Rumour 2024 Rumours and Speculation Part 3

[cmndstab]

This is the strongest argument against what the AFL have done to the GWS players. Their staggering inconsistency, in choosing when & who to charge, is a massive problem.

Should the GWS players have been suspended? Probably.
Should De Goey also have been suspended? Definitely.

The fact that De Goey wasn't suspended, and the GWS players were, is a massive problem for the AFL.

Far be it from me to try to get inside the head of the AFL, but I suspect the thinking has to do with this "Wacky Wednesday" function being, at least nominally, an AFL/club event. They're there as a group, representing the AFL, and they pull a bunch of offensive shit that the AFL doesn't like. So the AFL decides to get ahead of the fallout.

Whereas in the De Goey case, I imagine the AFL would be at pains to say, that has nothing to do with us. Let the courts handle that one.

As always, the AFL is primarily (solely?) motivated by protecting their brand.

 

[Vader]

Far be it from me to try to get inside the head of the AFL, but I suspect the thinking has to do with this "Wacky Wednesday" function being, at least nominally, an AFL/club event. They're there as a group, representing the AFL, and they pull a bunch of offensive shit that the AFL doesn't like. So the AFL decides to get ahead of the fallout.

Whereas in the De Goey case, I imagine the AFL would be at pains to say, that has nothing to do with us. Let the courts handle that one.

As always, the AFL is primarily (solely?) motivated by protecting their brand.

The AFL can & do take action when a player does something that brings the game into disrepute in their private time.

In the De Goey case, his actions were apparently consensual, so there's no case to answer.

As you say, the AFL is motivated by protecting their brand, and all decisions made need to be seen through this lens. Having senior players unavailable is a 2-edged sword - it can send a powerful message, but it also detracts from bums on seats revenue if they're missing from the action. The AFL likes to have it both ways, by hammering lesser players, while allowing the stars to skate through - the infamous McAdam suspension is another example of this.

 

[Slime Roy]

Looks like that on mine too

& for me

 

[50BC]

Player Agents have a duty to their clients, not to hold grudges and settle scores.

If Port held their nerve and pissed off Paul Connors, and next year Connors was looking after a player where the best deal for him is at Port, then Connors has a duty to deal with Port for his client. If he doesn't, then his license should be taken away.

Well that's the theory. Some agents, particularly the ones with lots of clients have too much power and aren't really held accountable. Have been stories about Connors essentially blackmailing clubs for ages

 

[50BC]

This is the strongest argument against what the AFL have done to the GWS players. Their staggering inconsistency, in choosing when & who to charge, is a massive problem.

Should the GWS players have been suspended? Probably.
Should De Goey also have been suspended? Definitely.

The fact that De Goey wasn't suspended, and the GWS players were, is a massive problem for the AFL.

does seem Melb based players are held to one standard and interstate based to another. Cant upset the darling clubs

 

[Vader]

does seem Melb based players are held to one standard and interstate based to another. Cant upset the darling clubs

There's the Vic vs non-Vic bias, and also a nobodies vs stars bias - with the latter being infinitely more significant.

 

[CutAboveTheRest]

Is that drafting or development ??

You tell me?

 

[50BC]

There's the Vic vs non-Vic bias, and also a nobodies vs stars bias - with the latter being infinitely more significant.

True but an overlap I guess as the Melb media focuses on Vic based players

 

[feenix67]

There's the Vic vs non-Vic bias, and also a nobodies vs stars bias - with the latter being infinitely more significant.

I'd say it's the AFL owned v non AFL owned bias.

Nobody at GWS is going to take action against the AFL. Collingwood, on the other hand...

 

[Slime Roy]

I'd say it's the AFL owned v non AFL owned bias.

Nobody at GWS is going to take action against the AFL. Collingwood, on the other hand...

Please, The Daicos Brothers could go as The Menendez' and the worst they'd get is 5 Brownlow Votes.

 

[Mostyn]

I'm just not committed to white knighting and not one to ignore our legal processes.

Take the penalty for Fahey out of the equation... do you sincerely think that a player deserves a suspension for dressing up as a WTC building? A fine for depicting a movie scene?

The problem with moral outrage proponents such as yourself is that they shut down discourse. They demand 100% adherence to the group think.

You've used terms like "victim blaming" and "women hating bitterness" as verbal weapons. Let me tell you, it's piss weak and shows a lack of any ability to engage with someone who doesn't share your point of view. You're a sheep.

