-
AFLW 2024 - Round 7 - Pride Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Why didn't they toss for the Rooms??
- Thread starter Lionel Lyon
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Apr 20, 2001
- 27,503
- 10,622
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Utd,Liverpool, WWT Eagles.
Bollocks.
Brisbane finished ahead of you and won both games.
It doesn't work that way anyway.
In 98 Crows won choice of changerooms on the toss at the Carbine club.
Correct. It is a tradition, which has now been abolished this year.
Collingwood demanded their chosen rooms, and got them.
Collingwood are playing in full uniform.
The only toss of the coin going for anything is 'who runs on first'....why bother?
It will make for a dull lunch and the whole thing has already put me off my lunch.
rUsTy_mAgPiE
Senior List
- Sep 18, 2002
- 244
- 1
- Other Teams
- Pies
would hate the AFL's lovechild Brissy to not get something their own way wouldnt we
Dave
Premium Platinum
Essendon Player Sponsor 2024 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Veteran
Essendon Player Sponsor 2023 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
10k Posts
Essendon Player Sponsor 2022 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Podcaster
Sensible Type
Essendon Player Sponsor 2021 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
I await the royalty check.......
- Mar 4, 2001
- 2,358
- 14
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lions: Est. 1883, 11 Flags. PAFC
- Thread starter
- #57
That's crapola, young fella
We haven't degenerated into the WWF just yet. By your logic Brisbane had no chance of ever taking the number 1 ranking in the finals, but Collingwood who finished two spots below them, and who beat the same teams Brisbane did (by less margin too), can ( ). If there is a ranking at this point, the Lions'd have to be on top. But it's irrelevant because the thing should be decided by a toss as, apparently, it's always been done.
- Moderator
- #58
Of course that's the case. However how is this diffrent for any other club apart from the fact that the vast majority of our stars have their origins from interstate, unlike 14 of the 16 clubs in the competition.
It's used for its intended purposes, which is to help retain players on the Brisbane list, as three quarters of them are recruited from outside Queensland. Apart from the Swans every other club has about 60%-80% of their list from the club they are based in. Certainly in Brisbane's case the extra allowance has never been used to attract other players from other clubs.
Blackmailed? Aren't the AFL justified asking for some accountability, for "gifting" those clubs that have asked for a donation of $1 million +. As far as I am aware, it's not a loan that has to be paid back. If only Fitzroy had had that luxury!
The Lions' Losses are being coverd at the moment by dipping into the Lions' cash capital.
I doubt if you can mount that argument. You'll find that any salary cap extension granted to the Lions and the Swans has to be covered by the Lions and Swans themselves and not from some AFL slush fund. If you can find evidence to the contrary let's read it.
In turn I could mount an argument that the money given to the North and possibly the Bulldogs is in fact limiting the amount of money set aside for developing the game in NSW and Queensland, which to the medium/long term will mean that concessions to the Lions/Swans become unnecessary.
And I would argue that if some sort of concessions aren't in place for clubs in developing markets, then the Lions and Swans are starting behind those clubs located in football states.
My arbitrary start date? The Lions came into the competition in 1997. To my knowledge there was no 'salary cap extension' for the Bears before 1996. There has been for the Lions since 1997.
There were however favourable recruiting rules for the Bears such as the one where the Bears and Swans could sign an uncontracted player from one of the Victorian clubs and some Qld. zone selections. However given the farcical drafting rules given to the Bears in 1987, where each existing club was required to provide three players, most of whom were not up to the standard of the VFL-AFL, reasonable assistance for the Brisbane clubs is well overdue.
Until their last year in the competition (1996) the Bears had never finished higher than eighth, never won more than 10 games and had never won a final.
As for the players who moved to the Bears that you mention the clubs who lost them were well compensated. Raines was cleared for $80,000, $110,000 for Williams, Merrett for $60,000, Capper for $420,000, Hardie for $270,000. Very significant money at that point in time. In all the Bears in their first year paid $1.3 million for reasonable players, on top of their licence fee. Again it had to be done due to the lack of AFL footballers residing in Qld.
To my knowledge, the Bears received only Draft Pick #12 in the 1993 Draft for Buckley.
