Tex Power and Sydney discussion

[powersuperkents]

Yeh, lets face it there isnt to many clubs that could afford to lose talented players like those two, Hawks the exception to the rule after buddy walking, they were better set up to handle such a loss. We certainly dont have the same luxury at the minute.

The Hawks are certainly the exception, they didn't even really need Buddy in 2013. They just have a great administration, by far the most well managed team in the competition. Furthermore, Alastair Clarkson has a MBA so we can see just how advantageous business acumen can be to a coach - just look at the sustainability of their list, my team -the Power- are incredibly young, however only time will tell if the list is sustainable - the age of the list is the reason that at this point in time we can surrender our 1st & 2nd round picks for Ryder, in two to three years we may not have that luxury. 

Collingwood were a young team when they were on top but there list wasn't sustainable - Geelong is the only other team comparable to the Hawks and like the Hawks they fall - not to the same extent - to rebuild. Things look difficult for the Cats now though - players want to leave unlike before

Agree the age of your list makes it reasonable to give up those picks for a guy that could be the missing the piece in the jigsaw, a great get and worthy of loosing those picks.
Yep the Hawks are now a class act, have been for a few years and certainly Clarko has a lot to do with that. The timeline of him arriving till now shows that. I rate the hawks up there with Sydney, all class.

The marketability of the Swan's location means they get an excessive amount of advantages from the AFL. The COLA was ridiculous, rate the Swans as a top tier team, don't rate the organisation and their interactions with the AFL - allowing Barry Hall to play in the 2005 Grand Final was corrupt, no other club would have been given that exemption. The problem is the AFL will always back the Swan's and every now and then impose petty punishments which have no impact on the club whatsoever to make it appear consistent - what's the point of banning them from trading the season after acquiring both Tippett and Buddy, they had no intention to trade this season anyway. Again, the Swans players are incredible - the players and coaches are the class acts, don't like the club at all though, imo they receive more benefits than GWS & the GCS and they are a historic team - the Brisbane Bears were never given the same advantages and they were an expansion that had to resort to merging to remain solvent.

Imho If they weren't based in Sydney, they would never even be capable of being the team they were today

This is all my opinion - purely based on my perceptions, not a formal inquiry and I'm sure there could be things I've overlooked justifying some of this incidents  :P

[Grazz]

You raise some good points in particular Brisbane with which i agree wholeheartedly. I think with Sydney they played and acted within the boundaries they were set and made the most of it, be silly not to. My angst lays with the AFL and making this possible not so much the club.

[powersuperkents]

You raise some good points in particular Brisbane with which i agree wholeheartedly. I think with Sydney they played and acted within the boundaries they were set and made the most of it, be silly not to. My angst lays with the AFL and making this possible not so much the club.

Yeah that is the more logical approach. Any club would take advantage of the benefits - I know the Power certainly did from 97-07, and if the Swans turn NSW into an AFL state (unlikely), the AFL stands to benefit the most - which I think is the reason for all the assistance. Nevertheless, they are still a strong team, although they are not as entertaining as other clubs, their restrictive brand of football is the most strategically advanced, it's ironic that the Hawks decided the only way to beat this style was to outrun it - the one thing this strategic aims to prevent hahaha

[Mailman the 2nd]

Imho If they weren't based in Sydney, they would never even be capable of being the team they were today

What's that supposed to mean? The team was built of strong management in the early 2000s the same way that Hawthorn and Geelong did.

All 3 had advantages, Hawks had priority picks, Geelong had a bunch of F/S picks that turned out fantastic and had a 2001 super draft and Sydney used trading, recycling and had minor cap help to players (until the big deal)

Not a particularly well thought out argument sorry

[Grazz]

Yeh a big engine will get it done, we've seen it with your mob, run run run, run them/anyone into the ground.

The AFL's pipe dream of making NSW a football state is just that a pipe dream, someone bought some good drugs to the meeting the day they envisaged this happening. It's about as good as its gunna get right now with room for improvement for GWS regarding crowds but never will it be a football state. Theres room for both codes in the state, alot of football fans now live in Sydney due to employment opportunities etc and it's cool they have a game to go to locally and good for the comp also if we truly want to be a national comp, still some work to be done there though and i'll always say Tassy should of got the next gig before GWS. The AFL will be throwing good money at GWS for years to prop them up. A bit of success for GWS will change the crowd situation in a hurry but will it be what the AFL expects, i have serious doubts it will for some time to come but will get better.

[Mailman the 2nd]

Yeah the whole reason GWS didn't get the trading ban was because the AFL is still propping them until they can get wins on the board. They'll get a serviceable base of fans then. Gold Coast is pretty much off the leash already considering they're close to finals.

The idea that recruiting two players takes a team from one of the most respected cultures to one of the most despised is stupid in itself. The fact people now make up arguments to say they thought that the whole time is the funny bit.

