Can Sydney keep Warner and avoid more trade bans?

[sthmelb_dimmies]

There's the inherent advantage of being a Victorian team and playing in Grand finals at the MCG. But this is largely offset by non-Victorian teams finishing in the Top 4 and getting to host two home finals against opposition teams who might not even have played a single game at the SCG (or one game at the very most.) It's a huge advantage for Sydney (or West Coast, Brisbane, etc) to finish in the Top 2 and get a virtual magic carpet ride into the Grand Final with 2 home finals.

I must admit you lured me in with your logic at the start of this paragraph.

But then the Vic bias set in.

The final 8 is a tiered system. 1 and 2 get equivalent privileges, 3-4 get further equivalent privileges. The reason teams get home finals at semi and prelim stage is due to their performance in H&A. This is not hard to understand.

The insanity sets in when all the logic of home games earn by performance gets cast aside when we get to the last game of the year and the cuckold AFL has to bow to this ridiculous MCC contract.

It is outrageously biased to have Victorian teams face non Victorians on the MCG in a grand final. Beyond logic or reason.

Imagine the collective fear and loathing if the AFL announced "for the next 10 years the GF is in Adelaide because we had to bend over for the SA govt over Gather Round". And Port just happened to be the opponent. This is precisely the current situation.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

I must admit you lured me in with your logic at the start of this paragraph.

But then the Vic bias set in.

The final 8 is a tiered system. 1 and 2 get equivalent privileges, 3-4 get further equivalent privileges. The reason teams get home finals at semi and prelim stage is due to their performance in H&A. This is not hard to understand.

The insanity sets in when all the logic of home games earn by performance gets cast aside when we get to the last game of the year and the cuckold AFL has to bow to this ridiculous MCC contract.

It is outrageously biased to have Victorian teams face non Victorians on the MCG in a grand final. Beyond logic or reason.

Imagine the collective fear and loathing if the AFL announced "for the next 10 years the GF is in Adelaide because we had to bend over for the SA govt over Gather Round". And Port just happened to be the opponent. This is precisely the current situation.

Surely that's a bias towards MCG tenants, not Victorian teams. Just a quirk of history too, nothing sinister about it.

 

[bzparkes]

I say again. I'd be happy for the AFL to fund the Northern Academies to develop football in the Northern States and have an open draft. And....the father/son and NGA to also go and the AFL to reimburse the Swans the minimum $1mill pa that the club has been funding for their Academy. How much have the other clubs been funding for their father/son free hits?

Other clubs don't get to develop any player they want and get a free hit at them with their academy.

I mean, you got an academy player in Blakey, who could've easily gone to North.

How is that 'developing' the game when he's the son of an ex AFL player?

Dumb post from you.

 

[Back One Out]

I must admit you lured me in with your logic at the start of this paragraph.

But then the Vic bias set in.

The final 8 is a tiered system. 1 and 2 get equivalent privileges, 3-4 get further equivalent privileges. The reason teams get home finals at semi and prelim stage is due to their performance in H&A. This is not hard to understand.

The insanity sets in when all the logic of home games earn by performance gets cast aside when we get to the last game of the year and the cuckold AFL has to bow to this ridiculous MCC contract.

It is outrageously biased to have Victorian teams face non Victorians on the MCG in a grand final. Beyond logic or reason.

Meh... Grand Final... Gramd Schminal... It's pretty rare for either of our clubs (or any club) to actually play in a Grand Final, but everyone craps on about the MCG incessantly like it's the only important issue. Let's just face the facts, Dimmies - the Grand Final will always be played at the MCG. It's not going to change. It's not a "ridiculous" MCC contract. The MCG is the home of the Grand Final and it has been that way since 1902.

South Melbourne did not get to play a "home" Grand Final at the Lake Oval vs Richmond in 1933. They played the 1933 Grand Final at the MCG because the MCG is the Grand Final venue, the same way that Wembley is the FA Cup venue and Stadium Australia is the venue of the NRL Grand Final.

I don't get why folks keep crapping on about the GF venue when we all know it isn't going to change.
It seems like an utterly pointless, time-wasting vortex to go down. It's a dead issue.


I think the list-build advantages which the AFL have currently engineered for the northern clubs is a far bigger issue. There's 8 spots up for grabs for September finals and the AFL seem to be doing their best to lock away 4 of them for the Swans, Giants, Lions and Suns. I'm not even exaggerating. Look at the stock-piling of talent on those clubs lists.

