'AFL Discretion'

[RussellEbertHandball]

.....
Keep in mind That when Freo started to make Profits in 2003 when we made the finals, Half of our profits went into Paying our 8.1 million dollar debt and the other Half to the WAFC while at the samtime freo were paying 3.1 million a year to the WAFL to rent out Subi. Subi is more primitive than AAMI Stadium and that say a lot.

Leadership starts at the top and stops at the top.

Not 100% right. The AFL and WAFC negotiated a transitional period where Freo didn't have to pay the 70%/60%/50% sliding sub licence fee so that it could pay off its debt and that there was a difference between rent paid by Freo and West Coast until Freo got into a more stable and equal position.

The rent was a trade off for being able to have access to almost 100% of the revenue generated from Subi on Freo's home match day.

From the stadium thread I started 3 years ago and linked in my previous post.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...the-sa-footy-paradigm-shift-happening.554729/

​

Eagles supporters will reap dividend rewards

MARK DUFFIELD​

……….​

The West Australian understands the new scheme will aim to have both West Coast and Fremantle paying equal rent on Subiaco Oval after two years. The rent figure per club is likely to be about $2.9 million, the figure paid by West Coast last year.​

…………​

​

The WAFC will then collect dividends from the clubs on a sliding scale which decreases as profits increase.​

​

The WAFC will take 70 per cent of a club's first million dollars of profit, 60 per cent of its next million and 50 per cent of the third million.​

​

Under old arrangements, the Eagles paid the WAFC 80 per cent.​

.....​

​

Fremantle's rent ($1.9 million in 2003) would increase substantially next year to around $2.5 million.​

​

Fremantle supports the principle of the new agreement but may ask the WAFC for more time before paying the same rent as the Eagles.​

​

"We are asking to be equal when we are equal," chairman Rick Hart said. "We see that happening in the not too distant future."​

…………​

July 28, 2004 The West Australian​

​

​

The WAFC helped out Freo by also suspending their licence royalty fee. They let Freo retain 100% of their profits in the following years​

​

Code:
2003 $711,000
2004 $1,254,000
2005 $1,015,000
2006 $1,261,000

Total $4,241,000
That's a suspension of $2,800,000+ in licence fees over these 4 years. And between 1999 and 2002 they made 4 losses totalling $5mil and didn't pay $1 in licence fee in that 4 years so for 8 years Freo paid no licence fee between 1999-2006.

The difference in rent and licence fee according to the WAFC 2007 and 2006 annual report was;

Rent ---2008-----2007-- ---2006-- --2005--
WCE 3,122,983 3,051,000 2,972,500 2,900,000
FFC- 3,148,901 3,051,000 2,500,000 2,250,000


Licence fee –2008----2007 ----2006-- --2005
WCE--- 1,701,472 2,766,450 2,516,578 2,297,764
FFC------ 799,906 --519,454 --------0 --------0

 

[FishingRick04]

Yeah that seems About right. It was even more hilarious that the AFL started an Investigation on why all 10 vic teams were crap in 2006. Keep in Mind Freo did make a Prelim and finished above all 10 vic teams that year. All Victorian teams must of had their pride hurt when that Happened!

That's cause the Vic's were squealing.

I would track the top 8 from then into the future, S G Patrol top 8 preferred teams will feature more often

 

[philthy05]

I truly hope the AFL does give Port the first round PP and with the ability to choose the compensation at its own discretion will not be locked into making it a pre first round PP thus demoting its two precious expansion teams. They can simply make it after Port's first pick. The only danger though is that with Melbourne and the Dogs having compensation immediately after their first picks if you were to finish ahead of both of them you will not have a pick higher than pick 6 so the compensation of another first round pick really is nowhere near as strong as having a pick in that real elite bracket (picks 1-3). This would increase their scepticism about handing you a PP as it is not very strong compensation for being a poor team over a number of years.

a pick after our first pick around 6ish would be a great help. in fact ive stated before a pick after non-finalists would be a help.

i dont think pick #1 is necessary. nor do i think they should even be given if they are necessary.

giving port an extra early pick will give port the chance to improve, but they must make the right decisions going forward.

gone should be the days when clubs are repeatedly bailed out by being handed the best kid of the year while they repeat their mistakes. clubs should now be afforded a chance at a highly rated kid, that if they make some good moves and steer their club in the right direction will help them.

