News Media Thread, 2023: Insightful, Inciteful and Incomptent

[Nuffington Post]

The great man is battling isn’t he?




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[MrKK]

The soft cap shits me as much as anything in the AFL. All the wealth of being the biggest club in the land and we can't spend it on our primary goal of winning football matches.

 

[eaglesfan84]

This requires the umpire to read minds, was it a natural action? or a lifting of an arm to raise the tackle?. Impossible. High cointact damages brains so it is a free. We just have to learn to live with it.

School teacher or police officer?

 

[flamingEMBERS]

Oh good. An article on the west coast eagles football club choir.

Stocks on Saturday: Fans shine on a gloomy day

When everyone is getting whacked a metaphorical cuddle can do wonders

www.westcoasteagles.com.au

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

This stuff is horrendous

 

[Lia]

The great man is battling isn’t he?




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

We should probably call out how bad these propaganda puff pieces are. I don’t know anyone under 55 who wouldn’t find this to be cringe.

 

[ziad]

School teacher or police officer?

Courts decide on justice, no perfect but predominantly evidence based, teachers have never impressed me.

 

[Ochre]

The great man is battling isn’t he?




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Perhaps those fans who burst into a rendition of the club song had some understanding of those circumstances.

Oh **** off Gary

 

[UseR2006]

Stocksy is so out of touch.
Who thinks that piece was a good idea after just being called out.
What a moron.

 

[Bleedblueandgold]

The great man is battling isn’t he?




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Dylan82]

The soft cap shits me as much as anything in the AFL. All the wealth of being the biggest club in the land and we can't spend it on our primary goal of winning football matches.

Agreed.

I would also go as far to say that it is likely the leading contributor to to the near-constant injury crisis that has impacted the club over the past 2.5 years.

​

From: The AFL ripped $63m from clubs. Now they’re split on how they want it paid back​

​

Among the AFL’s range of sub-committees last year [2021], the league created one to specifically focus on football department spending.​

​

It consisted of Adam Simpson (West Coast), John Longmire (Sydney), Graham Wright (Hawthorn), Geoff Walsh (Collingwood), Chris Davies (Port Adelaide), David Noble (Brisbane), Blair Hartley (Richmond), Chris Grant (Western Bulldogs), Tim Livingstone (Richmond) and Craig Vozzo (West Coast).​

​

The sub-committee recommended the soft cap should not be less than $6.8 million for 2021. Ideally, they argued, it should remain above $7 million.​

​

The AFL settled on $6.132 million, privately angering some clubs who hadn’t prepared for such a savage reduction and were forced to make brutal calls.​

The inference is that the club had expected a very different outcome in terms of the soft cap back in 2021 and ended up having to rush through an additional $700k of spending cuts on top of almost $2M that had already been done.

Obviously such action is going to have an adverse impact on player outcomes, especially if it is effectively unplanned.

Things have gone downhill for the club on that front ever since.


And looking ahead to 2024, the soft cap will remain $2M below pre-Covid levels.

From: ‘I don’t miss it one bit’: Why the AFL is losing one of its best resources​

​

In 2022, AFL executives took home $11.8 million, compared to $10.4 million pre-COVID. Meanwhile, football department caps will sit at $6.95 million per club in 2023, down from $9.2 million pre-COVID. Disappointed clubs were told last Tuesday to expect only a $250,000 increase next year.​

If it's good enough for the executives...


To be honest, my personal opinion is that there should be no cap on off-field expenditure at all - if the club can afford to pursue things in the belief that it may improve player performance, they should be free to do so at their own expense.

Indeed, I have wondered where the AFLPA sits on this, as it could be argued that having the soft cap could be viewed as a constraint on player development and potential future earnings if a player should want to move clubs early in their career.


The current situation where some clubs will travel more than fourfold the distance during the season as others, yet exist on the same expenditure allocation to manage the inevitable fatigue related to that travel, is completely absurd and needs to change.


The soft cap, in it's current form, is affecting the competition in two ways:

• "protects" financially insecure clubs by bringing the rest of the league down to their level - which in turn results in a degradation of on-field performance quality for the viewing public.
• advantages Victorian clubs over the rest of the competition, due to the way it ultimately acts as a tax against travel.

It is a blatant distortion to both the integrity and fairness of the competition, and exists without any justifiable financial basis. It is arguably as much a product of biased ideology rather than (in)competent administration.

The soft cap needs to go.

 

[Farang83150]

Agreed.

I would also go as far to say that it is likely the leading contributor to to the near-constant injury crisis that has impacted the club over the past 2.5 years.

