Elephant in the boom

[SaintPauli]

One word makes the problem disappear. DRAFT. If player managers and the players association don't like it, who cares. It's worked for years in the AFL. Honestly they must think the organisation of this code is a joke. Tod it's time to face reality. People wonder how Paul McGregor can hold his job, this moron is worse. Answer me this Tod,
If the AFL have got it wrong and the NRL don't need a DRAFT.
Why, does the AFL attract a bigger $ for television rights.
Why does the AFL attract more corporate $
Why does AFL membership far exceeds NRL membership, supporters.
How does a team in the AFL make the grand final after only seven years in the comp when we have long established teams that have no idea when they will play in a grand final, we are one of them.
Why can an AFL team get more supporters at training than some NRL clubs get at home games. Don't say it's a Victorian thing the Sydney Swans have done it.
The Swans failed to make the semi's this year. So why do they average more attendance at there home games then any NSW based NRL club.
Tod I sincerely apologize for the length of this post. I didn't mean to confuse you. But I am more than willing to supply someone to explain the contents of this post to you and your hierarchy, who have no idea how to comprehend common sense.
My 4 year old niece.

Very good points indeed. I also do believe the afl are ahead and also the DRAFT and proping up unsuccessful teams increases memberships. Theirs are leaps and bounds ahead of us.

 

[SaintPauli]

Besides tpas rorters have an advanatage $ wise as there is no salary cap with coaches and players outside top 30.

Roosters have a bottomless pit to pick
1. One of the best coaches.
2. The best juniors from whole of sydney basin.

 

[Frank Facer]

How many more years of Roosters dominance before the NRL steps in and changes the cap rules before they ruin the game for everyone but the 5000 Rooster supporters. I’m already jack of it.

If you can't beat them, back them.

 

[getsmarty]

If you can't beat them, back them.

Specials for sure...almost got done...

 

[Frank Facer]

Specials for sure...almost got done...

Unless they lose JWH and Crichton they look a good bet to win next year's comp.

 

[Forbes Creek Dragons]

Unless they lose JWH and Crichton they look a good bet to win next year's comp.

One thing that confuses me about them is not only have they never been done for salary cap cheating but you seldom hear about them even being under pressure to shed players and when they do it’s usually because the club wants them gone not the other way around. I can see them winning a fair few while Tedesco is at the club.
Other teams after a GF players that might have been astute buys like the Manu, Taukeiaho’s etc of the world start to not fly under the radar anymore and attract substantially more money. Doesn’t seem to happen with them.

 

[Old Timer]

Except that the AFL draft has never been challenged in court.

Come on OT. You don’t have to be a legal expert to understand the difference. Get off your high horse and look at it. You have a good brain when you’re not going off half cocked.

OK let's try this way to get to a conclusion.
Here I am referring to the posters that keep saying you cant have a draft due to legal reasons.
If a draft is a restriction of trade as some people suggest it is then there has to be a legal connotation applied to that logic.
Does anyone think that AFL players are dumb and wouldn't want to be paid more and they just sit idly by whilst the so called "restriction of trade" is forced upon them?
Do they think that the ACCC wouldn't be suggesting that the AFL needed to get rid of it to ensure free market if it was illegal?
The reason why the draft works in the AFL is simple in that the AFL run the f**king game and create the rules and by laws and the way contracts are drafted.
Be part of the system we have created or piss off and do your shit somewhere else and it is that simple.
The NRL and all its former entities have suffered because the modern players refuse to go to a club that may not suit them as was the case with Terry Hill which escalated the situation way beyond the case that involved Dennis Tutty.
The players association got behind Hill and boycotts were threatened and the people in charge folded like a cheap suit.
Players openly muted that if forced to go to a club they didn't want to go to they might run out on the paddock but wouldn't "play" for the club in other words do SFA and of course would happily see their contract out in reserve grade whilst earning big $$$ if that was the case.
No doubt player managers also figured in the way that it all transpired but be in no doubt the contracts were then drafted to ensure NRL players were so called "free agents".
FFS in the old days John Wittenberg had to sit out the entire 1966 season as part of his transfer conditions just so he could come to the Dragons from Qld and in doing so it cost him a premiership.
Once upon a time the people, that ran RL were fearless in the way that the game was administered and that is not the case now.

