Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 82

Thread: Vic bias against sydney teams

  1. #13
    Regular in the Side WauchopeAnalyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mid North Coast
    Posts
    834
    The VFL has still protected their adopted son and will allow them to keep their top pick (2) to ensure a total 'Gun' goes to GWS.

    On the flip side the Academy boys might be more available or the Giants go into a big deficit for next year.

    Or might also have to sell a 'Gun' next year to recoup the points.

    Fun and games....

    Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

  2. #14
    Regular in the Side crackedactor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    919

    Gilgil

    Quote Originally Posted by Bloods05 View Post
    Doesn't matter. This siege mentality is still ridiculous. The AFL is very clearly committed to making GWS a power club. There is no organised bias against non-Victorian clubs. It is much more selective than that, and it shifts from time to time.

    For a time the Swans and the Lions were given a reasonable amount of support, but once they became successful the AFL, under the pernicious influence of people like McGuire and Fitzpatrick, turned against them.

    What the AFL really hates is the idea that a non-Victorian club could enjoy a period of dominance like Hawthorn's - EXCEPT for GWS. The difference is that western Sydney represents a huge untapped market for them, and they think they can make a killing over the long term by building them into a force.

    Of course there are countervailing forces in the AFL. At the strategic level, they are absolutely committed to expanding the game into non-traditional parts of Australia. But at the club level, there is always a struggle between those who regard equalisation as an unacceptable form of football socialism and those who take the idea seriously. In the latter group, too, there will always be disagreements, some more self-interested than others, over the application of the principle of equalisation.

    But the paranoid notion that the AFL is out to get non-Victorian clubs is cheap and undiscriminating.
    .

    I think you are kidding yourself is you honestly believe the AFL does not have a set against Non-Victorian teams. Yes GWS is becoming successful, thanks to Andrew Demt. ever since Gil Mclaclan has entered the arena it is all changing.

  3. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by crackedactor View Post
    .

    I think you are kidding yourself is you honestly believe the AFL does not have a set against Non-Victorian teams. Yes GWS is becoming successful, thanks to Andrew Demt. ever since Gil Mclaclan has entered the arena it is all changing.
    As I said, cheap and undiscriminating. A bit of nuanced and considered analysis never hurt anyone. All you need to do to convince yourself that the AFL is right behind GWS is to listen to the ABC interview with Mike Fitzpatrick from a couple of months ago. I'll let you do the legwork.

  4. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by ernie koala View Post
    To the contrary Barry.

    Given that GWS have admitted that Whitfield was deliberately kept away from drug testing, for fear his illicit drug use may have meant he tested positive to a banned performance enhancing drug....

    It's very much on the lenient side....

    A 4 year ban, for and player willfully avoiding a drug test, is supposedly mandatory.

    Whitfield, and the GWS staff involved, have got off extremely lightly.
    I agree that if the suspension gets him playing finals next year that they will have gotten off lightly as the deliberately obstructive behaviour of officials is pretty serious, though he only got caught because of his ex going off so you wonder how many other times this happens.

    I think the draft pick losses are fair and that the AFL would be quite happy to impose them as it will bring back GWS to a normal draft position next year once they go into deficit. Once they start having to pick and choose between their academy pool the hysteria will hopefully die down a bit

  5. #17
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    • The girlfriend should lose her next 2 boyfriend picks.
    • Lachie Whitfield should be locked in Craig Lambert's cellar for 6 months.
    • Gubby Allen having to work for Eddie McGuire is punishment enough. Why lighten his sentence by suspending him?

  6. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    I agree that if the suspension gets him playing finals next year that they will have gotten off lightly as the deliberately obstructive behaviour of officials is pretty serious, though he only got caught because of his ex going off so you wonder how many other times this happens.

    I think the draft pick losses are fair and that the AFL would be quite happy to impose them as it will bring back GWS to a normal draft position next year once they go into deficit. Once they start having to pick and choose between their academy pool the hysteria will hopefully die down a bit
    You are confusing two issues.

    The drug issues does not warrant draft pick losses. Its a first and 2nd round pick. So GWS traded out a lot of players (again, because AFL brought forward list reductions based on nothing by vic paranoia) to gain other picks, but that is irrelevant. If they didnt trade out, they wouldnt have a pick before round 3. A ridiculous over reaction to missing a drug test.

