Apple Isle Showdown: Tas Govt threatens to end Hawks, North deals if no plan for 19th side

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Has anyone run a rule over this "talent is stretched too thin" claim? I mean it just seems like some throwaway bullshit, but for example, how do the average bottom-six players per side compare impact or output-wise with those before the 18 side league? Either the 16,15,14 or 12 team comps? Surely a typical Kyle Hartigan is not atrociously worse than a Graeme Hatcher type for example?

It gets bandied about so often but rarely challenged... but I suppose perhaps many of those who hold the view hold it pretty tightly

Yeah it’s absolute bollocks.

A guy like Noah Balta is a great example of someone who steps up to elite AFL level but who probably wouldn’t have gotten a gig unless Rance unexpectedly retired. Marc Pittonet another one who looks completely at home at another club.

The level of talent is fine, especially if you strip out this bullish!t NGA nonsense.
 
It is really odd. In his world, the AFL/Vic Government inter relationship money does not buy influence. Money does not corrupt. Money does not buy favour. Money is not used for political gain. Surely his experiences at the Flea bitten Motel he used to run would have opened his eyes to the reality of the world? He seem to pray at the Alter of the AFL Commission. Just really odd behaviour.

world of difference between buying influence and running the game. Money can corrupt. It can also be used for legitimate purposes and ends.

Also: never had fleas at the hotel and you can **** off with your unwarranted personal bullshit yet again.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

So you say "sure it is" then prove the point that Victorian State Govt run the game? Which one is it 2 Stars?

Supporting the game is different to running the game. I support the Brisbane Lions in a number of ways but I don't run them.
 
“world of difference between buying influence and running the game. Money can corrupt.”

you wrote it not me 😂😂😂😂😂

and it was n response to something someone else wrote, and is not all I wrote - conveniently leaving off the qualifier at the end " It can also be used for legitimate purposes and ends". Do you not pay attention to context or do you just say the first thing that comes into your head
 
It is really odd. In his world, the AFL/Vic Government inter relationship money does not buy influence. Money does not corrupt. Money does not buy favour. Money is not used for political gain.

That's still not "running the game". I had a little influence at Fitzroy given I was a shareholder, financier and member (all of which involved the outlay of money), but I didn't run the club.
 
and it was n response to something someone else wrote, and is not all I wrote - conveniently leaving off the qualifier at the end " It can also be used for legitimate purposes and ends". Do you not pay attention to context or do you just say the first thing that comes into your head

😂😂😂😂that’s what you wrote. I never changed it. You edited it after I responded to the quote. Context m8 context😂😂😂 maybe pay attention next time
 
I can see a 19th license being granted, but won't be activated until at least 14 of the current clubs become unassisted for at least 3 consecutive years.

The sooner clubs get their house in order, the quicker the 19th team becomes a reality.
What do you mean by "unassisted"? Are you talking in terms of their distribution from HQ?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Could not disagree more.

Well there you go. No surprise I completely disagree with your views on this matter

Continuing on my Subi example consider Kyle Horsley drafted by the Lions in his mid 20s, played 14 games over 2 years & was delisted. Champion WAFL player* simply not up to AFL standard.

Kyal Horsley did his knee mid 2013 and was subsequently delisted because Gold Coast needed to reduce its list from an original size of 48 in 2011 and had to reduce it further from 42 to 40 by the start of the 2014 season. So it was the lack of list spaces (coupled with injury) that saw him delisted. Not because of his lack of ability to play at AFL level.

What happened to Robertson, has he been picked up.

No, for the same reason. Lack of spaces on lists. As Robertson himself said...he was delisted because decisions needed to be made because of salary cap and list space, as well as list makeup. Clearly, as his last game showed, he still had the ability to play at AFL level. If there were more list spaces on say two more teams, he would still be on an AFL list. There's plenty of AFL standard talent outside the currrent AFL.
 
Last edited:
A Majority shareholder has a big say in running the company. Follow the dollars.

The government is not a shareholder in the AFL. They do not elect one of their own to the Commission, who do (along with the Clubs who have the power of veto) make the decisions.
 
A Majority shareholder has a big say in running the company. Follow the dollars.

The AFL doesnt have shareholders, it has a Commission and members, and its members are appointed by the clubs. Seriously, this is in the leagues constitution. I mean other than Bill Kelty, Im not even sure any other commissioner in 27 years has been a politician.
 
The government is not a shareholder in the AFL. They do not elect one of their own to the Commission, who do (along with the Clubs who have the power of veto) make the decisions.
The AFL doesnt have shareholders, it has a Commission and members, and its members are appointed by the clubs. Seriously, this is in the leagues constitution.

Oh you 2. Outside your narrow areas of quasi expertise, you really don't get much do you? Shareholder wasn't meant in the literal sense. I'll put it this way, the one who tips in the most dollars gets a big say in how things are run, especially when it looks after interests of 10 of the 18 "members".
 
Oh you 2. Outside your narrow areas of quasi expertise, you really don't get much do you? Shareholder wasn't meant in the literal sense. I'll put it this way, the one who tips in the most dollars gets a big say in how things are run, especially when it looks after interests of 10 of the 18 "members".

The Victorian government simply doesn't run the AFL. I haven't seen any evidence from you that supports your assertion that it does.
 
Oh you 2. Outside your narrow areas of quasi expertise, you really don't get much do you? Shareholder wasn't meant in the literal sense. I'll put it this way, the one who tips in the most dollars gets a big say in how things are run, especially when it looks after interests of 10 of the 18 "members".

Ill put it this way: its utter nonsense.

Which is funny, because the Victorian government contribution to the AFL over the life of this recent deal works out to less than 5 million a year (it started 20 years in advance of the grand finals they bought) - and that includes facility funding for the clubs, which is less than Toyota pay for the naming rights annually (reported at 18.5m a year - and they've sponsored for 2 decades now...).....so what your saying is Toyota really run the league? Or is it Seven and Fox who contribute 400m+ a year to the league.

oddly enough the leagues own membership would generate more than the vic government contribution each year on its own.

yes the victorian government and the AFL work togother on many things - stadiums, facilities, major events, rural sporting funding etc - but to suggest the league is controlled by someone who provides funding - and not a single member of the league commission or its voting members - is ridiculous. neither is the victorian government represented on any victorian club board or have a single voting share that im aware of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top