Rubbish. They also bit the hand that had been feeding them for 3 decades, … and got a swift kick up the arsse for it.
It also might have been related to the Tippet affair, after they were *allowed to walk away from that with a “Nothing to see here” on that as well.
(*IIRC? 
)
Tippett was unavailable for selection for 1/2 a season so not quite “nothing to see here” as you describe despite not having anything to do with the arrangement between Tippett and Adelaide which led to the suspension. They just hired him, all within the rules.
“Bit the hand that had been feeding them for three decades”? The fark are you on about? Without Sydney, there is no AFL, no TV deals, nothing. And that applies to every other side. Sydney acted in accordance with the AFL’s own blueprint and got sanctioned for it. The AFL are out of line here and anyone who supports how the AFL went about this sleazy affair require several sessions of tongue bleaching.
Diggers, you’re the one who can’t put parochialism aside.
PP has summed it up perfectly here.
If the situations are truly different like you say, what exactly did Melbourne do wrong?
I agree that Sydney did nothing wrong, but neither did Melbourne and that’s why the situations are identical
Yeah, … I didn’t check if my memory was right on the Tippet thing cause I simply DGAF about Sydee.
And that’s the point, … Fark Sydney.
They did bite the hand that Fed them though, through COLA, draft advantages, etc etc, … the AFL continually helped ensured to keep them in Finals for years, largely for their own benefit to grow the game there, but they did it.
AFL wanted Farklin at GWS to do the same out west, and Sydney fkn shafted them! After taking all that help with glee, they then turned around and said fark you, … and the AFL said well Fark you back, … and as we well know, when the AFL wants to fark you,… they can really fark you.
Sydney were stupid, arrogant, and fkn stupid, and they shot themselves right between the eyes with their sly act, and I for one, reckon they deserve what they got, simply for being so stupid as to bite that feeding hand, & couldn’t care less.
Did I say Fark Sydney?
Melbourne went out of their way to lose games in order to gain a drafting advantage, Sydney didn’t.
I can’t believe I need to spell it out.
No they didn’t.
The AFL wanted Frankin to do for GWS what lockett and then Hall did for Sydney
This is so wide of the mark that even written directions couldn’t correct it.
No, they didn’t…
By the way, I have a bridge for sale.
Perhaps you should focus on that then, … rather than look for sympathy for a pampered fkn Sydney getting paid back for screwing over the comp that kept giving them a leg up every fkn year on an ESSENDON FC forum.
I suggest you find a Swans forum to bleat on if you’re looking for a shoulder to cry on.
Fark Sydney.
I see you have run low on logical argument.
Happens sometimes.
The logical argument is IDGAF.
Oh, and also fark Sydney.
They wern’t the only ones… Rebuilding was always play the kids ahead of the experienced older guys. Hell Crawford says as much on the Podcast. They were told they needed to get games into Buddy etal even if they wern’t the best option right now. Players moved on and retired because they were told this. Others were told the short term would not be fun.
Where is the tanking penalty for them?
Two stints of Kennet as chairman is penalty enough.
Even if Melbourne did do that it wasn’t against the rules. It was just a bad look for the game.
Sydney drafting Franklin wasn’t against any rules, it was just a bad look for the game (according to the AFL).
You don’t need to spell anything out, except maybe why you’re so biased and blind to the similarities here
So in 1997 when sheeds played a bunch of kids and also had players playing in different positions, that was tanking as well?
Except Buddy wasn’t able to track down a modern day equivalent of a Peter Caven or Brent Staker
Did find a lot of Persian rugs though
Was K Sheedy trying to get the #1 draft pick?