 

[The calm one]

OK let's try this way to get to a conclusion.
Here I am referring to the posters that keep saying you cant have a draft due to legal reasons.
If a draft is a restriction of trade as some people suggest it is then there has to be a legal connotation applied to that logic.
Does anyone think that AFL players are dumb and wouldn't want to be paid more and they just sit idly by whilst the so called "restriction of trade" is forced upon them?
Do they think that the ACCC wouldn't be suggesting that the AFL needed to get rid of it to ensure free market if it was illegal?
The reason why the draft works in the AFL is simple in that the AFL run the f**king game and create the rules and by laws and the way contracts are drafted.
Be part of the system we have created or piss off and do your shit somewhere else and it is that simple.
The NRL and all its former entities have suffered because the modern players refuse to go to a club that may not suit them as was the case with Terry Hill which escalated the situation way beyond the case that involved Dennis Tutty.
The players association got behind Hill and boycotts were threatened and the people in charge folded like a cheap suit.
Players openly muted that if forced to go to a club they didn't want to go to they might run out on the paddock but wouldn't "play" for the club in other words do SFA and of course would happily see their contract out in reserve grade whilst earning big $$$ if that was the case.
No doubt player managers also figured in the way that it all transpired but be in no doubt the contracts were then drafted to ensure NRL players were so called "free agents".
FFS in the old days John Wittenberg had to sit out the entire 1966 season as part of his transfer conditions just so he could come to the Dragons from Qld and in doing so it cost him a premiership.
Once upon a time the people, that ran RL were fearless in the way that the game was administered and that is not the case now.

Thanks mate someone can see my point. The game is getting to the stage where it is dull.
Here's a prediction for the NRL top four next year, Roosters, Storm, Raiders & Manly. I have nothing against the last 2 mentioned. They have worked hard to get there.
Now go ask an AFL fanatic is there top four next year so predictable, I know what he/she will say.

 

[getsmarty]

One thing that confuses me about them is not only have they never been done for salary cap cheating but you seldom hear about them even being under pressure to shed players and when they do it’s usually because the club wants them gone not the other way around. I can see them winning a fair few while Tedesco is at the club.
Other teams after a GF players that might have been astute buys like the Manu, Taukeiaho’s etc of the world start to not fly under the radar anymore and attract substantially more money. Doesn’t seem to happen with them.

Spot on...

 

[Dragonslayer]

Interestingly, the AFL began trade week today. Interesting because today it was those who have requested a trade and those who are called free or unrestricted agents, I gather these are the players off contract or have no contract.

From what I can see, the trade period seems to be those players under contract who want to go somewhere else (for whatever reason) but the club requires some sort of compensation in return, this often takes the shape of a draft pick or player swap. TBH I'm not sure whether there is any monetary compensation.

 

[getsmarty]

Interestingly, the AFL began trade week today. Interesting because today it was those who have requested a trade and those who are called free or unrestricted agents, I gather these are the players off contract or have no contract.

From what I can see, the trade period seems to be those players under contract who want to go somewhere else (for whatever reason) but the club requires some sort of compensation in return, this often takes the shape of a draft pick or player swap. TBH I'm not sure whether there is any monetary compensation.

Well it is better than the same 2 teams having a monopoly on players in the NRL.

The Administrators need to take notice of the Low Television Audience...lowest since 2003...

People are turning off in droves...plenty of reasons.....

Same Teams dominating/ Judiciary decisions seemingly not being uniform/ Same for Refereeing decisions/Game has become boring...too much wrestle..etc

 

[Frank Facer]

OK let's try this way to get to a conclusion.
Here I am referring to the posters that keep saying you cant have a draft due to legal reasons.
If a draft is a restriction of trade as some people suggest it is then there has to be a legal connotation applied to that logic.
Does anyone think that AFL players are dumb and wouldn't want to be paid more and they just sit idly by whilst the so called "restriction of trade" is forced upon them?
Do they think that the ACCC wouldn't be suggesting that the AFL needed to get rid of it to ensure free market if it was illegal?
The reason why the draft works in the AFL is simple in that the AFL run the f**king game and create the rules and by laws and the way contracts are drafted.
Be part of the system we have created or piss off and do your shit somewhere else and it is that simple.
The NRL and all its former entities have suffered because the modern players refuse to go to a club that may not suit them as was the case with Terry Hill which escalated the situation way beyond the case that involved Dennis Tutty.
The players association got behind Hill and boycotts were threatened and the people in charge folded like a cheap suit.
Players openly muted that if forced to go to a club they didn't want to go to they might run out on the paddock but wouldn't "play" for the club in other words do SFA and of course would happily see their contract out in reserve grade whilst earning big $$$ if that was the case.
No doubt player managers also figured in the way that it all transpired but be in no doubt the contracts were then drafted to ensure NRL players were so called "free agents".
FFS in the old days John Wittenberg had to sit out the entire 1966 season as part of his transfer conditions just so he could come to the Dragons from Qld and in doing so it cost him a premiership.
Once upon a time the people, that ran RL were fearless in the way that the game was administered and that is not the case now.