That, mate, is not worthy of my respect.

You're not committed to white knighting?

Well, thank f*** for that.

You're just a Temu Sam Newman, spouting opinions that seem very popular down the bowls club, and you're surprised people have called you out on it.

Discourse means showing respect. You've shown none to half the population with your opinions on here.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Current rumours are that we're into Draper as a ROB replacement (RFA), and NWM from St Kilda (trade).

The club probably has other irons in the fire, that we haven't heard about yet.

I'm not against replacing ROB... but I really wish they could find a better option than Draper, who I see as being a significant downgrade on ROB. Not only is he a dud player, he's only 3 years younger than ROB - so we're just kicking the can down the road a bit when it comes to long-term ruck planning.

Surely this means Nicks doesn’t value the ruck position and wants currency spent elsewhere?

It can’t be purely a list manager decision to not recruit a quality ruck or draft a talented prospect over the last 5 years

 

[jackster83]

Surely this means Nicks doesn’t value the ruck position and wants currency spent elsewhere?

It can’t be purely a list manager decision to not recruit a quality ruck or draft a talented prospect over the last 5 years

Nicks also thinks Laird and Crouch are our best two midfielders and Murphy is a gun small forward.

He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near our list management discussions.

 

[Cromulant]

Surely this means Nicks doesn’t value the ruck position and wants currency spent elsewhere?

It can’t be purely a list manager decision to not recruit a quality ruck or draft a talented prospect over the last 5 years

I mean its a fair opinion to have too, when you look at the premiership sides for most of the last 20 years.

 

[Cromulant]

Nicks also thinks Laird and Crouch are our best two midfielders and Murphy is a gun small forward.

He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near our list management discussions.

I doubt he thinks any of those things at all.

 

[crow2crow]

Both Burgess and Tex will be off the list next year, we’ll need to find at least one more 190cm+ forward (for depth at the very least)

We could have delisted Burgess and got Jack Hayes for nothing and killed two birds with one stone. At least buys a few years. I know he's injury prone... but maybe playing away from Etihad?

 

[Mostyn]

This is the strongest argument against what the AFL have done to the GWS players. Their staggering inconsistency, in choosing when & who to charge, is a massive problem.

Should the GWS players have been suspended? Probably.
Should De Goey also have been suspended? Definitely.

The fact that De Goey wasn't suspended, and the GWS players were, is a massive problem for the AFL.

Getting something wrong in the past shouldn't be a deterrent to get it right in the future.

Personally, I think what the AFL is doing is an overreach, but I think they have grounds to take action.

 

[jackster83]

I doubt he thinks any of those things at all.

Ok, maybe an exaggeration but he clearly is not the greatest judge of players.

Even this year he kept picking Hamill despite Hamill himself knowing he wasn't getting another contract.

 

[Cromulant]

Ok, maybe an exaggeration but he clearly is not the greatest judge of players.

Even this year he kept picking Hamill despite Hamill himself knowing he wasn't getting another contract.

True, I mean a lot of coaches do the same and i always find it staggering.

 

[Maddogmetro]

This is the strongest argument against what the AFL have done to the GWS players. Their staggering inconsistency, in choosing when & who to charge, is a massive problem.

Should the GWS players have been suspended? Probably.
Should De Goey also have been suspended? Definitely.

The fact that De Goey wasn't suspended, and the GWS players were, is a massive problem for the AFL.

I'm going to add Marlion Pickett to that list of people.

 

[PeterSalt]

Ok, maybe an exaggeration but he clearly is not the greatest judge of players.

Even this year he kept picking Hamill despite Hamill himself knowing he wasn't getting another contract.

I think it's just how he rates players - and his belief of putting a team on the park he think can win

To me it seems absurd they didn't give Ryan a couple of games later in the season, particularly now knowing that Hamill knew mid season he was probably going to be delisted

Or perhaps they were hoping by giving Hamill a few games, another club may show a little interest in Hamill?

 

[Vader]

Surely this means Nicks doesn’t value the ruck position and wants currency spent elsewhere?

It can’t be purely a list manager decision to not recruit a quality ruck or draft a talented prospect over the last 5 years

It really wasn't a priority at all, until the last 2 years. We had ROB as our #1, and it was only really planning around his eventual replacement that made it a need at all.

