No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

[Glenhope]

How is this a revelation?

Being that we are likely going to get a contracted player in Barrass this year, and got a contracted player in Ginnivan last year it's a weird high horse to be on.

The AFL is in a weird space with contract worth, esp. long term deals. It can only lead to chaos where stability is needed.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Tigers are going to get worse this off-season. Eagles will as well if Barrass leaves. All while North is still as shit as ever.

Potentially going to be an even bigger gulf between the bottom 3 sides and the rest of the competition. This year was bad enough for how bad the bottom 3 were.

Sort of, however the wooden spooner only won 2 games, with one coming against the minor premier.

Anybody can beat anybody on their day.

 

[The Golden Glenferrie]

It’s a money grab

And you can absolutely GUARANTEE that it will come in.

 

[StillAtLarge]

Tigers are going to get worse this off-season. Eagles will as well if Barrass leaves. All while North is still as shit as ever.

Potentially going to be an even bigger gulf between the bottom 3 sides and the rest of the competition. This year was bad enough for how bad the bottom 3 were.

North will rise pretty quickly if they acquire a couple of quality senior players in the off season.
Agree the other two are stuffed though

 

[DogDaySonny]

Yeah, all these five-year deals... I wouldn't want to give more than three as a club and I wouldn't want to take more than three as a player. As a club, it's just too one-sided. And as I player, I would welcome the opportunity to renegotiate, backing my performance.

 

[KermitJagger]

Yeah, all these five-year deals... I wouldn't want to give more than three as a club and I wouldn't want to take more than three as a player. As a club, it's just too one-sided. And as I player, I would welcome the opportunity to renegotiate, backing my performance.

I agree, contracts are way too long and I feel as though they're much too influenced by the player managers who want to lock their income in for 5+ years.

There's a lot we can continue to learn from the NBA in terms of contract lengths and rules around free agency.

 

[DogDaySonny]

I agree, contracts are way too long and I feel as though they're much too influenced by the player managers who want to lock their income in for 5+ years.

There's a lot we can continue to learn from the NBA in terms of contract lengths and rules around free agency.

I can understand a team doing long-term deals to lock in a large group under the salary cap. But I think they'll settle on locking in a nucleus of about 10 well-paid players and then filling the rest with youngsters and journeymen.

That stupid movie Money Ball has everyone thinking they need to Billy Bean a lineup of misfits and then lock them down. You might get it right, or you might lock in crab ball for the next five years like Essendon.


Personally, I like a large team of largely equal contributions and compensations, but that's very difficult under a salary cap regime. Unless you're the Yankees with no cap and bottomless pockets, so you can pay all your players an insane contract, you're picking a nucleus surrounded by expendables and hopefuls.

 

[H00t]

Sort of, however the wooden spooner only won 2 games, with one coming against the minor premier.

Anybody can beat anybody on their day.

Tigers are potentially losing Bolton, Baker and Rioli from that day as well as that was one of the few games Lynch played.

They are about to get a whole lot worse.

 

[H00t]

North will rise pretty quickly if they acquire a couple of quality senior players in the off season.
Agree the other two are stuffed though

North lose against us and they’ve only won 15 games in 5 years. They might start to rise at some point but I’m not sure it can be considered a quick rise.

Also I’m not sure any quality senior players will want to go there.

 

[DogDaySonny]

Or the Mets. Wowzers. What a view into value of each team’s local TV market. The Mets player payments are 8x Oakland’s.

 

[Steven Tyler]

And you can absolutely GUARANTEE that it will come in.

Yeah, unfortunately

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Or the Mets. Wowzers. What a view into value of each team’s local TV market. The Mets player payments are 8x Oakland’s.

View attachment 2085417

Oh my poor Mets - just paying ridiculous amounts for St Kilda levels of mediocrity.

Speaking of absurd long-term contracts the Mets are paying Bobby Bonilla until 2035 when he hasn't played since 2001.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Instead of wildcard round, they could encourage local leagues to start their seasons earlier, and give them a clean week to encourage people to view it...
Oh who am I kidding, the AFL have been trying to erode grassroots footy for years to set up the league to match the US sporta

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Playing a “wildcard” round means the teams that legitimately finished 7 & 8 would have to play an extra week of finals to win the flag

You have 23 weeks to qualify, bad luck if you finish 9th on percentage

It’s a money grab

Yes. Its harder for 7th and 8th to win the flag, they have 23 weeks to qualify, bad luck if they finish 7th on percentage.

It gives a better advantage to 5th and 6th, a home final to 7th and 8th but more importantly, its two more cut throat finals in a week where there is no AFL footy.

Who gives a shit if its a money grab, the entire fixture is a money grab.

Its more footy, less tanking and more relevant games. The number of teams in the finals has always expanded as the number of teams in the league has.

I cant understand why so many are against it. I think they ****ed up majorly calling the wild card weekend as most people are instantly put off by anything American. Its just another week of finals.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

And you can absolutely GUARANTEE that it will come in.

