Opinion Non-Crows AFL 11

[mcleod at 50 lines it up]

No different to everyone else. We ALL have opinions on the matter.

I can see why you'd want all opinions to be equal

 

[mcleod at 50 lines it up]

Different rules apply to the Cats.

They have got away with far, far, far more than what we did with Tippet-gate.

I never liked this attitude by some supporters which I think is dying out, but still that we were somehow innocent with tippett and other clubs are guilty of worse. Nope we were stone cold guilty! Geelong pushes the limits, within the rules and there's a difference

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

The AFL just need to scrap the sub...

AFL to keep contentious sub rule for 2025 season as tweaks revealed

AFL to keep contentious rule for 2025 as tweaks revealed

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I never liked this attitude by some supporters which I think is dying out, but still that we were somehow innocent with tippett and other clubs are guilty of worse. Nope we were stone cold guilty! Geelong pushes the limits, within the rules and there's a difference

Where did I say we were innocent with Tippett-gate? Never made that claim!

Just saying the Cats have worked around the salary cap fa, far more.

 

[mcleod at 50 lines it up]

Where did I say we were innocent with Tippett-gate? Never made that claim!

Just saying the Cats have worked around the salary cap fa, far more.

Yeah that kind of comment is trying to diminish what we did imo. The chris scott one is a head scratcher but at least they've been upfront with it

 

[Mostyn]

Yeah that kind of comment is trying to diminish what we did imo. The chris scott one is a head scratcher but at least they've been upfront with it

I know I'm getting sucked into your bait, but what we did with Tippett - where we didn't even go over the cap, and where we said if he was unhappy we'd trade him to a club of his choice at the end of his contract - was incredibly minor compared to things that don't even get punished. The stuff with Scott was brazen.

I'm minimising it, but it's crazy that our punishment was the same as what Essendon got for a systematic drug program.

We never challenged anything, which an actual big club would have. Our crimes were far less worse than our amateur hour way we handled everything.

Anyway, I haven't thought about that for years, so thanks for that.

 

[adelaidecrows]

I know I'm getting sucked into your bait, but what we did with Tippett - where we didn't even go over the cap, and where we said if he was unhappy we'd trade him to a club of his choice at the end of his contract - was incredibly minor compared to things that don't even get punished. The stuff with Scott was brazen.

I'm minimising it, but it's crazy that our punishment was the same as what Essendon got for a systematic drug program.

We never challenged anything, which an actual big club would have. Our crimes were far less worse than our amateur hour way we handled everything.

Anyway, I haven't thought about that for years, so thanks for that.

Yeah it was under the cap, the issue was it was a non disclosed payment. The it was minor and frankly I think while we got the right punishment, Tippett was under punished. Should have had a full year deregistration from the AFL and forced to enter the main draft. But back then Andy D was using us as an example and didnt really take into account the severity of Tippetts role.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Where did I say we were innocent with Tippett-gate? Never made that claim!

Just saying the Cats have worked around the salary cap fa, far more.

Its well known as spoken by retired players that Geelong has a culture of senior players taking pay cuts to lure talent to the club. This is a loop hole the AFL need to stop. I know pay is a personal thing and its up to the player but, the AFL should outright ban players from changing any condition including the pay rate originally negotiated in the contract.

They keep luring talent and if this is the reason by offering above rate contracts because senior players have discounted their contracts then is that operating in the right spirit of the game? Plus, where is the culture coming from. who approached who? If the club is approaching its players which lets face it they clearly are, then that should be deemed as potentially pressuring players and therefor salary cap breach.

They obviously cant breach the soft cap, so by Scott getting this job at a sponsor, did he take a pay cut? what did they do on the side within the soft cap? did they employ someone or did each of the current coaches get payrises? This is the thing the AFL in their investigation kept silent. It may not be a conspiracy. But if they said Geelong did nothing in the cap, no new contracts or extra employees then nothing to see here. But they said nothing.

 

[FR0GGY]

I'm minimising it, but it's crazy that our punishment was the same as what Essendon got for a systematic drug program.

They got pick 1 out of it!

 

[Cromulant]

They got pick 1 out of it!

