sue

By definition those who are struggling to get a game are worse than the ones getting a game. So while there may be exceptions, on average we would always have a team weaker than the top teams. It's all very well to see opportunity in threats, but I'm afraid the same can be said by the man on the gallows seeing the opportunity of entering heaven when they open the trapdoor.

All very true, but the missing factor is that our chances of 'winning' are much reduced with FA. We may never get to that position. This is not pessimism, it is just the way it is unless the AFL wakes up or discovers there is more money to be made by an even comp. Ditto for other weak clubs, especially in Vic where the support base is more fragmented.

If only. You can be sure that the AFL will ensure they have no problem.

So if you think it was inevitable on legal grounds, is it not also inevitable that some day someone will also challenge the restrictions the AFL currently puts around it? Then say goodbye to the clubs and the comp as we know them. Not a world I want to see, but it is the result of the commercialisation of every aspect of society in recent decades. Maybe evil is too strong a word but it's not far off.

The amazing thing about the 'AFL could block Buddy's move' article is that the AFL is concerned that Sydney may have made a hole for themselves, not that their policies are making a hole for everyone else.

Of course we have to self-improve, but to suggest we can bury our heads in the sands and until we are winning games say nothing on this topic is just silly. If the non-equalisation continues, we will be playing in the B division (if at all) no matter how much self-improvement we manage. There is a structural problem in the AFL which FA can only exacerbate. The B division develops players who are then snapped up by wealthy clubs ensuring the original club stays in B division. A B division club can only get an A grade player by offering him an enormous salary. But guess what, the B division teams won't have an enormous amount of money because they are B division. A recipe for a downward spiral, but OK we are in no position to argue.

Your last sentence asked for it. Your misinterpretation of the meaning of 'hand wringing' is a result of watching too much of Mr Burns. I'm not sure if there is a word for what he does, but you are misled by his wringing his hands in gleeful anticipation.

I'm not sure that if teams are more full of very talented players the game will be better for us spectators. They negate each other and you can end up with the mad scramble we saw when Fro and Sydney played recently. Exciting in a final, but week after week, yuk. (That said, obviously a certain level of skill is required or we'd all be watching VLF reserves). The business types running the AFL will be happier with a Premier League style operation than with an even comp. They've worked out there is more money to be made that way and they call sell some clubs to their rich mates for hobbies. Blame 'there is no such thing as society' Thatcher and her descendants.

Hey, I might change my name to that

RR, you must control your desire to defend CW at every turn . Moonshadow's poke at her was not based on the correctness of her assessment of DM. It is based on her being a blatant Richmond supporter, a bias a serious journalist should try to overcome. Read it again: .

Really? No thought then of what may have happened (on planet earth) if Freo had managed to kick straight early on? As much as I'm not fond of Hawthorn, they were the best throughout the year and I'd much prefer to watch their style of footy than Freo's, so it was a good thing that Freo didn't win and set the style for the next 10 years. What sort of grapes is that I wonder?

Is there not a minimum salary for a listed player? If so, I presume 40*that is far less than 95% of the cap. So to what extent is the aflpa feather-bedding the top players by insisting on the 95%? It would be interesting to know the distribution of salaries.

What is the rationale behind the current pay at least 95% of the cap policy? Why have a minimum at all? (Not below 40 times the minimum wage of course.)

I know I'll be accused of being a fence-sitter as usual, but we don't really know what went on. You could equally argue that Colless should have spoken to Roos before going to the press criticising him in such a brutal manner based on facts Roos denies. Since Colless apparently struck the first public blow, I'm not at all convinced Roos is at fault. Do we really want him to be walked over just to increase our chances of doing trades etc with Sydney? That's not the toughen-up/be hated message that many on here as keen on. edit to add: On reflection, I'd remove the word 'equally' from the second sentence and replace it with "more strongly".

Thanks for the explanation. So it does make pseudo market as 55 said. But I don't feel that Port's machinations for example interfere with the FA market in such a serious way that it should rule out the benefits of compensation. However, I suspect if I was a supporter of a powerful club I'd be keen on no compensation.