[powersuperkents]

Imho If they weren't based in Sydney, they would never even be capable of being the team they were today

What's that supposed to mean? The team was built of strong management in the early 2000s the same way that Hawthorn and Geelong did.

All 3 had advantages, Hawks had priority picks, Geelong had a bunch of F/S picks that turned out fantastic and had a 2001 super draft and Sydney used trading, recycling and had minor cap help to players (until the big deal)

Not a particularly well thought out argument sorry

Paul Roos was a great coach, however, Geelong's super draft was at there own accord - they were solely responsible and father/son picks are the norm - can only name Gaj & Scarlett though. Priority picks are also the norm.

Conversely, salary cap help is not the norm when it involves a club established in 1874 and moved to Sydney in 1982. Melbourne, Richmond etc. had more reason to provide salary cap benefits, yet they had assistance only through priority picks - an annual occurrence. The Swans at the time had more than enough time to establish itself without any benefits. No other club has been granted that exception or benefit. Malthouse (at Carlton) & McGuire (whose club receives similar help through mass membership - which is legitimate) have complained of Sydney's benefits, and many have questioned it. Hawthorn and Geelongs benefits are legitimate, Sydney's benefits have no explanation behind them and no other team in a similar position has received even remotely the same assistance as a salary cap increase - cost of living in Sydney is not so different that it warrants a salary cap increase of that magnitude. Recycling players is fine, but I don't have as much respect for teams that can create lucrative transfers because they can make offers other clubs aren't entitled to make - hence why everybody supported Hawthorn this premiership beside Swans supporters - no COLA = Buddy in GWS. The COLA, which was ridiculous, was for the purpose of cost of living, not to outbid other clubs. I bet GWS won't be provided the same advantages as the Swans once they have a salary cap enforced on them - same goes for GCS. It's the methods in which Sydney became a powerful team that I'm impugning.

Additionally, can someone please explain why Barry Hall was permitted to play in the 2005 premiership? If that was a vital player from any other club there would be no way they could participate in the biggest game of the season the next week.     

[powersuperkents]

I agree, NRL's presence in Sydney is as strong as AFL's in Melbourne. Unless they can create 8 more teams in that city, it's not going to happen  :P

[powersuperkents]

Granted concern about salary cap assistance should be directed at the AFL rather than Sydney - as it is imposed upon them by the AFL rather than something they themselves created.

[tbagrocks]

I agree, NRL's presence in Sydney is as strong as AFL's in Melbourne. Unless they can create 8 more teams in that city, it's not going to happen  :P

What about the Western Sydney Wanderers winning the Asian Champions League? The GWS are flowered now, will struggle to get the ten K 10, 000 crowed now

I blame that idiot Dumbetriou. Wrong place wrong time

[Grazz]

Hope you never meet Andy in the street mate, the FF community will have to pass a tin around to bail you out. :P

[powersuperkents]

I agree, NRL's presence in Sydney is as strong as AFL's in Melbourne. Unless they can create 8 more teams in that city, it's not going to happen  :P

What about the Western Sydney Wanderers winning the Asian Champions League? The GWS are flowered now, will struggle to get the ten K 10, 000 crowed now

I blame that idiot Dumbetriou. Wrong place wrong time

Western Sydney has always contained the largest soccer demographic in the country as well. Wouldn't be surprised if they became the biggest team in the A-League. Yeah GWS are really in trouble, they are in territory that is dominated by kids who play soccer or rugby, long standing rugby teams (a lot more than one of them as well) and now the A-League's expansion who are dominating in their early years (only a little over 2 years old...)

[Mailman the 2nd]

Imho If they weren't based in Sydney, they would never even be capable of being the team they were today

What's that supposed to mean? The team was built of strong management in the early 2000s the same way that Hawthorn and Geelong did.

All 3 had advantages, Hawks had priority picks, Geelong had a bunch of F/S picks that turned out fantastic and had a 2001 super draft and Sydney used trading, recycling and had minor cap help to players (until the big deal)

Not a particularly well thought out argument sorry

Paul Roos was a great coach, however, Geelong's super draft was at there own accord - they were solely responsible and father/son picks are the norm - can only name Gaj & Scarlett though. Priority picks are also the norm.