Luckily they levelled it out and used that to pick Andy McGrath

 

[ams4crows]

Hayden Young should be on our list ffs picking McAsey is one of the worst decisions the club has ever made.

He's going to be Just like Mundy, will have career best games against us every time.

 

[Mutineer]

Hayden Young should be on our list ffs picking McAsey is one of the worst decisions the club has ever made.

He's going to be Just like Mundy, will have career best games against us every time.

Wrong, Noah Anderson should have been on our list until the AFL screwed us over yet again.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Yeah that kind of comment is trying to diminish what we did imo. The chris scott one is a head scratcher but at least they've been upfront with it

No it's not!

Again you have misrepresented my post & doubled down.

Go back to Tippett-gate thread & I was scathing of the club & wanted Trigg & others sacked.

 

[George Kramer]

Wrong, Noah Anderson should have been on our list until the AFL screwed us over yet again.

Cmon mate, he’s not wrong, the AFL screwing us over Anderson has nothing to do with Hamish picking McAsey over Young and the quality players picked after McAsey.

 

[Mostyn]

Yeah it was under the cap, the issue was it was a non disclosed payment. The it was minor and frankly I think while we got the right punishment, Tippett was under punished. Should have had a full year deregistration from the AFL and forced to enter the main draft. But back then Andy D was using us as an example and didnt really take into account the severity of Tippetts role.

Wasn't it that we guaranteed he'd make sponsorship income targets - which eh made anyway?

I'll die on the hill that if this happened at Collingwood, it would have died as a story by the end of the first week.

 

[Mostyn]

Its well known as spoken by retired players that Geelong has a culture of senior players taking pay cuts to lure talent to the club. This is a loop hole the AFL need to stop. I know pay is a personal thing and its up to the player but, the AFL should outright ban players from changing any condition including the pay rate originally negotiated in the contract.

They keep luring talent and if this is the reason by offering above rate contracts because senior players have discounted their contracts then is that operating in the right spirit of the game? Plus, where is the culture coming from. who approached who? If the club is approaching its players which lets face it they clearly are, then that should be deemed as potentially pressuring players and therefor salary cap breach.

They obviously cant breach the soft cap, so by Scott getting this job at a sponsor, did he take a pay cut? what did they do on the side within the soft cap? did they employ someone or did each of the current coaches get payrises? This is the thing the AFL in their investigation kept silent. It may not be a conspiracy. But if they said Geelong did nothing in the cap, no new contracts or extra employees then nothing to see here. But they said nothing.

They discounted their contracts.

Sure, after they'd bought property at a quarter of the list price from Geelong sponsors.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Wasn't it that we guaranteed he'd make sponsorship income targets - which eh made anyway?

I'll die on the hill that if this happened at Collingwood, it would have died as a story by the end of the first week.

I could be wrong but I heard we made a specific under the table payment of $250k to his dad and put in writing that Tippett at the end of the next contract can leave with little compensation. Basically if a club wanted to give us a 3rd rounder Tippett was going to make us accept it. The club self reported on the back of Sydney not offering adequate compensation and Tippetts manager threatening the club. We screwed up big time but so did Tippett and frankly he probably should never have been allowed to play again. But when he came back he was all but useless anyway and a joke in AFL circles. Never reached the levels he did at the Crows anyway.

 

[Scorpus]

Its well known as spoken by retired players that Geelong has a culture of senior players taking pay cuts to lure talent to the club. This is a loop hole the AFL need to stop. I know pay is a personal thing and its up to the player but, the AFL should outright ban players from changing any condition including the pay rate originally negotiated in the contract.

They keep luring talent and if this is the reason by offering above rate contracts because senior players have discounted their contracts then is that operating in the right spirit of the game? Plus, where is the culture coming from. who approached who? If the club is approaching its players which lets face it they clearly are, then that should be deemed as potentially pressuring players and therefor salary cap breach.

They obviously cant breach the soft cap, so by Scott getting this job at a sponsor, did he take a pay cut? what did they do on the side within the soft cap? did they employ someone or did each of the current coaches get payrises? This is the thing the AFL in their investigation kept silent. It may not be a conspiracy. But if they said Geelong did nothing in the cap, no new contracts or extra employees then nothing to see here. But they said nothing.