OK. But in the unequal battle to have an 'equal' competition you need every leg-up for the weak clubs you can muster. As you indicate in your last sentence, the cap is not enough. I'm not sure that the discussion about whether Sylvia is worth pick x or y is relevant. What does it matter? Just an internal matter for the AFL who can be trusted to be consistent (ha ha). So how is it unhealthy? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Monfries situation so I may be missing something.

Regarding the words in bold above - is that true? Unless someone knows more about the ASADA investigation than we do (or you believe those who say the players are safe because of Essendon's mismanagement/paper shredder), isn't it a big risk for other clubs to take their players? In fact you could imagine that if Essendon have seen the writing on the wall, they may be happy to dump to other clubs players who are about to be banned and start a rebuild with draft picks.

What is that good case? If you believe in equalisation, then the AFL handing out compensation helps weaker clubs who have their good players poached by rich clubs. It's not any restraint of trade because the compensation is independent of the deal between the FA player and his new club(*). Of course if you don't believe in equalisation, then it is another story. (*) except in the extremely weak sense that the new club might not want to take the FA player if it knows that the club he is coming from might gain some benefit from the AFL. But compared to the other vagaries of the draw etc whereby the AFL advantages some clubs over others, this is not significant. For example, it is a similarly weak restraint of trade for a player to be discouraged from moving to us if the AFL gives us bad draws.

If he goes to Essendon he and Goddard better be fit because they will have to play in the other 20 positions as well.

I wonder if there is anything the AFL can do to insure clubs which take Bombers players against the player being banned in x months. Not easy to see how they could. An extra pick in 2014 - doesn't really sound workable? Sandor Earl's evidence - damning.

How can you think that "Pick 2 has nothing to do with a PP" addresses rpfc's point? Surely he is saying if you really want to be hairy-chested about not needing a PP, you could also say the same about pick 2. And a PP did not have to be used on 'another 18 year old kid' - it could have been traded for an experienced mid-fielder. It may well be true the other assistance we have had may be more useful than a PP (even if used for a trade). For example, we may have been bankrupt and unable to pay anyone or ended up with a Demonlander as coach. But that does not prove a PP wouldn't have helped. But as Old Dee wrote: But we do not have a PP so lets get serious about what we do have and ensure we all have a team to follow in 2018.

Yes. And a PP would have helped. Not saying more than that or that we would definitely go under whatever happens in the near term as some have read into my earlier post. But history shows that we could end up merged/relocated with one or more of the several weak clubs. Just because the AFL is helping us now, who knows what their attitude may be under new management if we are still crud in x years time and it suits the $'s to change the nature of the comp. Ready to barrack for the Melbourne Saints instead of Demons? It's not victim mentality, it is just reality. But accepting that doesn't mean I'm saying that we can rely on messiahs either in the form of PP's or coaches for that matter. Not that the sky is falling. A PP would have helped. No one seems to have commented on the fact that when Roos first accepted the job he 'joked' about what he'd do with a PP. Did anyone think he didn't want one then? (Want in the sense of 'prefer', not 'I will cut my wrists if I don't get one'). He now knows his task will be just that little bit harder. Good luck to him. Lets' move on.

Interesting thought. The demise of Fitzroy may be part of his motivation with us perhaps.

I don't recall anyone saying getting a PP guarantees anything. (And no one has suggested a PP would put us in the finals FCS.) The point BBy and others have made is that it would have helped in building the missing mid-field through trades etc. I don't believe there is a trace of 'all we need is a PP' within the club anymore, so there is no reason to think having a PP is 'culturally' dangerous. It's all very well saying if we are hopeless next year then we'll get a PP and if we are not then we won't need one. Just think hard about the first part of that. it may just be too late if we are this hopeless again in 2014. On the other hand, a PP would have helped prevent us being hopeless in 2014. Note the word 'helped' qualifying 'prevent', and the absence of the word 'guaranteed'.

Sorry, just a typo. Maybe I misinterpreted B-H too. May PM as he suggested.