Except that almost none of the money goes to the good cause
AFL - Good Ideas, Terrible Ideas, Too Many Ideas, No Idea - in summary... BECAUSE FARK YOU, THAT’S WHY
Could the AFL have propped them up if they really wanted them to survive though? Although I do understand they wouldn’t have been as cashed up today, but it’s still sad to see history like that get flushed down the toilet.
Take my post from earlier. Stick it on Good Friday night, money goes to RCH
Of course the AFL could have propped them up if they wanted, but of course they did not want that.
The AFL Fitzroy to fold so they could make more money in QLD by making Brisbane stronger and also reducing competition in Victoria for sponsors’ $.
The AFL had been strangling Fitzroy for years. The mismanagement that AN10 referred to would not have helped of course, but the AFL killed that club. Make no mistake.
They were even callous enough to have their last game played thousands of miles away just to rub salt into the wounds of the traditional followers.
It just shows the shitness of the AFL executive they would do that to a founder member of the competition. It was shocking then; perhaps not so much now when we have seen how badly they treated us over their corrupt actions in the Saga.
Am reliably informed that Brisbane have now joined Carlton, St Kilda & Gold Coast in requesting a priority pick. Fremantle also considering making a submission.
Thought Andrew Ireland interview tonight summed it up pretty well. Carlton is a completely different case to Gold Coast and Brisbane in that they’ve retained the majority of their young talent and made a strategic long term decision to trade away senior talent for draft picks (Gibbs, Henderson, Thouy etc) and that they shouldn’t be receiving a priority pick for list management decisions they made. Fair point IMO.
Fark me… this is a joke. I reckon Gold Coast are the only ones with a case… unless the AFL comes to their senses and winds them up
Every club should now make a proposition to gain a priority pick. We could have a whole round of picks and call them “The First Round” as they will be the first round of picks in this instance. The traditional first round picks after the priority picks could then be renamed “The Second Round” and so on…
The AFL Commission could take the opportunity to remind clubs that development of players from draftees into premier footballers is their own responsibility.
Also, Fark Carlton
l do wonder what case Brissy could make for a PP. It doesn’t really matter, it won’t be a strong case, and they should be told to stop dreaming. Agree with comments about the Blooos, this is a disaster of their own making. Who is to say they won’t repeat something like this again in the near future?
Brisbane aren’t too far from taking off again, hold onto their talent and they’ll be fine in the not too distant future. St Kilda were talking up a potential top 4 finish at one stage last year, they can do one.
Stuff priority picks. They don’t do sht if the clubs can’t develop the players well.
If the AFL wants to give GC a short term leg up, boost their football department spend cap so they can bring in better coaches or player support staff. More players or player concessions won’t improve anything.
Carlton 8 1353 2282
Carlton 24 1594 2038
Carlton 28 1568 1978
Carlton 60 4515 6298 71.689
Gold Coast 16 1308 2182
Gold Coast 24 1756 2311
Gold Coast 24 1778 2273
Gold Coast 64 4842 6766 71.563
Brisbane 20 1825 2049
Brisbane 20 1877 2526
Brisbane 12 1770 2872
Brisbane 52 5472 7447 73.479
I’d suggest Brisbane would have as strong a case as the other two clubs.
They’re havin’a larf!
They’ve come 9th, 11th and 16th!
Freo have come 16th, 14th and 14th.
How many footy nerds in a ton - 7 or 8?? Sounds about right.
■■■■-Lacy is/was a weird dude, he used to get his car (top of the line Bentley) detailed in a dodgy industrial park in Heidelberg West near a former workplace. And treated himself to a ham and sauce sanga along with the factory workers and
Truly cultured palate.
That’s not a solution.
It’s like saying stop looking attractive so you won’t get oggled at.
Oh cool, if we’re going for stupid similes I have one too.
If I gave you $100 every week, but also said “hey you should get a haircut”, you wouldn’t ever bother with the haircut because hey, you’ll get the money anyway. However if I pulled up one week and only gave you $80 and said “this is because you won’t get a haircut, and next week it’ll be $60”, you’d reconsider.
The only language AFL understands is revenue. If you’re not speaking it, they ain’t listening.
I agree - analogies are stupid and don’t work.
they’ve narrowed it down to two rule changes:
(a) six-six-six starting formations at every centre bounce; and
(b) doubling the length of the goalsquare to 18m.
Two changes on competition committee’s radar
THE AFL’s competition committee will meet this Thursday to finalise the recommended rule changes it will present to the Commission in a bid to tackle congestion next year.
It’s believed the competition committee has narrowed its possible recommendations down to two rule changes: (a) six-six-six starting formations at every centre bounce; and (b) doubling the length of the goalsquare to 18m.
Both innovations were trialled in a series of recent VFL games, while the committee is also set to discuss how the use of runners can be better governed.
If the committee agrees to recommend rule changes, the Commission will consider those at its meeting in Grand Final week and likely make a final decision on whether they are introduced for the 2019 season.
Also on the agenda for the committee’s meeting this Thursday are proposed player movement changes, including a mid-season trade or draft period, and the 2019 fixture.
AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking has said repeatedly this year any rule changes for 2019 will be communicated to clubs by October.
The competition committee consists of club presidents Colin Carter (Geelong), Eddie McGuire (Collingwood) and Peggy O’Neal (Richmond); CEOs Andrew Fagan (Adelaide), Andrew Ireland (Sydney) and Justin Reeves (Hawthorn); senior coaches Chris Fagan (Brisbane) and Brad Scott (North Melbourne); football managers Chris Davies (Port Adelaide) and Craig Vozzo (West Coast); and players Patrick Dangerfield (Geelong, AFLPA president) and Steven May (Gold Coast).
Whilst I’d prefer they stop tinkering with the game as it often results in collateral damage these changes are the lessor of two evils from what was proposed at times.
Doubling the length of the goal square is a ludicrous option.
Let’s just go back to the centre for a bounce after a behind just like we do with a goal.
Result would be pretty much the same.