Last year they appeared to be planning on drafting Goad, until the Curtin deal fell into their laps. They were probably aiming to take Dodson this year, until our draft pick ended up being far too early. Goad's name was seen on our whiteboard last year, but I'm just guessing with Dodson.

It appears they're set on going down the path of taking an established ruck, via trading or FA, rather than developing our own. Given that ruckmen are more hit-or-miss than most other players, seemingly harder to project their development than shorter players, it's not the worst strategy.

History has shown that you don't need a great ruckman to win a flag - just a competitive/competent one. Competent ruckmen, who are waiting in line behind their more established peers, are relatively easy to find - and the trades aren't usually too expensive.

 

[Vader]

I think it's just how he rates players - and his belief of putting a team on the park he think can win

To me it seems absurd they didn't give Ryan a couple of games later in the season, particularly now knowing that Hamill knew mid season he was probably going to be delisted

Or perhaps they were hoping by giving Hamill a few games, another club may show a little interest in Hamill?

Meh... they chose to give games to Bond instead. It's not as if they weren't giving opportunities to the youngsters - just not the one you had in mind.

 

[mcleod at 50 lines it up]

People didn't bother to respond to it because it's a pointless argument. Clearly, context matters when it comes to humour. A terminally ill person joking about their own condition is a very different situation than some footballer earning six figures a year carrying out a skit about sexual assault.

Obviously, everyone is going to have their own opinion about where the line gets drawn, which is why these arguments are pointless. Some people will be offended by almost anything, other people will think that everything should be permitted. What I think is over the mark is clearly very different than what Hodgy thinks, and there isn't really a meaningful debate we can have about that. But collectively, as a society, we decide on which topics are out of bound and which one aren't - this happens naturally, because if the majority of people think something isn't cool anymore, they will react accordingly if they witness it, and businesses and brands don't want to be associated with that. Where the line is shifts over time, and it's a poor comedian who wants to complain that they've been left behind rather than moving with the times.

My usual rule of thumb when it comes to comedy is, am I punching down? If so, then it's probably not very funny. Serves me well most of the time.


Jenny wasn't trying to "censor" anybody. She has no capacity to prevent anyone from posting anything. She was simply appealing for them to consider how their posts might affect other people. They can choose to do so, or ignore her, as they see fit.

AFL players sign contracts, which include provisions on the conduct expected of them. As public figures, they are representatives of the AFL even when not on a football field. If the players don't like it, they're free not to be AFL players - or, if they think the contracts are unfair in some way, they have a player's association that can fight it.

Clubs have integrity officers and the like on staff. It wouldn't have been difficult for the leadership group to say "hey, we're thinking of doing something a bit racy, here's the details, what do you guys think?" They would have quickly been told that, hmm, probably want to avoid that one.

I think the main difference is some people see mad Monday as a work function and others see it as a private party. From my recollection it's the first time the afl has ventured into telling the players what costumes they can wear at a mad monday and if you consider it to be a private event it is quite Orwellian!

Certainly I hope you wouldn't expect a player to needing to check with an afl integrity officer (an oxymoron if ever I saw it!) about what they can and can't wear at a private event. Although some here with a predisposition for censoring were happy for the afl to intervene because some bar staff may have been offended so it does make you wonder!

 

[feenix67]

You're not committed to white knighting?

Well, thank f*** for that.

You're just a Temu Sam Newman, spouting opinions that seem very popular down the bowls club, and you're surprised people have called you out on it.

Discourse means showing respect. You've shown none to half the population with your opinions on here.

The views I've expressed during this shitshow:

1. The AFL penalties are ridiculous
2. You can't call a bloke a rapist if the court hasn't sentenced him as such. No matter what your personal opinion.

I'm sorry that my views have offended you and I applaud your stance defending half the population. I will report back to my fellow misogynists at the local bowls club and we will have a good hard look at ourselves.

I appreciate you not resorting to the term boomer in your character assessment. Particularly restrained on your part and would have also represented a further error on your behalf. But who am I to call you out on anything?

Actually... discourse means an exchange of ideas. Constructive discourse would require both sides of an argument to engage respectfully with an open mind to the alternates point of view. Whilst I thank you for giving me enough credit to know what Temu is (I can also program my VCR), I'm not sure you invoking Sam Newman qualifies in this regard. But hey, let's not quibble over details. You're a fine man and protector of all defenceless females.