scottopee wrote:
tap in 79 wrote:
scottopee wrote:
Geez some people need to find another sport where the mean and nasty AFL can't hurt them!! The club has
it up for 17yrs and need to continue to fix the current problems and probably the same people who wanted Pagan or Malthouse signed or Ratten sacked are the ones whinging on here now about how bad it is!!
Do I agree with everything the club does? No! But we have finally gone down the track of using the draft which will benefit us for a decent period of time not just short term.
The present status quo isn't working.
Wow 40% AFL fault for the Carlton predicament please that's ridicules! The club is 95% responsible for the way we have ended up and maybe 5% AFL for smashing us with the draft penalties even though we deserved part of it. To me it's 100% the fault of the members and supporters who demanded we get Pagan or Malthouse or sack Ratten because he isn't a premiership coach the let's go and get the best we're Carlton mentality. The JOHN ELLIOT'S of the world.
1. I have no problem the AFL funding non AFL markets and doing research the 9th game now with Gold Coast and GWS is worth about 57million which seems to fund both clubs anyway. Sydney were in the middle of the teams funded so I don't see that one. As long as the salary cap is the same I don't see a relation to us being crap because of funding?
2. Absolutely agree with draft and salary cap. Yes the draft needs a bit of work to help the sides down the bottom over so many years but the notion of the draft is fine. Free agency needs a heap of work but simply put it was brought in by the players association and not the AFL. When we get better we can use it to our advantage.
As for Gibbs and Tuohy both wanted to go so I don't know what you are saying. No real compensation? We ended up with Marchbank for Touhy which will be like watching Josh Kennedy run around long after Judd retired when Touhy pulls the pin. Not sold on Kennedy and O'Brien for Gibbs but time will tell and Gibbs wanted to go so I don't really get this no compensation thing as we got players/draft picks in return. If we had your old zones and everyone is a free agent like the past then we would have got nothing for Gibbs and Touhy so I don't know what your argument is??
Scottopee, re: point 1 - my point was I don't know how you appropriate blame for Carlton's predicament. For some people, they will say it is 30% Elliott's fault/legacy, others will say 90% Carlton presidents' fault etc...for me though definitely the AFL is a large part to blame. I can't say whether it is 40%, 30% or 50% or some other percentage. How do you work out something like that?
1- You have no problems with the way the AFL has implemented their "expansion" program. Well that is your decision. You backed it up with some statistics that help your argument. I could equally refer to statistics that say it is ridiculous for a country with just 25 million people to have 18 professional football teams when you compare it to the USA which has 30 or 32 professional football teams in a population of 330 million people.
What's more, Australia has competing football codes whilst in the USA there is only really one football code.
2- The draft/salary cap/free agency is in my opinion a joke. Ask yourself- why has Sydney, Geelong and Hawthorn made about every single finals series in the last 15 years? How is that possible in this time of "equalisation". Doesn't the media tell us that the draft/salary cap "equalises" the competition? Does/has the AFL give direct and indirect help to any of these 3 clubs>? What is the point of having "equalisation" if some clubs get given certain advantages others don't get?
Contrast to the NRL - no draft, no free agency - and bingo!! Not one single team has won back to back premierships since 1992/93...if you exclude the super league bit. Now how is that possible? Shouldn't the AFL be looking at the NRL to work out how they do it?
Tap I think the AFL would have preferred to relocate clubs rather than expand. But clubd wouldn't do it
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
