La Dee-vina Comedia

Even if we'd drafted Neale we would probably have stuffed up his development and eventually traded him for someone else who was equally disappointing.

I think the reason why all clubs are required to pay 97% (or whatever the figure is) of the salary cap is so that players who are drafted to a poor team have the same reward opportunity as players drafted to a good team. In other words, why should a player who has no choice as to which team he plays for get paid less because he plays for the bottom team on the ladder than a player who just happens to be lucky enough to have been drafted to a top four team?

I've been in favour of this idea for some time. The longer a player stays at a club, the more the club gets to discount that player's salary from cap calculations.

I'm not sure I agree. Players are still free to move if they can find a club that wants them. The club that wants them has a penalty imposed. The concept of the player getting to the club of their choice without requiring a trade to be done still survives.

If you want to go down this path, it would be hard to justify a player from any Victorian team winning the medal in future. All the interstate clubs travel much more than all the Victorian teams in a "normal" season.

Another way to "penalise" clubs who receive free agents would be to add a loading to the free agent's salary for cap calculation purposes. For example, a free agent's salary might be included in the club's cap at 125% of its true value.

I don't understand why the AFLPA would want this. How does it help the players, given around 60-70% of them would be in the 12-14 teams that won't be regularly finishing in the top 4? I understand why free agency exists for the players. I understand the concept of the team which loses the free agent receiving some sort of compensation. What I don't understand is why the clubs who benefit from receiving a free agent aren't required to give up something in return, such as an automatic drop down the draft order. For example, and using Cameron to Geelong as an example, why shouldn't Geelong's first draft pick be moved down (say) 18 spots?

Quite right, Old dee. Lang was indeed Premier of NSW. In my defence, all NSW politicians think they're more important than any Federal parliamentarian. Many even think they're above the law.

Too obtuse for me. Who was this "best young player from Kybybolite" whose career we stuffed up?

I think you are right to be sceptical. If I recall correctly, the self-interest of clubs and individuals was a major stumbling block when Crawford did his review and, further back, when the Commission model was first mooted. As Paul Keating once said, ‘In the race of life, always back self-interest — at least you know it's trying’. (While Keating did say this, he was repeating what had been said about 50 years earlier by one of his heroes, Prime Minister, Jack Lang)

We also have to remember that David Koch has a conflict of interest given his major employer is a broadcast "partner" of the AFL. That doesn't mean his views as stated are wrong, but his conflicts (and, similarly those of Eddie McGuire, who is employed by both Nine and Foxtel) need to be appreciated.

That dual role should be looked at by this proposed review. If it is indeed unique to our game, there must be reasons why other codes aren't following it. That's not to say the current arrangement is wrong, but the Commission should at least look to see whether the governance model is optimal.

If our clubs each got $260 million every year, they'd have NFI what to do with it.

I heard Andrew Pridham interviewed over the weeked. His proposal is much more than the number of teams in the competition. He wants everything looked at - governance, structure, rules, revenue streams, etc. And I think he's right. The last comprehensive review of this type was done 27 years ago by David Crawford. A lot has changed since, and not just in the AFL. There are different technologies (streaming, social media); there's more competition for people's time (does game time need to be shortened? for example); the big cities have grown at the expense of rural areas (what impact has this had on grass roots football?), AFL now has significant competition from other codes (such as NRL and soccer in Melbourne) which didn't exist 27 years ago, the game style has changed so much in the last 27 years to the extent that many claim it is unwatchable, the second-tier competition chops and changes all the time, etc. And all that is before the financial effects of Covid-19. A proper review needs to look at all these things and more to ensure a wholistic approach is taken to the next 25 years of the AFL. The AFL can't sit on its hands and say that all wisdom resides within the current Commission.

Not quite. Geelong also had two (Dangerfield and Guthrie). But if we're looking for bragging rights, the combined total of our two was 34 compared with their 29. Footnote: I think Geelong supporters might have us covered for bragging rights given they're playing off for the premiership this weekend.

One advantage is the ability to replace an injured player. As an example, if player Smith is replaced by player Jones and player Jones gets injured, player Smith could return to the field if it was an interchange system but not if it was the older 19th and 20th men format. I think it's a more significant issue than it might initially sound, too. Without the ability to replace injured players there is a risk that players with minor "tweaks" may remain on the field making them susceptible to greater injury. Even more concerning, the lack of interchange might discourage proper management of potential concussions. I had not that long ago thought that abolishing interchange altogether might be a good idea. On further reflection, I think a small number of interchanges, such as a maximum of, say, 4 per quarter, might be a better option.

Is there any evidence we had to take him on a 3 year deal to enable the May deal to happen?

Actually, I think it's a dad joke that needs steroids.

Has just been reported that Rhyce Shaw is taking an extended break and may not return as senior coach at North. I wish him well and hope he has a speedy recovery. It's of secondary importance to his health, but I wonder whether North will change direction under whoever takes over as either interim or permanent Senior Coach. For example, will Ben Brown be a "required player" once again?

"Value" is not always measured sensibly. Why is a Picasso worth so much more than the work of (almost) any other artist? After all, the cost of the materials used is the same. Similarly, how do you put a value on a stunt such as a prize in a club raffle for a chance to toss the coin at a home game on the MCG? Anyway, if the MCG turf going to the Gabba costs the AFL nothing, I see it as an inoffensive stunt. If it costs the AFL money, I see it as a wasteful idea.

Is it (genuine question)? I'd like an economist's view. After all, isn't this what JobKeeper is doing, albeit without shovels?

Possibly somebody who wanted the deal killed?

Reminds me of Kevin Bartlett's hair when he was playing

Maybe. But the fact that we're talking about it means Rebel is getting the exposure they want. Would they have got the same value proposition by doing something else?

Chicks for free? Sure you didn't mean to post this in the Jesse Hogan thread? Although his "chick" cost him 8k.