Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 226

Thread: 'Sweeping changes' to Academy and Father/Son bidding system

  1. #13
    Suspended by the MRP
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,802
    Quote Originally Posted by Go Swannies View Post
    I'd like to see the initial negotiation with the AFL run something like this:

    QBE - We sponsor the Academy as Principal Sponsors of the Sydney Swans. The day the new rules are announced is the day we withdraw that sponsorship as it's no longer a viable program.

    Swans - Without QBE sponsorship of the Academy we can't continue so we will close the Academy on that day, too. And we've spoken to Brisbane and they will be doing the same. We're expecting some media interest and will have our Chair on hand - and some of the Academy players.
    Are you 100% certain that QBE's involvement in the Academy is in line with the Swans political objectives?

    The AFL could say to QBE that the AFL is taking over the funding and running of the Swans academy and we will be increasing the number of participants in the program. If you stay sponsoring the Academy then you will have your brand seen at the grass roots level by an extra 200 hundred kids and their families and we will not ask you for extra sponsorship as a good will gesture.

  2. #14
    Senior Player Zlatorog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rhodes, NSW
    Posts
    1,748
    Matt80, you are assuming too much here (or is it an inside knowledge?). You are assuming that there is a good relationship between AFL and QBE, and that QBE is sponsoring academy because of AFL not Sydney Swans. I think you're wrong here, mate. Sydney Swans are a draw card not AFL, and if Sydney Swans decide to withdraw from Academy so will QBE and AFL will have to run it by themselves. They tried something similar in the past but failed. They will fail again. Remember, Sydney Swans and other clubs are a draw card for AFL in northern states not AFL. It's a false popular believe in Melbourne that AFL doesn't need successful clubs in northern states to grow AFL in NSW and QLD

  3. #15
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    2,936
    Matt, "the Swans political objectives"? Please clarify.

  4. #16
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Rai
    Posts
    5,186
    Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold is another one leading the move along with Eddie. Here's an article from last year about what Kevin Sheedy thinks of him:

    2013-02-26/sheedy-blasts-newbloke

    The presidents of the 2 richest clubs who have overall the most advantages in the AFL are taking aim at clubs trying to attain a broader level of equalisation. The Swans, like Brisbane a decade ago, have reached a high level of on field success that these blokes want to put an end to. Eddie has already succeeded in destroying Brisbane and now these 2 are working on the Swans.

    In a radio interview (Listen Here) Newbold talks about how the Western Bulldogs will be disadvantaged by the Swans academy access to players like Heeney. This is completely disingenuous since the Bulldogs will be in line for something around a pick six, so will get someone the equal of a Heeney in any case. Last year the Bulldogs got Bontempelli with pick 4 and Stringer with pick 5 and McCrae with pick 6 the previous year.

    So what are we talking about here. It is Hawthorn and Sydney that will be getting draft picks in the 15 to 18 range this year. Perhaps with Heeney will will get a top 10 pick, like a Bontempelli or a Jimmy Toumpas (hopefully not), while the Hawks will 'only' get someone like a Zak Jones or a Luke Dunstan. Is that what all this fuss is about? The Swans and their sponsors are putting in $750k a year so we can get access to a Jimmy Toumpas instead of a Zak Jones?

    But the richest Melbourne clubs have this obsession with the Swans success. Eddie was hurt because Brisbane knocked off Collingwood in the GF and the Goodes incident exposed him as a thoughtless racist. Newbold simply has no idea and just follows Eddie's lead.

    Paul Roos commented yesterday that these clubs with academies were just following the rules. Every club get to vote in the rules, so why are a few going off their heads when someone is just following the rules? If the rules let you get a steal in a Travis Cloke or a Darcy Moore, then the rules are fine, but once the Swans are in line to get a 'Jimmy Toumpas' they go stark raving mad crying 'Foul'.

    I see this as a matter of principle that has to fought to the bitter end by the Swans and the other clubs disadvantaged by the rich Melbourne clubs. It's whether Eddie is going to dictate the AFL agenda or are we going to get some equity in the league where clubs other than Collingwood can get a good run without being shot down with some targeted rule change to bring them back in line. This a typical racist attitude particularly prevalent in the U.S. when racists want to put 'Uppity Negroes' back in their place. To Eddie, we are the being too uppity for his liking and have to be brought back to our rightful place in AFL society.