Geelong's list would be struggling to meet the salary cap floor even if everyone was getting paid their true worth

 

[adelaidecrows]

They discounted their contracts.

Sure, after they'd bought property at a quarter of the list price from Geelong sponsors.

They did? wow. Did not know this.

Basically the AFL need to end this practise. No contract short cuts. The contract that is signed first is the contract they must stick to for the duration of the contract. Not the oh here is a second contract 2 years down the track 25% cheaper because he decided to take a pay cut.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Geelong's list would be struggling to meet the salary cap floor even if everyone was getting paid their true worth

Yeah now. But from 2015 to 2021 they would have been probably a million over. easily.

 

[Mostyn]

I could be wrong but I heard we made a specific under the table payment of $250k to his dad and put in writing that Tippett at the end of the next contract can leave with little compensation. Basically if a club wanted to give us a 3rd rounder Tippett was going to make us accept it. The club self reported on the back of Sydney not offering adequate compensation and Tippetts manager threatening the club. We screwed up big time but so did Tippett and frankly he probably should never have been allowed to play again. But when he came back he was all but useless anyway and a joke in AFL circles. Never reached the levels he did at the Crows anyway.

We said that we would trade him in the future for what the compensation would have been if he left now - so, a second round pick.

Stupid, unnecessary thing to put in writing. Absolute amateur hour.

 

[Scorpus]

Yeah now. But from 2015 to 2021 they would have been probably a million over. easily.

I doubt it.

Their list throughout that period had a lot of aging players, which provided a lot of scope for back ending the contracts of new/upcoming players.

I also genuinely believe players like Tom Hawkins would have (once their big contract expired) signed new contracts at a pretty low rate when they were 33/34 to prolong their career. I think Taylor Walker would be doing similar at the Crows.

When Geelong got Jeremy Cameron for example, their list had 12 30-year-olds on it. You only need to factor paying those sorts of players for 2-3 more years at most. Which is very different to having a bulk of upcoming stars aged 25 where you might need to pay them $800k+ for 6-8 years.

It's also been common for Geelong to have 8-10 players on 0 games and a handful more sub 20 gamers. Those players would be very cheap.

Geelong have been able to perform so well because their coaching and setup allows lower paid players (the Jake Kolodjashnij, Jed Bews, Tom Atkins, Brad Close, Zach Guthrie, Gryan Miers types) to become exceptionally handy role players that far exceed the AFL average

 

[Vader]

They did? wow. Did not know this.

Basically the AFL need to end this practise. No contract short cuts. The contract that is signed first is the contract they must stick to for the duration of the contract. Not the oh here is a second contract 2 years down the track 25% cheaper because he decided to take a pay cut.

It's called the Costa Living Allowance.

Trademarked by Kane McGoodwin

 

[MarcusP2]

I doubt it.

Their list throughout that period had a lot of aging players, which provided a lot of scope for back ending the contracts of new/upcoming players.

I also genuinely believe players like Tom Hawkins would have (once their big contract expired) signed new contracts at a pretty low rate when they were 33/34 to prolong their career. I think Taylor Walker would be doing similar at the Crows.

When Geelong got Jeremy Cameron for example, their list had 12 30-year-olds on it. You only need to factor paying those sorts of players for 2-3 more years at most. Which is very different to having a bulk of upcoming stars aged 25 where you might need to pay them $800k+ for 6-8 years.

It's also been common for Geelong to have 8-10 players on 0 games and a handful more sub 20 gamers. Those players would be very cheap.

Geelong have been able to perform so well because their coaching and setup allows lower paid players (the Jake Kolodjashnij, Jed Bews, Tom Atkins, Brad Close, Zach Guthrie, Gryan Miers types) to become exceptionally handy role players that far exceed the AFL average

What does seem to happen is these Close/Atkins/Miers types (if they are paid below their output) are never lured away by bigger offers.

 

[Scorpus]

What does seem to happen is these Close/Atkins/Miers types (if they are paid below their output) are never lured away by bigger offers.

I think those players would be much worse outside of Geelong. Maybe that's how recruiters see it too, they are good more due to system than skill