The Swans occupy a near-permanent residency in the Top 8. The Giants are heading down a similar path with 7 finals appearances in 9 years and look like occupying a spot in the Top 4 for the next 4 or 5 seasons. The Suns are hot on their heels - yet to make the top 8 in their short history, but possessing the most enviable collection of young talent in the AFL (with another three 1st round picks in 2024 ) Who would bet against Hardwick taking them to the next level over the next 5,6,7 years?

 

[TiAn_]

Surely that's a bias towards MCG tenants, not Victorian teams. Just a quirk of history too, nothing sinister about it.

It’s an uncomfortable reality for the vIc BiAs types that Vic clubs like the Bulldogs and Saints actually never get to play a home final on our home ground. We have to play them at the MCG, a ground the Dogs play on less than the Swans. And we share our “home ground” with three other sides that we have to play “home games” against there. Just amazing, so much juicy bias in our favour.

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

The Suns are hot on their heels - yet to make the top 8 in their short history, but possessing the most enviable collection of young talent in the AFL (with another three 1st round picks in 2024 ) Who would bet against Hardwick taking them to the next level over the next 5,6,7 years?

This is how equalisation works. Finish down the fat end (opposite of pointy?) of the ladder enough and you should get a stockpile of good talent. Note Hawthorn. Also note North (lol).

You'll probably scoff but I genuinely dont see the advantage of the Swans academy. It costs the club $1m a year to operate (which is redirected from other facilities investment) and brings talent into the AFL (&AFLW) which would otherwise would have gone to NRL.

If you did a density chart of AFL junior clubs across regional territories, take e.g. federal electorates. We all know where the centre of gravity will be.

And given this. The issue isn't two Sydney clubs developing NSW talent, the issue is 10 Victorian clubs competing with each other for local talent.

If we want a true national comp, dilute the Victorian clubs, put a few new ones in WA, SA and NSW, and have a national Round Robin for GF at a neutral location and we'll really get this comp firing.

At the moment it's still VFL*

 

[BloodySwan]

Surely that's a bias towards MCG tenants, not Victorian teams. Just a quirk of history too, nothing sinister about it.

Not having to travel is still a massive advantage

 

[HairyO]

It is the same

Do the Swans get the dodgy Ambassador payments like GWS ?

Or the entire family gets employed by businesses run by the coterie?

Or they actually are like most other clubs and have to make do with the actual rules?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Hey what? Didn't the AFL say at the time you could trade so long as you ditched COLA immediately rather than waiting for the 2 year phase-out? Thought it was all pretty clear at the time - AFL was ditching COLA as it had been recognised as an unfair advantage. To avoid exploitation of the advantage during the transitional phase they implemented the trade restrictions.
What any of this has to do with Chad Warner though is beyond me.

So the AFL introduced CoLA (with the signed agreement of all the other clubs, I’ll just remind you), and then decided to renege on the terms of that agreement and forcefully shut it done overnight rather than phase it out over the agreed two years?

So the Swans got slapped with a trade ban because the AFL decided they no longer liked something they themselves oversaw.

I guess they’re big enough that they can hardly be stopped from doing stuff like that, but it would be nice if people at least ceased suggesting Sydney was rorting the system.

Anyway I’m not going to get dragged into this topic again. By all means reply if you want. Have a great day!

 

[Elixuh]

Just do what Geelong does and call it 'lifestyle'.

 

[Dangerousfield]

I'd rather the Geelong salary cap

So would every club.

The Geelong "Costa Living Allowance" where prospective recruits get ushered into highly profitable can't fail property deals. Want a nice farm at way below real value? Here's one for you, grow a few cattle

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

So the AFL introduced CoLA (with the signed agreement of all the other clubs, I’ll just remind you), and then decided to renege on the terms of that agreement and forcefully shut it done overnight rather than phase it out over the agreed two years?

So the Swans got slapped with a trade ban because the AFL decided they no longer liked something they themselves oversaw.

I guess they’re big enough that they can hardly be stopped from doing stuff like that, but it would be nice if people at least ceased suggesting Sydney was rorting the system.

Anyway I’m not going to get dragged into this topic again. By all means reply if you want. Have a great day!

Yes, they tried it, realised it was a flawed system and came up with an alternative (rent assistance). If only they would ditch some of their other stupid ideas more quickly. Fingers crossed for Round 0 getting the arse

 

[bzparkes]

You'll probably scoff but I genuinely dont see the advantage of the Swans academy.

You're right, everyone will scoff.

Heeney, Mills, Gulden & Blakey aren't an 'advantage'?

It costs the club $1m a year to operate (which is redirected from other facilities investment) and brings talent into the AFL (&AFLW) which would otherwise would have gone to NRL.