  5. #17
    Suspended by the MRP
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,802
    Quote Originally Posted by Zlatorog View Post
    Matt80, you are assuming too much here (or is it an inside knowledge?). You are assuming that there is a good relationship between AFL and QBE, and that QBE is sponsoring academy because of AFL not Sydney Swans. I think you're wrong here, mate. Sydney Swans are a draw card not AFL, and if Sydney Swans decide to withdraw from Academy so will QBE and AFL will have to run it by themselves. They tried something similar in the past but failed. They will fail again. Remember, Sydney Swans and other clubs are a draw card for AFL in northern states not AFL. It's a false popular believe in Melbourne that AFL doesn't need successful clubs in northern states to grow AFL in NSW and QLD
    I have no insider knowledge, I’m just a pundit.

    Having seen QBE sponsoring “Jungle Sports” which my son is involved in, you can assume that the QBE marketing department has a “grassroots sports marketing strategy”.

    QBE are sponsoring the Swans Academy because it fits nicely with their “grassroots sports marketing strategy” and they can see a return on investment from this exposure. If the Swans opt out and the AFL steps in to run the academy, why would QBE automatically opt out? They would assess the AFLs proposal and see whether the return on Investment will be there when the AFL steps in. The AFL would also make QBE a great offer to continue their support.

    I don’t believe QBE are in lock step with Andrew Pildrim. They will assess each opportunity as appropriate as all good businesses do.

    If the AFL waters down the Academy’s recruitment advantages, then the Swans will lose their incentive to focus and invest in the academy.
    If the Swans face losing their recruitment advantages, I’m sure Pildrim will be down at AFL house, flaunting the option of the Swans pulling the plug and explaining how that action will detriment the AFL game in NSW. He will explain that the Swans have no choice and that the AFL will need to provide an extra X amount of investment if the AFL still wants the academy’s to run.

    Meg, if the AFL takes away the recruitment advantages of the Academy then the Swans “political objectives” will be to fight Eddie, Newbold and the AFL using the grass roots welfare of the game in NSW as the battleground.

  6. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt80 View Post
    Are you 100% certain that QBE's involvement in the Academy is in line with the Swans political objectives?

    The AFL could say to QBE that the AFL is taking over the funding and running of the Swans academy and we will be increasing the number of participants in the program. If you stay sponsoring the Academy then you will have your brand seen at the grass roots level by an extra 200 hundred kids and their families and we will not ask you for extra sponsorship as a good will gesture.
    200 hundred? That's a lot of kids!!

  7. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt80 View Post
    I have no insider knowledge, I’m just a pundit.
    What do you think a pundit is, Matt?

    This is what Wikipedia thinks: A pundit (sometimes called a talking head) is a person who offers to mass media their opinion or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis, the social sciences, technology or sport) on which they are knowledgeable (or can at least appear to be knowledgeable), or considered a scholar in said area. The term has been increasingly applied to popular media personalities. In certain cases, it may be used in a derogatory manner as well, as the political equivalent of ideologue.

    The term originates from the Sanskrit term pandit (pa??itá), meaning "learned". It refers to someone who is erudite in various subjects and who conducts religious ceremonies and offers counsel to the king and usually referred to a person from the Hindu Brahmin caste but may also refer to the Siddhas, Siddhars, Naths, Ascetics, Sadhus, or Yogis.

    Which one are you?

  8. #20
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    keysborough
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by aardvark View Post
    Barrett It's really hard to believe anything that moron comes out with.
    Agree.

  9. #21
    Senior Player ernie koala's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    northern beaches
    Posts
    3,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt80 View Post
    What has been QBEs contribution to the Academy over 5 years since its inception?

    I don’t think QBEs contribution to the Academy would have warranted an expensive Court case if the rules were changed. If they put in $2.5 mill over 5 years then why would you spend over 1 million dollars on a Court Case

    The AFL will argue that QBE have achieved their brand recognition objectives in the Swans Academy regardless of modifications to the drafting rules.
    Believe me, QBE, in investing $2.5m into the academy, will feel very much short changed if the rules, under which they decided to make their investment, are changed....What company wouldn't?
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT

  10. #22
    Suspended by the MRP
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,802
    Quote Originally Posted by Bloods05 View Post
    What do you think a pundit is, Matt?