Since 1997, it's a significant list. Hilton, O'Bree, Lawrence, Clayton, Barker, Molloy, Bamford, Chapman, Carter and Picken all wanted to go home and most were traded at their request, so the Lions at least got something for them. The club's agreeance was more easily obtained than others, allthough they were very keen to keep Hilton, O'Bree, Molloy and Lawrence.
Between the Bears and Lions, players on other senior lists this year are:
Clarke
Bartlett
Clayton
Buckley
Barker
Molloy
B. Voss
Lawrence
Picken
Knobel
O'Bree
Hilton
Robbins
Rusca
Are there 14-15 former Essendon players on Port's list this year? I can think of two, Hardwick and Wanganeen.
The rooms they run out of is a big deal for me coz i like to hang over the race like a baby and see the players run in and out so i am glad Collingwood are not running out of the members race on Saturday but really what the hell is the fuss about here??? The only thing it should affect is where the coaches sit but i can hardly see it being an inconvenience whether they get this one or that one???
Originally posted by Lionel Lyon
That's crapola, young fella
Ah rightio.
I thought it was the way it was done.
I expect my President to whinge about things that effect my club. They all do it and so they should. I don't care how much Mathews whinges either. People will judge them but I really think Mathews would not be the slighest but concerned about what anyone though of his whinging. Eddie may be a bit more sensative but he knows where his bread is buttered.
Dogwatcher
Premiership Player
Really guys, who gives a toss!!! It's a fricken roomfor frigs sake.
- Jan 4, 2002
- 659
- 374
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Fitzroy, Denver Broncos, Liverpool
Hey, funboys! Get a room!
- Mar 4, 2001
- 2,358
- 14
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lions: Est. 1883, 11 Flags. PAFC
- Thread starter
- #65
Originally posted by blackers
Hey, funboys! Get a room!
Correct. The Grand Final is not a home game for either side.
But neither is a final at the Gabba.
A final played at the Gabba is a FINAL. It is not a home game for anybody. It is a final which just happens to be played at the Gabba.
Just for the record, I think the rooms for the Grand Final should have been allocated by mutual agreement ... or randomly, if no agreement was possible.
But I also reckon this is one of the most ridiculously trivial issues I've ever seen raised on this site and I can't understand why I'm still writing about it.
Are we going to have the same argument over who wears the white shorts?
(just for the record, I think collingwood should wear the white shorts because white is one of our colours)
God Damn It Roylion this is gonna take up my whole lunchtime!
If only Fitzroy had more support. . If only they were not in the AFL gunsights for years. If only the Swans and Bears were prevented from raping them. If only my club was similarly prevented. If only Carlton didn't screw them with ground sharing.
If only Fitzroy had been able to make something of their success in their first 50 years like Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon....
As I have said, I support the development of the game in Qld and NSW. I do not support any money being to directed to the AFL clubs located therein to do any of the development. It should be done by an independant development board with an approved budget on approved development schemes/projects. None of that has anything to do with paying players.
As for the econiomic argument that more development money may make funding the Swans or Brisbane uneccessary in the future, I wonder how many more member, attendances etc it would take to break even now let alone with more spending.
Once again, though you are mixing agenda's. Development does not equate to spending more on players. That is just how the AFL choose to do it now. Like most things they do, it is neither efficient nor equitable.
It would be a pointless argument at best.
Note that I said playing senior football not VFL. Collingwood have "lost" about 30-40 players in last 4 years. We don't miss 'em either. The fact you clear players and draft others is hardly a reason for salary cap dispensation or any other kind of assistance.
The AFL are more than justified they bound to ask for accountability. That is a completely different issue. In addition to financial accountability they are blackmailed into silence about anything anti AFL or contrary to AFL agenda while they are beholden onto the AFL for the funding.
If only Fitzroy had more support. . If only they were not in the AFL gunsights for years. If only the Swans and Bears were prevented from raping them. If only my club was similarly prevented. If only Carlton didn't screw them with ground sharing.
If only Fitzroy had been able to make something of their success in their first 50 years like Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon....
So long as they are not spending more than they can afford on players! So long as they don't get any cash to replenish their capital when they have paid more than almost any other club to keep a team of champions together!