Conversely, salary cap help is not the norm when it involves a club established in 1874 and moved to Sydney in 1982. Melbourne, Richmond etc. had more reason to provide salary cap benefits, yet they had assistance only through priority picks - an annual occurrence. The Swans at the time had more than enough time to establish itself without any benefits. No other club has been granted that exception or benefit. Malthouse (at Carlton) & McGuire (whose club receives similar help through mass membership - which is legitimate) have complained of Sydney's benefits, and many have questioned it. Hawthorn and Geelongs benefits are legitimate, Sydney's benefits have no explanation behind them and no other team in a similar position has received even remotely the same assistance as a salary cap increase - cost of living in Sydney is not so different that it warrants a salary cap increase of that magnitude. Recycling players is fine, but I don't have as much respect for teams that can create lucrative transfers because they can make offers other clubs aren't entitled to make - hence why everybody supported Hawthorn this premiership beside Swans supporters - no COLA = Buddy in GWS. The COLA, which was ridiculous, was for the purpose of cost of living, not to outbid other clubs. I bet GWS won't be provided the same advantages as the Swans once they have a salary cap enforced on them - same goes for GCS. It's the methods in which Sydney became a powerful team that I'm impugning.

Additionally, can someone please explain why Barry Hall was permitted to play in the 2005 premiership? If that was a vital player from any other club there would be no way they could participate in the biggest game of the season the next week.     

Couple of things:

- You can't say that Hall would've been suspended at any other club, especially with the volatility of the MRP and tribunal in the modern era. Saying otherwise is just conspiracy mongering.

- Were Malthouse and McGuire complaining about it in 2010? 2011? The exact same system was in place then. They complain because they're club is unsuccessful and they simply scapegoat other clubs. They did the exact same thing to Brisbane.

- Father/Son and Priority Picks are not the norm. PP are given specifically to give advantages to other clubs and F/S is inherently biased towards Melbourne founded clubs. You distribute Roughead, Hawkins, GAJ and Scarlett to different clubs and you'd have had a much more diverse competition.

- You know GWS had the exact same COLA right? Take 10% off his contract and neither Hawthorn nor GWS would've signed him anyway. Neither would've gone for a 9 year deal. It took the Swans to offload some 10 players to do it as well. Tippett and Franklin would've been at Sydney regardless.

- There was a reason for the cap increase. It was the increased living allowance. Was it poorly designed for high earning footballers? Yes, but it still had merit, there wasn't "no explanation given"

[powersuperkents]

Imho If they weren't based in Sydney, they would never even be capable of being the team they were today

What's that supposed to mean? The team was built of strong management in the early 2000s the same way that Hawthorn and Geelong did.

All 3 had advantages, Hawks had priority picks, Geelong had a bunch of F/S picks that turned out fantastic and had a 2001 super draft and Sydney used trading, recycling and had minor cap help to players (until the big deal)

Not a particularly well thought out argument sorry

Paul Roos was a great coach, however, Geelong's super draft was at there own accord - they were solely responsible and father/son picks are the norm - can only name Gaj & Scarlett though. Priority picks are also the norm.

Conversely, salary cap help is not the norm when it involves a club established in 1874 and moved to Sydney in 1982. Melbourne, Richmond etc. had more reason to provide salary cap benefits, yet they had assistance only through priority picks - an annual occurrence. The Swans at the time had more than enough time to establish itself without any benefits. No other club has been granted that exception or benefit. Malthouse (at Carlton) & McGuire (whose club receives similar help through mass membership - which is legitimate) have complained of Sydney's benefits, and many have questioned it. Hawthorn and Geelongs benefits are legitimate, Sydney's benefits have no explanation behind them and no other team in a similar position has received even remotely the same assistance as a salary cap increase - cost of living in Sydney is not so different that it warrants a salary cap increase of that magnitude. Recycling players is fine, but I don't have as much respect for teams that can create lucrative transfers because they can make offers other clubs aren't entitled to make - hence why everybody supported Hawthorn this premiership beside Swans supporters - no COLA = Buddy in GWS. The COLA, which was ridiculous, was for the purpose of cost of living, not to outbid other clubs. I bet GWS won't be provided the same advantages as the Swans once they have a salary cap enforced on them - same goes for GCS. It's the methods in which Sydney became a powerful team that I'm impugning.

Additionally, can someone please explain why Barry Hall was permitted to play in the 2005 premiership? If that was a vital player from any other club there would be no way they could participate in the biggest game of the season the next week.     

Couple of things:

- You can't say that Hall would've been suspended at any other club, especially with the volatility of the MRP and tribunal in the modern era. Saying otherwise is just conspiracy mongering.

- Were Malthouse and McGuire complaining about it in 2010? 2011? The exact same system was in place then. They complain because they're club is unsuccessful and they simply scapegoat other clubs. They did the exact same thing to Brisbane.

- Father/Son and Priority Picks are not the norm. PP are given specifically to give advantages to other clubs and F/S is inherently biased towards Melbourne founded clubs. You distribute Roughead, Hawkins, GAJ and Scarlett to different clubs and you'd have had a much more diverse competition.

- You know GWS had the exact same COLA right? Take 10% off his contract and neither Hawthorn nor GWS would've signed him anyway. Neither would've gone for a 9 year deal. It took the Swans to offload some 10 players to do it as well. Tippett and Franklin would've been at Sydney regardless.