 

[Powerstufff]

My concern is the lack of spark/motivation amongst our team which I lazily lay at the feet of the coaching staff. We have plenty of good players/high draft picks yet they don't come on. We just dropped Jacobs for this week! At this point I don't see what difference high draft picks/priority picks would make. I was at the beach the other day and there was a really strong wind. Yet I watched a guy 50 m away with his small son and he couldn't manage to launch a kite. No doubt it reflects badly on me but I thought it wasn't a bad metaphor for the current state of the PAFC.

 

[Zahara]

As I've said somewhere else, the games won against new clubs shouldn't count this year, when determining priority pick qualification. Cos they are easy beats and do not reflect where a club is at. If they didn't exist we would be second bottom on 3 wins. That's the true reflection.

But if they didn't exist, then we'd have taken their players in the drafts, hopefully giving us more than 3 wins

 

[FishingRick04]

That's cause the Vic's were squealing.

I would track the top 8 from then into the future, S G Patrol top 8 preferred teams will feature more often

To continue on my stance, here is a relevant article of footy department spending.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/rich-clubs-seek-no-spending-limit/story-fnelctok-1226424872716

AS I stated earlier, simple the clubs with poorer fixtures due to lower viewing audiences, need a greater allocation from the TV rights in compensation. Therefore this distribution needs to be scaled weak to strong to counter balance the biased draw.

 

[Freomaniac]

That's cause the Vic's were squealing.

I would track the top 8 from then into the future, S G Patrol top 8 preferred teams will feature more often

Yeah and when Both WA Teams finished in the bottom 4 no didnt even noticed. Now I have got this desire to succeed again. I would laugh If freo did finish above all the Victorian teams again.

 

[Barkly St End]

We're in a similar boat.

 

[no_remorse28]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/141412/default.aspx

interesting to note they say that None of the AFL clubs fit the new criteria because it cant come into action after only being established this year, This is in regards to priority picks, looks like we wont be getting any

 

[Portia]

rofl what?

hahahah what a ridiculous scenario. They put a time limit on a discretionary award???

What a mob of hacks!

They didn't even re-set records when they completely overhauled the tribunal system, but they did it for this???

Also good to know that next year, if we missed finals for the sixth consecutive time, they'll only consider our situation like its the 2nd.

What planet is Jolimont on?

 

[no_remorse28]

Its a bit surreal, how a Pro League can say u guys are not getting assistance because we put in a new system and dont recognize how terribly bad you have been over the last 2 seasons, come back to us next year so we can tell you that you have had enough high draft picks and will be robbed again. Thanks for being shit when it doesn't count,

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I told you the AFL is likely to give us nothing and it was stupid to tank for a maybe.

In the words of Rampaging Roy Slaven you only need to tell the players one thing -

Win! what?

Win! what?


Win!

 

[Portia]

Yeah I agree with the no-tanking, but seriously, what the **** is going on there.

Is the problem that there are too many non-Victorian teams down the bottom right now? That they'd rather be discreetly giving out priority picks when the Vics are scrabbling for them again?

Its either incompetence or conspiracy.

 

[TheFVK]

Wow. I never felt like I would be so powerless supporting a football club.

What I would give for fair and equal treatment.

 

[Macca19]

Ah well. **** em.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

I'm losing intrest in the way this back ward league is run very quickly.

 

[Portia]

Same. Whats the ****ing point, when our `white knight' apparently intends to **** us only marginally less than the great enemy/ies?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

we did. the last rd vs melbourne was that win
weve been losing before and ever since
we dont even come close to our creed.
lose to win russ, lose to win
b0ydman you have a financial markets background don't you. That means your thinking is driven by short term gain. There is very little to gain from tanking now. We need to as the boss of the Philadelphia Eagles said 'monetise hope." We aren't going to do that by losing to bum sides. What happens if we beat Essendon tomorrow?


We are not going to get rid of 15 players at the end of the year.
i have us down to rotate 8-11 players off of our list
6 to 8 is pretty standard.

We also have a shit load of injuries.
we didnt win when they were playing
So you just give up? That's great for development.

You play the best available side.
i dont understan dhow betfair havent put a please explain to our club and coaches and board and match selection committee
There are always shit sides in every sport. No different with us.

If "old spuds" are out of form they don't play. Losing to the GWS and Melbourne will be a disaster and do more harm than good.
we lost last year
We beat Melbourne last year. It was the loss to the GC in Rd 5 that put our season into a tail spin both on and off the field. We are talking Rds 17,19, 22 where you hope to build a bit of momentum for the off season marketing efforts with sponsors and supporters, as well as the preseason and the next season. The Hawks 2007 surge was built off the momentum they gained from winning the last 4 games of 2006 ( all bottom 7 sides) after losing 12 out of 13 games before that. There are other examples but this one has stuck with me.

