rpfc

Dec 14, 2013 - 22,761 members

How is this a good settlement for the AFL? It's all about perception down at AFL HQ. The writing is on the wall for The Bloated One. It's Succession Planning Time I reckon.

The Tassie team is a shadow.

No, but they rely on a compeition with about 14 clubs that do "rely" on AFL money. So, indirectly, ALL clubs rely on it.

Ok, give back a 1/9 of the TV money in the next deal... The Tassie bid is nowhere. There is no market there, Hawthorn is sucking off of that teet, the people of Tasmania watch AFL football, some of them are members, they have some of their corporate population exploited by AFL teams. There is nothing left to get, there is no Tassie team on the horizon.

There has been no official movement on that. And, Arrow, the reports were based around UFA. And I agree that UFA should be exempt from the compensation model. They involve 28+ year olds or 26+ fringe players. Clubs need to be compensated for losing their best players in their prime, and they should be compenstaed relative to their ladder position as a measure of equality. RFA has never been a part of that discussion. But, again, there has been no official movement in that at all.

Perception is reality in the AFL, especially with The Bloated One close® to the end of his tenure with what has just happened. They got the Head of Footy Ops from Clubland in Evans and he comes form an entitled Hawthorn with a staggeringly short memory. What if the next CEO of the AFL isn't as equality-minded and socialistic as TBO? This is an important argument - that ALL clubs are dependednt on the AFL and the AFL as an 18 team entity.

I don't understand this. Threre are people out there who think that their club subsists on its own and the Demons are living at the courtesy of a benevolent AFL leadership that takes money from the richer clubs in order to keep the MFC alive. The above means that that is bogus, a lie, and the figures represent the fact that ALL clubs rely on the money afforded to them by a league made up of ALL the clubs.

That is ALL the payments to clubs. The base was $6.76m to all clubs and then at least an extra $1.2m each from the TV rights with further funding (very complex) on top of that:

That may be your question, but it is not the last question. The answer is yes. But the next questions are; do we meet his contract? And if so, does he enter the draft? In the NBA - if a team 'meets' the salary for a RFA - that contract is immediately enacted. That is not the case for the AFL.

Rocket scientist? I'd be happy if half of them could spell scientist.

Well, if history is a guide he will either have already signed elsewhere or won't sign anywhere (clubs are not allowed to talk to other players outside of October) until the FA/Trade period. I hope he hasn't signed elsewhere of course, but if he does leave, it is better for our planning that he tell us he has already signed...

It's more 'noteworthy' than his opinion that Toumpas is soft. I agree it's not a big deal, I have also heard some disturbing things about players and from players and you just remember these boys are 20 somethings with stunted mental growth. Leading Teams have their work cut out.

In light of the MFC getting more funding from the AFL earlier this year to fund The Great Cleanout of 2013, and the issue with Essendon's possible loss of part of its base payments I will list who got what in the last two years. There are too many people who do not know that every club is funded from AFL House, to the point that if they didn't all clubs would go under. This is from the AFL's Annual Reports. I have highlighted the lowest and the highest numbers in each year. 2011 ($) Adelaide 7,882,810 Brisbane Lions 9,539,612 Carlton 10,005,058 Collingwood 10,472,551 Essendon 9,995,099 Fremantle 8,056,370 Geelong 9,704,292 Gold Coast 7,864,234 Hawthorn 8,689,212 Melbourne 9,239,301 North Melbourne 10,111,072 Port Adelaide 11,021,514 Richmond 9,092,489 St Kilda 9,192,204 Sydney Swans 9,129,034 West Coast Eagles 8,461,483 Western Bulldogs 10,409,935 2012($) Adelaide 10,270,406 Brisbane 10,783,001 Carlton 10,870,010 Collingwood 12,535,189 Essendon 11,980,149 Fremantle 9,337,414 Geelong 11,135,334 Gold Coast 9,352,117 Greater Western Sydney 9,343,512 Hawthorn 10,636,732 Melbourne 12,650,732 North Melbourne 12,319,940 Port Adelaide 11,138,943 Richmond 11,545,320 St Kilda 12,502,276 Sydney 11,916,038 West Coast 9,229,523 Western Bulldogs 12,704,635

I'd say it is more relevant than Toumpas being labelled soft. I am more keen to know who thinks it is ok to judge a rookie like that and forward that opinion to a fan.

That $1.4 is on top of our discretionary distributions... I feel like starting a thread with the numbers from the AFL Annual Report... I will do it later.

I knew you would get there eventually... It was like herding a cat.

So as long as a professional athlete plays ignorant - he can do what he likes? 'Don't tell me what you're doing, as long as you say it's fine doc, I am sweet.' Plausible deniability is not what we are going for in a post Lance Armstrong sporting landscape.

The bigger news is who said that - not his opinion of Toumpas being soft. Talk about burying the lead...

I meant that we could wear a strip that has the MCC colours.

They were just 'following orders?'

What is worse to a team? A player playing 'soft' in his first year of footy, or a teammate giving that opinion to a supporter?

The players are grown men and should be punished but, really, the only punishment of Hird will be the continuation of pressure on him until he loses his credibility and his job.

Is it the same material then?

I like Frawley... Just a heads up - in the event we lose Frawley - we would be very unlikely to go after a FA unless they are the top tier like Murphy, Boak, et al. The reason is that Frawley will net the pick after our first round pick, which will be very close to the top of the order. Signing a FA will dilute that pick.