Good

 

[Yardie]

Yes. Its harder for 7th and 8th to win the flag, they have 23 weeks to qualify, bad luck if they finish 7th on percentage.

It gives a better advantage to 5th and 6th, a home final to 7th and 8th but more importantly, its two more cut throat finals in a week where there is no AFL footy.

Who gives a shit if its a money grab, the entire fixture is a money grab.

Its more footy, less tanking and more relevant games. The number of teams in the finals has always expanded as the number of teams in the league has.

I cant understand why so many are against it. I think they ****ed up majorly calling the wild card weekend as most people are instantly put off by anything American. Its just another week of finals.

We already have a wildcard round. It's the elimination games in the first round of finals......

 

[Mercy Seat]

Just for the haters of the 'wild card' weekend, imagine the stakes at play if we had one this year.

Collingwood v Melbourne would be ****en lit. A Friday night elimination final a week before finals, with the backdrop of the reigning premiers possibly missing finals and Melbourne getting to be the ones to do it while their opponents are courting their best player.

Was open minded about it a few weeks back but now I’d be absolutely filthy if we had to play Collingwood or Melbourne after finishing 7th or 8th. Week off can’t come soon enough.

 

[Steven Tyler]

Yes. Its harder for 7th and 8th to win the flag, they have 23 weeks to qualify, bad luck if they finish 7th on percentage.

It gives a better advantage to 5th and 6th, a home final to 7th and 8th but more importantly, its two more cut throat finals in a week where there is no AFL footy.

Who gives a shit if its a money grab, the entire fixture is a money grab.

Its more footy, less tanking and more relevant games. The number of teams in the finals has always expanded as the number of teams in the league has.

I cant understand why so many are against it. I think they ****ed up majorly calling the wild card weekend as most people are instantly put off by anything American. Its just another week of finals.

Then have a final 10

Let’s have more than half the competition qualify for finals

And a certificate for the rest who were participants in the season

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Its more footy, less tanking and more relevant games. The number of teams in the finals has always expanded as the number of teams in the league has.

Teams in 9th and 10th generally don't tank - it's the teams way down the ladder that might so that is a pointless argument. If you want footy during the bye week just put on a DVD or watch some replays on Kayo. Or watch the VFL/AFLW. The finals shouldn't be be cheapened and diluted just because people are bored.

 

[eldorado]

Let's include all teams in the finals...a final 18

Brought to you by the Hooray For Everything Dancers

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Let's include all teams in the finals...a final 18

Brought to you by the Hooray For Everything Dancers

Why stop there - invite all of the VFL sides in for finals as well. Think of the money that could be made!

 

[QuietB]

For sure, I have a lot of sympathy if it's an obvious accident or if players are going full tilt for the same ball, but when you watch that footage you can see Rankine off the ground and vulnerable with Houston CLEARLY lining him up and deciding to bump. May be the clear cut worst incident I've seen all year.

Agree - if you line someone up all bets are off. It is not a tightrope between physical aggression and duty of care - it is a conscious choice to try and hurt someone. If you make that choice you better not screw it up.

 

[KermitJagger]

Yes. Its harder for 7th and 8th to win the flag, they have 23 weeks to qualify, bad luck if they finish 7th on percentage.

It gives a better advantage to 5th and 6th, a home final to 7th and 8th but more importantly, its two more cut throat finals in a week where there is no AFL footy.

Who gives a shit if its a money grab, the entire fixture is a money grab.

Its more footy, less tanking and more relevant games. The number of teams in the finals has always expanded as the number of teams in the league has.

I cant understand why so many are against it. I think they ****ed up majorly calling the wild card weekend as most people are instantly put off by anything American. Its just another week of finals.

It has nothing to do with the fact that it feels American. To turn that first sentence back on you - if it's bad luck finishing 7th on percentage because you've had 23 weeks to qualify, why can't I just say bad luck to the team in 9th who also had 23 weeks to qualify? The Wild Card round is rewarding a team who finished 10th with pretty much the same chance of winning through as 7th, home game excluded.

Just making finals means clubs play weeks and weeks of elimination finals to get there, we've seen it this year with us, the Dogs and Freo having almost no room for error for about 10 weeks.

If the answer is "Well better to have more footy than a week off" it's a bit disingenuous. Feels a bit silly to introduce more games to fill a pesky week off when the AFL themselves introduced that pesky week off less than a decade ago.

 

[KermitJagger]

The idea of a Wild Card round doesn't feel like extending finals, it feels like extending the regular season. In the final round of pretty much every season there is at least 1 club who has the opportunity to win a finals berth, and another with a chance to lose it. This is just shrinking the actual number of finalists to 6 and then having a sideshow with 4 more.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

if we finish 7th this year, the team who finishes 10th will likely have two less wins and a percentage 10 points below ours. If advocates for this crap are really okay with us having the possibility of being eliminated in these circumstances given how hard we have fought to make finals then there's no helping you.

Particularly when you consider the footy they have served up in the latter part of this season - there is no way known that *, Collingwood or Melbourne should have any hope in hell of playing a final.