​

From: The AFL ripped $63m from clubs. Now they’re split on how they want it paid back​

​

Among the AFL’s range of sub-committees last year [2021], the league created one to specifically focus on football department spending.​

​

It consisted of Adam Simpson (West Coast), John Longmire (Sydney), Graham Wright (Hawthorn), Geoff Walsh (Collingwood), Chris Davies (Port Adelaide), David Noble (Brisbane), Blair Hartley (Richmond), Chris Grant (Western Bulldogs), Tim Livingstone (Richmond) and Craig Vozzo (West Coast).​

​

The sub-committee recommended the soft cap should not be less than $6.8 million for 2021. Ideally, they argued, it should remain above $7 million.​

​

The AFL settled on $6.132 million, privately angering some clubs who hadn’t prepared for such a savage reduction and were forced to make brutal calls.​

The inference is that the club had expected a very different outcome in terms of the soft cap back in 2021 and ended up having to rush through an additional $700k of spending cuts on top of almost $2M that had already been done.

Obviously such action is going to have an adverse impact on player outcomes, especially if it is effectively unplanned.

Things have gone downhill for the club on that front ever since.


And looking ahead to 2024, the soft cap will remain $2M below pre-Covid levels.

From: ‘I don’t miss it one bit’: Why the AFL is losing one of its best resources​

​

In 2022, AFL executives took home $11.8 million, compared to $10.4 million pre-COVID. Meanwhile, football department caps will sit at $6.95 million per club in 2023, down from $9.2 million pre-COVID. Disappointed clubs were told last Tuesday to expect only a $250,000 increase next year.​

If it's good enough for the executives...


To be honest, my personal opinion is that there should be no cap on off-field expenditure at all - if the club can afford to pursue things in the belief that it may improve player performance, they should be free to do so at their own expense.

Indeed, I have wondered where the AFLPA sits on this, as it could be argued that having the soft cap could be viewed as a constraint on player development and potential future earnings if a player should want to move clubs early in their career.


The current situation where some clubs will travel more than fourfold the distance during the season as others, yet exist on the same expenditure allocation to manage the inevitable fatigue related to that travel, is completely absurd and needs to change.


The soft cap, in it's current form, is affecting the competition in two ways:

• "protects" financially insecure clubs by bringing the rest of the league down to their level - which in turn results in a degradation of on-field performance quality for the viewing public.
• advantages Victorian clubs over the rest of the competition, due to the way it ultimately acts as a tax against travel.

It is a blatant distortion to both the integrity and fairness of the competition, and exists without any justifiable financial basis. It is arguably as much a product of biased ideology rather than (in)competent administration.

The soft cap needs to go.

I agree, but the justifiable financial basis would be argued by the minnow's as totally justifiable I guess.
Had a Nth supporter tell me on the MB the other day we only won the flag in 18 because we spent so much on staff!

 

[Dylan82]

I agree, but the justifiable financial basis would be argued by the minnow's as totally justifiable I guess.
Had a Nth supporter tell me on the MB the other day we only won the flag in 18 because we spent so much on staff!

The argument made by the minnows is effectively one against any type of innovation.

If they want to enforce a cap on off-field expenditure, mirror it with the level assigned to that on-field.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Oh god that puff piece was painful

 

[MKMatty]

Agreed.

I would also go as far to say that it is likely the leading contributor to to the near-constant injury crisis that has impacted the club over the past 2.5 years.

​

From: The AFL ripped $63m from clubs. Now they’re split on how they want it paid back​

​

Among the AFL’s range of sub-committees last year [2021], the league created one to specifically focus on football department spending.​

​

It consisted of Adam Simpson (West Coast), John Longmire (Sydney), Graham Wright (Hawthorn), Geoff Walsh (Collingwood), Chris Davies (Port Adelaide), David Noble (Brisbane), Blair Hartley (Richmond), Chris Grant (Western Bulldogs), Tim Livingstone (Richmond) and Craig Vozzo (West Coast).​

​

The sub-committee recommended the soft cap should not be less than $6.8 million for 2021. Ideally, they argued, it should remain above $7 million.​

​

The AFL settled on $6.132 million, privately angering some clubs who hadn’t prepared for such a savage reduction and were forced to make brutal calls.​

The inference is that the club had expected a very different outcome in terms of the soft cap back in 2021 and ended up having to rush through an additional $700k of spending cuts on top of almost $2M that had already been done.

Obviously such action is going to have an adverse impact on player outcomes, especially if it is effectively unplanned.

Things have gone downhill for the club on that front ever since.


And looking ahead to 2024, the soft cap will remain $2M below pre-Covid levels.

From: ‘I don’t miss it one bit’: Why the AFL is losing one of its best resources​

​

In 2022, AFL executives took home $11.8 million, compared to $10.4 million pre-COVID. Meanwhile, football department caps will sit at $6.95 million per club in 2023, down from $9.2 million pre-COVID. Disappointed clubs were told last Tuesday to expect only a $250,000 increase next year.​

If it's good enough for the executives...


To be honest, my personal opinion is that there should be no cap on off-field expenditure at all - if the club can afford to pursue things in the belief that it may improve player performance, they should be free to do so at their own expense.

Indeed, I have wondered where the AFLPA sits on this, as it could be argued that having the soft cap could be viewed as a constraint on player development and potential future earnings if a player should want to move clubs early in their career.


The current situation where some clubs will travel more than fourfold the distance during the season as others, yet exist on the same expenditure allocation to manage the inevitable fatigue related to that travel, is completely absurd and needs to change.