- There was a reason for the cap increase. It was the increased living allowance. Was it poorly designed for high earning footballers? Yes, but it still had merit, there wasn't "no explanation given"

Just a few areas where I need clarification.

Firstly, I can't name any incident where a player has assaulted another player and not been suspended for a period longer than 1 week. I just want someone to unequivocally explain to me how this was possible, or of course I'm going to presume it's a flawed proceeding. 

Secondly, Malthouse and McGuire complained after the Buddy trade. At the time Carlton were 9th and finished 6th, Collingwood were 6th and finished 8th. I wouldn't call it scapegoating because a majority of people found the circumstances of the Franklin trade deplorable - exactly why so many people wanted it to fail. I also don't like McGuire as well, however when Malthouse has a point it's reasonable to listen (although he was complaining about Collingwood during that same time period). Furthermore, of course Malthouse would be angry, he had to allow the Betts trade to go through just so they would have room in the salary cap to sign Dale Thomas - Sydney spend a lot more money yet no sacrifice whatsoever was made to accommodate Franklin - which is blatantly unfair on every other club.

Thirdly, F/S pick were established in.... the 1940s (you really need to research that before making that statement). Before the AFL existing there were F/S picks. Furthermore, there are plenty of exceptions allowing eligibility to SANFL & WAFL veterans son's - Ben Cousins is one example. How is F/S picks bias to Sydney though? Regardless, the South Melbourne Swans or the Sydney Swans have F/S picks.. Tom Mitchell is an F/S pick... Sean Dempster was an F/S pick... The F/S rule is indiscriminate... If the son of a player who previously played 100 or more games for your club is available, you have priority in selecting them. They have tweaked the rules for newer clubs but that only concerns Port Adelaide, Fremantle, GWS, & GCS. Not Sydney.

Fourthly, prior to 2012 a team received priority picks if they had a win/loss record that met a specific criteria. They were the norm. Now I agree, giving priority picks at the AFL's discretion is ridiculous and will result in favouritism but it's in a time period that is irrelevant to our discussions on Hawthorn - and mainly concerns the Demons who actually need priority pick, although their use of them was fairly criticised.

This is complete bs "You know GWS had the exact same COLA right? Take 10% off his contract and neither Hawthorn nor GWS would've signed him anyway. Neither would've gone for a 9 year deal. It took the Swans to offload some 10 players to do it as well. Tippett and Franklin would've been at Sydney regardless."

GWS don't have a salary cap! So a COLA would be redundant - common sense!!! Moreover, the COLA applies to location of the club. Western Sydney has a lower cost of living to the East side. Therefore, GWS will most likely never have been provided with this benefit after their unlimited salary cap time period expires.

Furthermore, Sydney offloaded the second least amount of players in the 2013 off-season!!!

Players Sydney off-loaded in 2013:
Alex Brown (delisted)
Jude Bolton (retired)
Marty Mattner (retired)
Mitch Morton (retired)
Tony Armstrong (delisted)

Source: http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne/sport/afl/news/2013/9/afl-delistings-and-retirements-2013/
further confirmation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_AFL_season#Team_changes

This season 5 players left at their own volition - not the clubs..

Finally, it's not a question of whether or not Buddy & Tippett would have gotten to Sydney, but the means of how they got there. I see you're a Blood's supporter so of-course (referring above) you will take allegations against the club to heart, but deceitful rhetoric which takes only a google search to verify will not resolve it. I'm not stating that Sydney cheat, if there was any cheating it would be by the AFL to gain a larger target market. All I'm saying is out of all 18 clubs, the organisational circumstances & incidents surrounding the Swans and there interactions with the AFL makes their operations the most questionable in the AFL. Obviously it's not just me who thinks this - most controversial articles concerning the AFL regards the Swans, furthermore there is nothing illegal going on. All I'm stating is the information exists, information indicating that the Swan's are provided an array of undistributed benefits from the AFL which no other club in the league has been provided. Nothing more, and nothing less. Whether or not they opportunistically utilise these benefits (as any person with a brain should do) to assist in achieving success is irrelevant and not of anyone's concern - if concern was to be directed.. it should be directed at the AFL, again it's not illegal, but it is, by definition, unfair - but that's just business. The bottom line is, evidence exists that indicates that the Swan's are provided numerous financial and procedural benefits by the AFL which no other club i entitled to. These benefits are intended to take the largest market in Australia - i.e. Sydney, Canberra, & NSW in it's entirety. Therefore, it can be inferred that advantages are given to the Swans by the AFL.   

       

[GoLions]

Furthermore, of course Malthouse would be angry, he had to allow the Betts trade to go through just so they would have room in the salary cap to sign Dale Thomas - Sydney spend a lot more money yet no sacrifice whatsoever was made to accommodate Franklin - which is blatantly unfair on every other club.