If we win those 2 then you play to win to beat Brisbane and you play to upset Richmond if they are playing for a finals birth in Rd 23
step away from the crystal ball sir, step AWAY from the crystal ball
Can't you do what if scenario's? Theres no crystal ball here.


Imagine the benefit the group gets if they knock off Richmond in a 4 quarter effort at the MCG and Richmond are playing for 8th spot.
imagination is best left for pre season when we see Power Petes photos and see pre season form and get bar'd up over them
before reality sets back in
REH, the players suck,m and the coach is worse.
we need to move as many people out of the club as possible
the WORST thing that could happen is we sneak some paper onto the walls over the very wide cracks

Playing Richmond in front of 40,000 of the grog squad type ferals and beating them on the MCG and stopping them from making finals is just the sort mental toughness we want from our players. What happens if Chad Wingard gives a BOG performance followed by Moore, Pittard, Butcher, Redden, Hartlett and other youngsters?? That's the sort of performance that builds the sort of character our club needs.

And if Chaplin plays a boomer and Richmond are interested in him then his trade value goes up as a by product.
richmond either do or dont want him already


we tank.

my understanding is we can still quality for a PP but we can't win another game
Well that understanding has been blown out of the water.

 

[philthy05]

since the article is talking about the gold coast and it appears the quote ,"The new system can't apply after one year," AFL spokesman Patrick Keane told AFL.com.au. was in reference to the gold coast i would assume what they mean is that the system cant apply to them after one season in the comp they then are not eligible to be judged and awarded on the year after that.

hard to know exactly though as it isnt specific enough.

if they have ruled out any clubs getting priority picks in the next couple of seasons then that is yet another huge **** up by the same administration. why you have to judge a club from years after you change the rules after already changing the rules before and already denying clubs priority thanks to the expan teams coming in is beyond me. i mean, if port are shit this year, were shit last year, and shit the year before how many years do you need to see before they get the same help that some vic teams got at the drop of a hat??

i should just reference that when i talk about teams getting priority picks in the future i would advocate a pp is either

a) a pick after all non-finalists teams have picked. this would be a pick from 11-14 depending on compo picks.

or

b) a pick after the bottom 4 teams have had their selection.

i would prefer option a) as option b) does have the incentive for teams to finish 4th from bottom rather than 5th from bottom to avoid being after those priority picks. option a) offers an incentive for teams to finish 9th and be before priority picks that no team would see as worth missing the 8 and finals football for. only one option to be available, offering different level picks for different finishes offers an incentive to finish poorer which we want to avoid.

ffs sake afl its not rocket science. i have no degree and no administration background, yet using logic i can work out a simple solution to help teams while avoiding giving incentives to tank. how has it eluded your team of 6 figure salaried boffins for over a decade?

 

[TheFVK]

Either no clubs are eligible or the interviewer has misinterpreted and is wrong.

link

Under the new system, the AFL commission has the power to award priority picks to struggling teams at its discretion, but the League has confirmed none of its clubs would qualify for such a pick in the first year of the new scheme's operation.

"The new system can't apply after one year," AFL spokesman Patrick Keane told AFL.com.au.

"The slate was wiped clean when the commission decision was announced in February and special assistance can't apply after one poor season."

link

 

[philthy05]

could these ****s be any dumber? or are they just out and out cheats??

how can they hand out pick 1's like candy to vic teams for years and call emergency meetings when the vic teams are struggling then as soon as they get up off the bottom and the few non-vic teams slide they dust their hands of the whole thing and stick their heads in the sand while people have come out and said tanking did happen and say it never did? they have effectively stopped any chance of anyone getting a pp for years now. **** you cheats.

should it be any surprise that the only teams that have received a real priority pick are carlton, collingwood, hawthorn, st kilda, melb, western bulldogs and richmond? anyone see a pattern here?

i cant be frakked looking at the number but it must be something like 10 priority picks there to melb clubs, and a big fat goose egg to non-vic clubs. is that coincidence? nope. **** **** ****

 

[S.Patrol.G]

I've directly tweeted Patrick Keane seeking clarification. I don't expect a response.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Oh ****.

 

[Jakko]

To me, it looks ripe for the interpretation of "you have and old list and are on the slide, havent had any good draft picks because youve been up near the top, so heres a concession pick". Guess how many non victorian sides will be in that category in the next few years?

 

[Elite Crow]

Coming from a Crows supporter if that is correct that is ****ed, how can you ignore the plight of a club and just state everyone starts a fresh? It totally ignores why the pick is needed. Having said that surely they are only talking about Gold Coast not being eligible for a PP. The AFL are ****ed.