    This is what Wikipedia thinks: A pundit (sometimes called a talking head) is a person who offers to mass media their opinion or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis, the social sciences, technology or sport) on which they are knowledgeable (or can at least appear to be knowledgeable), or considered a scholar in said area. The term has been increasingly applied to popular media personalities. In certain cases, it may be used in a derogatory manner as well, as the political equivalent of ideologue.

    The term originates from the Sanskrit term pandit (pa??itá), meaning "learned". It refers to someone who is erudite in various subjects and who conducts religious ceremonies and offers counsel to the king and usually referred to a person from the Hindu Brahmin caste but may also refer to the Siddhas, Siddhars, Naths, Ascetics, Sadhus, or Yogis.

    Which one are you?
    I think it would be fair to call me a small time, amateur, self-taught pundit!

  11. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    I do not necessarily object to future changes to the Academy bidding system (and would support the total abolition of the F/S system). However, as I have earlier expressed in more detail in the Academy thread, my view is that if the AFL changes the draft pick rules for Academy players with immediate or near-future application, then that should be challenged as a retrospective change, not least by QBE as the corporate sponsor of the Swans Academy. The Swans have run the Academy, and QBE and individual contributors have made majority funding to it, for 5 years under a set of rules which included an agreed bidding system for any Academy players good enough to be considered for the draft. It is a breach of an implicit contract to change those rules just as players such as Heeney and Mills graduate from the Academy. Any change should only apply to boys who go into the Academy from 2015 onwards.
    I 100% agree with this.

  12. #24
    Opti-pessi-misti
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Way down south
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold is another one leading the move along with Eddie. Here's an article from last year about what Kevin Sheedy thinks of him:

    2013-02-26/sheedy-blasts-newbloke

    The presidents of the 2 richest clubs who have overall the most advantages in the AFL are taking aim at clubs trying to attain a broader level of equalisation. The Swans, like Brisbane a decade ago, have reached a high level of on field success that these blokes want to put an end to. Eddie has already succeeded in destroying Brisbane and now these 2 are working on the Swans.

    In a radio interview (Listen Here) Newbold talks about how the Western Bulldogs will be disadvantaged by the Swans academy access to players like Heeney. This is completely disingenuous since the Bulldogs will be in line for something around a pick six, so will get someone the equal of a Heeney in any case. Last year the Bulldogs got Bontempelli with pick 4 and Stringer with pick 5 and McCrae with pick 6 the previous year.

    So what are we talking about here. It is Hawthorn and Sydney that will be getting draft picks in the 15 to 18 range this year. Perhaps with Heeney will will get a top 10 pick, like a Bontempelli or a Jimmy Toumpas (hopefully not), while the Hawks will 'only' get someone like a Zak Jones or a Luke Dunstan. Is that what all this fuss is about? The Swans and their sponsors are putting in $750k a year so we can get access to a Jimmy Toumpas instead of a Zak Jones?

    But the richest Melbourne clubs have this obsession with the Swans success. Eddie was hurt because Brisbane knocked off Collingwood in the GF and the Goodes incident exposed him as a thoughtless racist. Newbold simply has no idea and just follows Eddie's lead.

    Paul Roos commented yesterday that these clubs with academies were just following the rules. Every club get to vote in the rules, so why are a few going off their heads when someone is just following the rules? If the rules let you get a steal in a Travis Cloke or a Darcy Moore, then the rules are fine, but once the Swans are in line to get a 'Jimmy Toumpas' they go stark raving mad crying 'Foul'.

    I see this as a matter of principle that has to fought to the bitter end by the Swans and the other clubs disadvantaged by the rich Melbourne clubs. It's whether Eddie is going to dictate the AFL agenda or are we going to get some equity in the league where clubs other than Collingwood can get a good run without being shot down with some targeted rule change to bring them back in line. This a typical racist attitude particularly prevalent in the U.S. when racists want to put 'Uppity Negroes' back in their place. To Eddie, we are the being too uppity for his liking and have to be brought back to our rightful place in AFL society.
    I would love this to end up in 'Sam's Mailbag'!

    Good to hear that Paul Roos has finallly said something supportive.
    Last edited by rojo; 18th July 2014 at 05:08 PM. Reason: typo error

Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO