No Oppo Supporters Non Bulldog Footy Talk - Bulldogs only - Part 5

[Sentinel]

Former Rising Star winner makes shock call to quit AFL

The 25-year-old has lost the passion for the game.

7news.com.au

I'm glad we got Treloar out of that firesale and not the Stephenson/Bosenavulagi double or Tom Phillips (and we paid a lower price for him than both of those trades).

 

[Unnamed1]

I'm glad we got Treloar out of that firesale and not the Stephenson/Bosenavulagi double or Tom Phillips (and we paid a lower price for him than both of those trades).

And Collingwood continued to pay a high price (salary) from the trade!

 

[stefoid]

Why the hell wouldnt you ride the gravy train for the next 5 years, passion or not?

hes going to get a rude shock in the real world where unemployed 25yos dont get paid hundreds of thousands a year to "follow their dream".

 

[Libbaaaa]

Why the hell wouldnt you ride the gravy train for the next 5 years, passion or not?

hes going to get a rude shock in the real world where unemployed 25yos dont get paid hundreds of thousands a year to "follow their dream".

Not everyone built the same I guess? He must be that checked out that he can't even front up for pre-season etc... At least for one more year you would have thought to milk that $500k.

 

[Doggies7]

 

[Sentinel]

Now do Bailey Smith

6

Bailey Smith

Age

23

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

8.5

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.8

5star

CL

2.7

4star

D

19.8

5star

K

9.6

4star

HB

10.2

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.2

4star

CL

3.2

4star

D

14.8

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

7.2

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.4

5star

CL

1.6

4star

and Cotton On

 

[Thunderoad]

As others have pointed out on Twitter, didn't Scott and Geelong claim that this had already been ticked off by the AFL when they originally announced it?

 

[stefoid]

Not everyone built the same I guess? He must be that checked out that he can't even front up for pre-season etc... At least for one more year you would have thought to milk that $500k.

I guess theres only so much norf that anyone can take

 

[Unnamed1]

Now do Bailey Smith and Cotton On

I actually think the Cotton On one is clean. It existing well before he was traded, and if they increase it once he's down there, it's an independent decision based on the increased local exposure.

The Scott ones fails one of the most basic legal principles for causation - the 'but for' test. But for the fact he's the coach of Geelong, he would not be the Chief Knobjockey Officer for Morris Finance, in Geelong. If the AFL signed off on it, which I doubt is really what happened (I'm sure there was a vague email of "potentially" from a junior integrity officer), then the joke is on them.

The Smith deal has no such causation. He was already sponsored by them - and fair play to all on that deal - that's just synergistic and exactly what you look for in an acquisition of any asset - 1+1 = 3.

 

[Libbaaaa]

The role has been created specifically for Scott which reeks of something. A company their size does not need a chief performance officer.

 

[Sentinel]

I actually think the Cotton On one is clean. It existing well before he was traded, and if they increase it once he's down there, it's an independent decision based on the increased local exposure.

The Scott ones fails one of the most basic legal principles for causation - the 'but for' test. But for the fact he's the coach of Geelong, he would not be the Chief Knobjockey Officer for Morris Finance, in Geelong. If the AFL signed off on it, which I doubt is really what happened (I'm sure there was a vague email of "potentially" from a junior integrity officer), then the joke is on them.

The Smith deal has no such causation. He was already sponsored by them - and fair play to all on that deal - that's just synergistic and exactly what you look for in an acquisition of any asset - 1+1 = 3.

Why don't we flip it then. But for the Cotton On deal, would Smith be a Geelong player?

 

[Turtleman3]

I think we all know (or the more cynical among us) how this will play out. It will be 'investigated' and there will be nothing to see. It gives all a future response when this topic is questioned, "it was investigated and ticked off by the AFL".

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

I think we all know (or the more cynical among us) how this will play out. It will be 'investigated' and there will be nothing to see. It gives all a future response when this topic is questioned, "it was investigated and ticked off by the AFL".

All it could be that there is a bit of noise around Geelong’s “deals” that the AFL feels compelled to investigate to give the thin veneer of fairness.

 

[flamethrower]

Why the hell wouldnt you ride the gravy train for the next 5 years, passion or not?

hes going to get a rude shock in the real world where unemployed 25yos dont get paid hundreds of thousands a year to "follow their dream".