It is quite simply a matter of total revenues and total expenses. The net is the AFL dividend to clubs. In the end the Swans and Lions lose money - as do North, The Bulldogs and others. The net amount of AFL dividend left over after contribution to the development funds and in the future after paying the creditors of the Swans and Lions who will not be able to be satisfied from their own funds will reduce the amount available to all clubs. that includes, say, North. In the meantime, North are under spending constraints while the AFL do not distribute all the available funds.
As I have said, I support the development of the game in Qld and NSW. I do not support any money being to directed to the AFL clubs located therein to do any of the development. It should be done by an independant development board with an approved budget on approved development schemes/projects. None of that has anything to do with paying players.
You could also argue it limits the money spent on moon exploration but it would be an equally irrelevant argument. The money is actually being spent on development. To say more would be spent if clubs were not to get money they haven't even yet got from funds they contributed a long time ago is firstly an assumption unable to be backed up and secondly arguing inequity as a result of an inequity. Even if you were right, the development may wellbe better done in Tassie or elsewhere or in WA/SA/Vic. schools.
As for the econiomic argument that more development money may make funding the Swans or Brisbane uneccessary in the future, I wonder how many more member, attendances etc it would take to break even now let alone with more spending.
Once again, though you are mixing agenda's. Development does not equate to spending more on players. That is just how the AFL choose to do it now. Like most things they do, it is neither efficient nor equitable.
It would be a pointless argument at best.
I wouldn't disagree with that in principle but what does it have to do with paying players?
Is or WAS?
Go tell it to North, Hawthorn, Footscray etc.
If fair price is the isuue then you have little cause for complaint. You traded many of the players you mentioned and of those you didn't you could hardly argue to be behind on balance with the initial freebies and the Lynch's.
The deal was, apart from the draft choice, for the relevant club to name 10 players and brisbane to chose 2 from the rest. Remember Collingwood were a decent side at time. You chose Starcevich - a premiership CHF - and Troy Lehman a promising young onballer. Both got injurred as it transpired.
The go home argument is the most overblown issue of the lot. Players want to go home if the club is crap or if they aren't getting a game. Funny Pavelich etc don't want to go home like Black etc. Picken was not required. He wanted to go "home" because he was unemployed. Molloy wanted out because he wasn't wanted. On top of thet Mathews had him put on weight so he could belt blokes. Nothing to do with living in Qld. In all of the above, not one would get a game in your current side. Right now I would happily have tou include all of them for this Saturday. We'll take the players you leave out.
That is an impressive of players you got good trades for and some duds. O'Bree was a bargain for us. Molloy was good last year but arguably no better than Michael. That was a direct trade and if anyone could cry foul over loosing a player in whom a significant investment had been made it is Collingwood. uckley we have done to death. All in all they form the neucleus of a pretty good VFL side.
Note that I said playing senior football not VFL. Collingwood have "lost" about 30-40 players in last 4 years. We don't miss 'em either. The fact you clear players and draft others is hardly a reason for salary cap dispensation or any other kind of assistance.
Agreed. You could say that for 80% of the crap that's written on this site . . . but all the while it's up here, why not have a crack . . . it's not every week that your (or my) team gets to play in a GF!
I think Collingwood have asked for white shorts in case of any more Brodie-like incidents.
- Jul 3, 2001
- 22,472
- 9,395
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Heat, Victory, Man Utd, Redskins
1.5 MILLION DOLLARS EXTRA IN YOUR SALARY CAP OR THE USE OF THE OLDER, CRUSTIER ROOMS AT THE MCG ON GRAND FINAL DAY..WHAT WOULD YOU PREFER? UMMM...
Leigh Matthews you are a tool
Leigh Matthews you are a tool
- Moderator
- #71
Conjecture on your part only.
If only Fitzroy had had a million dollar "gift" from the AFL to stay in the competition.
I'm sure you understand the many and varied reasons why Fitzroy ended up being the poor cousin of the VFL-AFL. Basically one of the most (but not the only) important factors was when Fitzroy lost their ground in 1966 due to the cricket club and again in 1984 when AFL rationalisation of grounds forced Fitzroy to move from the Junction Oval. After '84 they were basically homeless and support dwindled.
The last cash from the AFL was the merger money.
Far too simplistic. You've conveniently forgotten the money from the TV deal, which is also part of the distribution to clubs. The amount of money in said TV deal, included in the dividend to all clubs without doubt would not be as high excpet for a presence in Sydney and Brisbane.
It's pure speculation on your part that the Lions and Swans will not be able to pay creditors by spending more money than other clubs under the salary caps.
As Istated before any salary cap extension granted to the Lions and the Swans has to be covered by the Lions and Swans themselves and not from some AFL slush fund.
They're under spending constraints because the AFL has bailed them out with a $1 million grant.
I fail to see how this is relevant, except indirectly. The salary cap extension is for retaining players on the list, which if that club is subsequently successful may have a positive impact on the profile and acceptance of Australian Rules in what has been until now rugby dominated.
The million dollars that North is getting is actually being spent on development is it? How?
I assume you are referring to the sale of Waverley. However I'm of the understanding that the million dollar grants to the Bulldogs and North aren't from the sale of Waverley. That distribution is yet to come for all clubs.
I don't know how you can seriously say this. Half the population of Australia lives in NSW and Queensland. If the AFL is to continue to grow and develop, this untapped market is vital.
Without the Gabba Trust deal as it stands at the moment, Brisbane would already be making a profit. However under the deal as it stands, the burden of high rent on the Lions will start to ease in the next few years.
You fail to see the point I'm making. To put it as simply as I can. Brisbane's proportion of local players compared to other AFL clubs is very low. This is largely because a small proportion of Queenslanders who play sport play Australian Rules. Therefore those proportion who reach elite level are also small. Brisbane therefore has to recruiy interstate. To help retain their hight proportion of interstate players they get a bonus to the salary cap which they have to fund themselves.
Therefore assuming that Australian Rules becomes more popular, a greater proportion play football, more reach the elite level, more are selected by Brisbane (as in the manner of the SA clubs), which increases the local proportion of players necessitating the end of the salary cap bonus. Retaining players means that Brisbane are relatively successful, which means that the sport receives a higher profile, which means that more people take an interest in it and start ot play it and the wheel continues.
Debatable and debatable.
See above.
Is. Go count how many draftees come out of Queensland compared to SA, WA or Vic.
All have played in at least a preliminary final in the last ten years haven't they? How many premierships have Hawthorn won in the last 20 years? North?
Probably not, but that's not the real issue. The issue we're arguing is whther a bonus in the salary cap for Brisbane and the Swans is justified. To retain players, as Brisbane have done, I'd say it is.
Hmm. Not what the AFL's official draft history says. I believe there was a Draft Pick in the late 30's that went to Collingwood as well.
Pavlich would have gone home if Fremantle had thrown a bucketload of money at him.
Picken approached the club about being traded back to Melbourne. The club had every intention of keeping him for 2002.
Again not correct. Molloy wanted to return to Melbourne. He too was a required player.
O'Bree, Molloy and Lawrence would be pushing for a place in the current side.
OK. You have Shattock and we'll have O'Bree. Let's swap Copeland for Lawrence and MAYBE White for Molly.
That is an impressive of players you got good trades for and some duds. O'Bree was a bargain for us. Molloy was good last year but arguably no better than Michael. That was a direct trade and if anyone could cry foul over loosing a player in whom a significant investment had been made it is Collingwood. [/B][/QUOTE]
- Moderator
- #72
The number's getting bigger.
What's the bet it'll be $2 million soon.
$3 million by the end of the week.
Brisbane's salary cap extension is.......
(please read carefully)
$550,000
Divide 550,000 by the playing list (is it 38?) and thats just under 15,000 per player.
A small investment in a developing state.
BTW the Lions tend to "reinvest" this money back into the game by getting involved in melees and wrestling every other week!
A small investment in a developing state.
BTW the Lions tend to "reinvest" this money back into the game by getting involved in melees and wrestling every other week!
Give it a few more months on BigFooty and Brisbane will have five times the salary cap of other clubs
.- Banned
- #75
I think it had something to do with the Lions not wanting to give up their rooms which they use for H & A up at the Gabba, in the finals they play up there. There was no coin toss for those.
Similar threads
