and its coaching staff. The AFL is one of the few that pays coaches more than players. The cap is low from what I can tell -the AFL makes a great deal of money still. The ownership structure is different to US sports but they are far more equalised than the AFL in terms of gate receipts, merchandise, game day revenues, and Free Agency as a means of evening the competition.