Terry Hill only contested the validity of the draft under Nick Politis and co's instructions. They probably paid for his legal fees too. It was Easts/Politis who challenged the validity of the draft. Politis is one of the games power brokers. He was a central figure for the ARL in the Superleage war. He is definitely one of the most powerful people in the game. Easts/Politis don't want a draft, that is why we don't have a draft.

 

[Frank Facer]

I don't blame the players for not wanting the draft. They would have no say in who they were going to play for, where they were going to live, who would be their coach. Players may be less likely to move clubs with a draft in place?

 

[Cogburn]

Thanks mate someone can see my point. The game is getting to the stage where it is dull.
Here's a prediction for the NRL top four next year, Roosters, Storm, Raiders & Manly. I have nothing against the last 2 mentioned. They have worked hard to get there.
Now go ask an AFL fanatic is there top four next year so predictable, I know what he/she will say.

You mean like the 50's and 60's when the top 4 was always saints, Souths, Balmain and Wests.

 

[Cogburn]

You mean like the 50's and 60's when the top 4 was always saints, Souths, Balmain and Wests.

St George and Souths featured in every GF from 1956 till 1971.

 

[Kiwi Dragon supporter]

Thanks mate someone can see my point. The game is getting to the stage where it is dull.
Here's a prediction for the NRL top four next year, Roosters, Storm, Raiders & Manly. I have nothing against the last 2 mentioned. They have worked hard to get there.
Now go ask an AFL fanatic is there top four next year so predictable, I know what he/she will say.

An article today on the NRL site mirrors your prediction. The only teams who could upset the Roosters are Raiders, Melbourne, Manly, Souths from memory. Of course no mention of the Dragons but of course they could be in the running for the prestigious wooden spoon.

 

[Old Timer]

You mean like the 50's and 60's when the top 4 was always saints, Souths, Balmain and Wests.

Between 55 and 66 in a 10 team comp the semifinalists were 9 different teams
Parra x 4, Easts x1, Newtown x 6, St G x 12, Manly x 6, Souths x 4, Balmain x 6, Wests x 7, Norths x 2.
Considering St G won 11 in a row your stat re St G & Souths in every GF is a little meaningless.

 

[The calm one]

I don't blame the players for not wanting the draft. They would have no say in who they were going to play for, where they were going to live, who would be their coach. Players may be less likely to move clubs with a draft in place?

If I was going to become a millionaire for doing it I couldn't give a stuff where I lived or who I played for. It is a short term commitment to set you up for life

 

[Cogburn]

Between 55 and 66 in a 10 team comp the semifinalists were 9 different teams
Parra x 4, Easts x1, Newtown x 6, St G x 12, Manly x 6, Souths x 4, Balmain x 6, Wests x 7, Norths x 2.
Considering St G won 11 in a row your stat re St G & Souths in every GF is a little meaningless.

Hahahaha you can't have it both ways. Having a go at the Roosters because we won 2 in a row, and the Storm because they are always competitive but when someone questions your saints team and Souths domination in the 50s and 60s when they appeared in every GF from 56 to 71 well then oh that's different, yeah right. My advice to you is just acknowledge what a great side this Roosters team is.

 

[Old Timer]

Hahahaha you can't have it both ways. Having a go at the Roosters because we won 2 in a row, and the Storm because they are always competitive but when someone questions your saints team and Souths domination in the 50s and 60s when they appeared in every GF from 56 to 71 well then oh that's different, yeah right. My advice to you is just acknowledge what a great side this Roosters team is.

Angry little person aren't we.
For the record I never had a go at anyone or anything nor did I say anything derogatory about the Roosters or their achievements.
I simply corrected your gross inaccuracy as to how many team played in SF football during the 50's & 60's.
Why don't you just acknowledge the fact that in a ten team comp where you only played 9 opponents per season that over the 12 year period I quoted all but 1 club (The Dogs) featured during the semi finals.
Of course the Dogs then regrouped and became a dominant force shortly there after.