Every club pays a lot of money to run their academies.

Only 4 get any benefit from it however.

You think the likes of West Coast & Collingwoof, for instance, wouldn't happily spend millions on an academy to get priority access to elite talent that no other club can attain?

 

[Number37]

You're right, everyone will scoff.

Heeney, Mills, Gulden & Blakey aren't an 'advantage'?



Every club pays a lot of money to run their academies.

Only 4 get any benefit from it however.

You think the likes of West Coast & Collingwoof, for instance, wouldn't happily spend millions on an academy to get priority access to elite talent that no other club can attain?

What sports are potential West Coast and Collingwood academies competing against?
Answer: None.

A kid who is 17 can sign an NRL contract with an NRL club of their choice.
A 17 year old wanting to play AFL cannot sign a contract with any club and their only choice is the AFL draft.

There are 16 year old kids getting paid $50k per year to play Rugby in NSW/Qld.
There are truckloads of Kiwi and Pacific Islands kids getting scholarships to private schools in Australia to play League.

If you are a 17 year old with a bit of football talent in NSW/Qld it is a no brainer moneywise to play Rugby or League.
How does the AFL compete with that?
How does the AFL stop kids from getting lured by Rugby or NRL?

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

Do the Swans get the dodgy Ambassador payments like GWS ?

Or the entire family gets employed by businesses run by the coterie?

Or they actually are like most other clubs and have to make do with the actual rules?

What are you talking about? Swans are under the same rules as everyone else. Except Geelong apparently.

 

[hawkman]

You're right, everyone will scoff.

Heeney, Mills, Gulden & Blakey aren't an 'advantage'?



Every club pays a lot of money to run their academies.

Only 4 get any benefit from it however.

You think the likes of West Coast & Collingwoof, for instance, wouldn't happily spend millions on an academy to get priority access to elite talent that no other club can attain?

No Blakey would never have played AFL if it wasn’t for the academy with his family background

 

[Seadog]

Warner leaves to Freo
Sydney cop a trade ban anyway
AFL shuts down their academy rort
All Victorian clubs get a COLA

Done.

Popcorn.gif

Warner has 7 years to regret his decision.

 

[HairyO]

What are you talking about? Swans are under the same rules as everyone else. Except Geelong apparently.

And GWS who seem to get all the players they want on 7 year x $1m deals.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

What sports are potential West Coast and Collingwood academies competing against?
Answer: None.

A kid who is 17 can sign an NRL contract with an NRL club of their choice.
A 17 year old wanting to play AFL cannot sign a contract with any club and their only choice is the AFL draft.

There are 16 year old kids getting paid $50k per year to play Rugby in NSW/Qld.
There are truckloads of Kiwi and Pacific Islands kids getting scholarships to private schools in Australia to play League.

If you are a 17 year old with a bit of football talent in NSW/Qld it is a no brainer moneywise to play Rugby or League.
How does the AFL compete with that?
How does the AFL stop kids from getting lured by Rugby or NRL?

Lol, hasn't there been a shitload of pearl-clutching by dyed-in-the-wool RL types in NSW about parents with safety concerns about RL diverting their kids to footy? Maybe ride the back of that?

Who has actually been lost to the game because they chose RL over AFL? And do we really care? There is space for both sports.

Overall I would think the answer to your questions is to focus on the 6-7 year olds, that is the time to get kids into footy, not at 16 or 17.

 

[.Shotties.]

No Blakey would never have played AFL if it wasn’t for the academy with his family background

I think the fact he would have grown up playing in the SFL would be more pertinent to his chances of playing in the AFL.

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

Overall I would think the answer to your questions is to focus on the 6-7 year olds, that is the time to get kids into footy, not at 16 or 17.

Who do you think the Swans Academy actively tries to foster?

 

[.Shotties.]

Overall I would think the answer to your questions is to focus on the 6-7 year olds, that is the time to get kids into footy, not at 16 or 17.

Brah, there's something about the northern academies that's going to Blow. Your. Mind.

 

[Muddiemoose]

I think the fact he would have grown up playing in the SFL would be more pertinent to his chances of playing in the AFL.

Na he would of just been picked up by one of the footy boarding schools on a juicy scholarship paid for by North

He was always going to play afl or at least have a front row seat to play the game the fact that he was included in the accadamy was a farce

 

[.Shotties.]

Na he would of just been picked up by one of the footy boarding schools on a juicy scholarship paid for by North

Yeah, like has happened with all the other father-sons who grew up north of Wollongong.

He was always going to play afl

No, he wasn't.

 

[skipper kelly]

Corey or Chad?