    GWS have got the list they have with basically the same concessions as Gold coast. One successful, the other not. And as far as success goes, GWS have yet to make a grand final. This is a million miles away from what the Swans achieved, and a trillion miles away from Hawthorn's 3-peat. If the AFL deems it its prerogative to penalize success (as it did to Swans, but no other vic teams), then it should at least wait until some success is achieved.

    The AFL, in their inherit corruption, are using a minor drug issue to fix a perceived draft inequality, that they created.
    If they are going to cut back draft picks, then just call it that. By stripping the 1st round draft pick, GWS essentially lost Trelor (sp?) for 1 first round draft pick, not the 2 they negotiated.
    Makes a mockery of trading/drafting just like the trade ban we received did. This is now normal operation for the AFL. We should have gone after them for the trade ban. GWS, being still propped up by the AFL, have no legs to challenge it.
    Last edited by barry; 14th November 2016 at 09:48 AM.

  7. #19
    RWOs Black Sheep AnnieH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    At Goodesy's Place
    Posts
    11,332
    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    Surprised we havent lost a draft pick for talia actually positive drug saga.

    Something like 8 clubs withheld the wearabouts of players for drug tests.

    Im not against banning the player and the officials, but trade bans equivalent to essendon is way way to excessive.
    Talia was caught with the drugs in his possession.
    AFAIK, he didn't test positive to anything.
    Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
    Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.

  8. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by chalbilto View Post
    Is this a political or footy forum?
    Theres a lot of people in the AFL who act like politicians wth power and conmen with sexist attitudes, so its all relevant.

  9. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Bloods05 View Post

    What the AFL really hates is the idea that a non-Victorian club could enjoy a period of dominance like Hawthorn's - EXCEPT for GWS. The difference is that western Sydney represents a huge untapped market for them, and they think they can make a killing over the long term by building them into a force.
    Come on the real reason why the AFL wants GWS to succeed is because there are a few people who stand to make money from the venture, one being Mike Fitzpatrick. Once they get their spoils they will move on. They remind me of greedy pollies with developer or corporate mates. Everything is ripe for making money regardless and once the $ are made its move on to the next bit and let those remaining sort out the long term issues. Lions a perfect example.

    If the AFL was truly committed to expansion they would drop their Victorian bias and force all of the teams in Melbourne to present a case why they should survive past the next 5 years or merge ASAP.

    But that isnt going to happen because the majority of $ comes from melbourne.

  10. #22
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Shire
    Posts
    129
    GWS Penalties suggested here seem fair and I'm a giants member.
    Adelaide had draft penalties as part of the Kurt Tippett salary cap drama.
    Carn the Southern Power.....

  11. #23
    Reefer Madness
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    in a yellow submarine
    Posts
    4,359
    Blog Entries
    1
    My views on the AFL admin are well documented on here. I think Fitzpatrick is a crook and Gil a bed wetter. So I can't believe I am saying this, but reckon they've got this right. Here's why:

    - Whitfield gets a penalty for actively breaking rules, though reckon it should be 12 not six months to be consistent with the one given officials
    - Gubby and Lambert actively helped someone avoid a drug test, so regardless of my views on recreational drugs, they actively broke the rules
    - both have left the club, which means there needs to be a penalty for the club - hence draft picks
    - the difference between this and say, Michael Talia or Ryan Crowley, is the club should be penalised because its own officials were complicit in the act.

    The added, and real joy of course, is Collingwood also gets punished along the way and Eddie suffers. Yay. Eat another chin fat boy.

  12. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by yorlik View Post
    Come on the real reason why the AFL wants GWS to succeed is because there are a few people who stand to make money from the venture, one being Mike Fitzpatrick. Once they get their spoils they will move on. They remind me of greedy pollies with developer or corporate mates. Everything is ripe for making money regardless and once the $ are made its move on to the next bit and let those remaining sort out the long term issues. Lions a perfect example.

    If the AFL was truly committed to expansion they would drop their Victorian bias and force all of the teams in Melbourne to present a case why they should survive past the next 5 years or merge ASAP.

    But that isnt going to happen because the majority of $ comes from melbourne.
    I never know how to respond to this kind of wildly speculative, agenda-driven argument.

    I think it's best I don't.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... 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