Maybe he saw CFMEU guys holding stop signs were getting paid $200k and thought that was a normal wage for an entry level job.

 

[W W Biscuit]

In other news, GMHBA Stadium has been renamed to NTSH Stadium - Nothing To See Here.

 

[ossie_21]

Norf selling 2 home games a year to WA, creating some money for them but further fixture inequality for the comp.

Why didn’t they just move to Tasmania?

 

[Pugz89]

Norf selling 2 home games a year to WA, creating some money for them but further fixture inequality for the comp.

Why didn’t they just move to Tasmania?

Coz Tassie can't support two teams I'm guessing.

 

[weltschmerz]

Norf selling 2 home games a year to WA, creating some money for them but further fixture inequality for the comp.

Why didn’t they just move to Tasmania?

Tasmania doesn’t want them

 

[ossie_21]

Coz Tassie can't support two teams I'm guessing.

I meant relocation prior to just announcing a new team. I’d be really annoyed if I was a lolnorf member, considering it’s 2 “home” games less per year. The AFL will probably fixture them more local away games, but again it just messes further with the fixture

 

[Libbaaaa]

Considering how much the WA teams travel I’m fine with them getting these extra games.

 

[doggiesin08]

Norf selling 2 home games a year to WA, creating some money for them but further fixture inequality for the comp.

Why didn’t they just move to Tasmania?

Yep, its terrible for equity in the competition. Also shit for North fans where a home game against the Eagles would have been one of their best hopes of seeing a win in person but now they've sold that game away. I do really like the idea of playing two interstate teams (from the same state) back-to-back and staying there during the week to (1) give the players a bit of winter getaway and (2) reduce the overall travel burden, but not if they count as home games!

I'm also interested to see how this impacts the overall fixture. In 2024 every team went to WA at least once (and Brisbane, Gold Coast, Melbourne, Richmond went twice). It wouldn't surprise me if North have done a side-deal with the AFL to not get a double-up against either the Eagles or Freo to make sure they still only have the one trip to WA next year.

 

[Pugz89]

I meant relocation prior to just announcing a new team. I’d be really annoyed if I was a lolnorf member, considering it’s 2 “home” games less per year. The AFL will probably fixture them more local away games, but again it just messes further with the fixture

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they play 4 home games in Tassie. So they'll just be shifting 2 of those to Perth. They were never going to be home games in Melbourne I believe.

 

[Sentinel]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they play 4 home games in Tassie. So they'll just be shifting 2 of those to Perth. They were never going to be home games in Melbourne I believe.

Hobart has been a home venue for North though, given how many games they play down there - moreso than Ballarat is for us. They've been forced to give that venue up, but are now replacing one of those home games with an "away" game (and one neutral venue game in WA). It sucks for them.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Yep, its terrible for equity in the competition. Also shit for North fans where a home game against the Eagles would have been one of their best hopes of seeing a win in person but now they've sold that game away. I do really like the idea of playing two interstate teams (from the same state) back-to-back and staying there during the week to (1) give the players a bit of winter getaway and (2) reduce the overall travel burden, but not if they count as home games!

I'm also interested to see how this impacts the overall fixture. In 2024 every team went to WA at least once (and Brisbane, Gold Coast, Melbourne, Richmond went twice). It wouldn't surprise me if North have done a side-deal with the AFL to not get a double-up against either the Eagles or Freo to make sure they still only have the one trip to WA next year.

They should really do this for both WA teams, have them travel to Sydney for example and then stay on and play in Melbourne the following week. Then have two weeks at home. Basically should replicate NFL scheduling.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Considering how much the WA teams travel I’m fine with them getting these extra games.

Don't let the propagandising of the WA teams get to you.

• It's fine that they travel that much because it's just the geographic realities of being in an isolated city that makes it appealing that can make their team stronger. Perth is further away but it's also the closest city to half our countries' natural resources, which makes Perth a bigger city, which makes them big enough to have a team in the first place. Can't separate one for another
• What evidence is there that the travel disadvantage is stronger than the net crowd-driven home ground advantages? West Coast certainly aren't as disadvantaged by playing at Docklands vs. us where they still have some fans in the crowd, fewer Dogs fans and somewhat of a familiarity with the ground, compared to when we travel there, hardly ever play at the ground, virtually nil fans in the stand and 50,000 rabid fans there.