The soft cap, in it's current form, is affecting the competition in two ways:

• "protects" financially insecure clubs by bringing the rest of the league down to their level - which in turn results in a degradation of on-field performance quality for the viewing public.
• advantages Victorian clubs over the rest of the competition, due to the way it ultimately acts as a tax against travel.

It is a blatant distortion to both the integrity and fairness of the competition, and exists without any justifiable financial basis. It is arguably as much a product of biased ideology rather than (in)competent administration.

The soft cap needs to go.

Incredibly well said.

At worst the travel requirements of interstate clubs require change. It isn’t feasible for Non-VIC clubs to travel back and forth across the country while a soft cap of any type is enforced. We almost need a second HQ in Melbourne where the entire club relocates for a block of time, plays everyone in successive weeks on the east coast, then flies home and plays the remainder of the season in Perth. a more sustainable and nicer hub if you will. give players an incentive to buy homes in Melbourne etc (but does that the **** up family routines and lives outside football? Idk).

or nuke 4 Vic clubs and uncap spending all together, whatever works.

 

[Nuffington Post]

Incredibly well said.

At worst the travel requirements of interstate clubs require change. It isn’t feasible for Non-VIC clubs to travel back and forth across the country while a soft cap of any type is enforced. We almost need a second HQ in Melbourne where the entire club relocates for a block of time, plays everyone in successive weeks on the east coast, then flies home and plays the remainder of the season in Perth. a more sustainable and nicer hub if you will. give players an incentive to buy homes in Melbourne etc (but does that the * up family routines and lives outside football? Idk).

or nuke 4 Vic clubs and uncap spending all together, whatever works.

I’ll go for the latter. Saints and North merging is such an obvious move


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Godfather32]

Stocksy is so out of touch.
Who thinks that piece was a good idea after just being called out.
What a moron.

I think we've just discovered who approved the birds of tokyo crap

 

[Mulldogg]

If you want an example of media incompetence just go and watch Simmo’s presser tonight.

****ing idiot journos asking Simmo what he thought about Brad Scott’s kind words about him and his plight.

No question about Gaff’s performance or who is lining up in the WAFL tomorrow that might be pushing for selection next week no, they all want a story about the coaches throwing their arms around Simmo. Fair dinkum muppets.

I actually like that Simmo is now openly laughing in their faces at some of their inane lines of questioning.

 

[LittleFires]

If you want an example of media incompetence just go and watch Simmo’s presser tonight.

******* idiot journos asking Simmo what he thought about Brad Scott’s kind words about him and his plight.

No question about Gaff’s performance or who is lining up in the WAFL tomorrow that might be pushing for selection next week no, they all want a story about the coaches throwing their arms around Simmo. Fair dinkum muppets.

I actually like that Simmo is now openly laughing in their faces at some of their inane lines of questioning.

I find myself cringing regularly watching his press conferences now.

Some of the questions... just so many more relevant things they could be asking, it's actually really frustrating.

They are clearly looking for a headline or a juicy quote so it's nice when Simmo laughs at their questions or gives them an awkward answer back.

 

[Tugga27]

If you want an example of media incompetence just go and watch Simmo’s presser tonight.

******* idiot journos asking Simmo what he thought about Brad Scott’s kind words about him and his plight.

No question about Gaff’s performance or who is lining up in the WAFL tomorrow that might be pushing for selection next week no, they all want a story about the coaches throwing their arms around Simmo. Fair dinkum muppets.

I actually like that Simmo is now openly laughing in their faces at some of their inane lines of questioning.

After Barra asked Simmo what he thought about Matt Rowell eating grass, its pretty much expected these days.

 

[shoutsatclouds]

Did anyone else see the CH.7 half-time interview with Boots, where they were talking about the Captaincy being rotated though a couple of different players?
I thought it telling that Shuey said "something, something, something...new Captain very soon...something..."

Can't be sure exactly what was said as it was over in a flash. Any chance someone has a clip?

 

[Luuuc]

Did anyone else see the CH.7 half-time interview with Boots, where they were talking about the Captaincy being rotated though a couple of different players?
I thought it telling that Shuey said "something, something, something...new Captain very soon...something..."

Can't be sure exactly what was said as it was over in a flash. Any chance someone has a clip?

Not much in it.
Clip of the interview (click on the 'pop out' link):

 

[shoutsatclouds]

Not much in it.
Clip of the interview (click on the 'pop out' link):

Good find, thanks.

"...possibly take on the role...very soon".

Very soon? As in next season soon, or after the bye soon?

Possibly nothing in it, but it just seemed to me to be an odd thing to say.

 

[KERRPOW]

Can someone "ask simmo" why is gaff a walk up best 22 each weak given he has become such a mediocre player

 

[Cuzz09]

In: Burgiel

out: Gaff



On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Godfather32]

Can someone "ask simmo" why is gaff a walk up best 22 each weak given he has become such a mediocre player

Probably cause we're paying him 800k or so