AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Matt80]

My whole point is that Gill is heavily influenced by interest groups. One of the interest groups has been after the Swans for years. Gill has now taken the advice of the interest group and whacked the Swans.

I simply speculated that an outside hire for AFL CEO, would not have been beholden to the existing political architecture in the AFL.

In my opinion the World Leading Sporting Administrators are found in the NFL. The AFL and NRL go on tours to the USA every year to meet the NFL executives and learn about "Worlds Best Practice".

You can disagree with me on the NFL and "Worlds Best Practice". You can declare Gill as the best sporting administrator in the World.

I then spoke about the financial impracticalities of landing a good NFL executive.

Come on people. Open your minds and realise that analysis of an AFL issue can be looked at with outside material. It's not derailing a thread, it's providing a different perspective on the thread.

[0918330512]

Perhaps I could try to interpret for non-speakers of Mattese.

LoL

Paragraph 1: Matt commends Ludwig for his real-world view.

This might need a small addendum ... Matt80 was admonished for something recently by a number of the RWO community, served a self-imposed exile for a short period, returned with a post praising another RWO member to curry some favour (this might be an individual - as in this instance, or a sub-group - typically the female members). Then, believing that all is atoned, proceeds to de-rail another thread with some off topic waffle.

[Ludwig]

You are on fire Ludwig. What a wonderful analysis of the Gill situation. You have a real world view of the situation, which is to be commended.

[707]

Hoping this comprimise deal which saves face for the AFL & Gillon McGuire, I mean McLoughlin, means that we won't get screwed in the Academy bidding process they are currently reviewing.

It doesn't help that straight after the Heeney bargain of last draft we have Mills as the current nominal No.1 pick this year and also Josh Dunkley. This is a bit of :-) and :-( depending on the outcome.

[Bloods05]

My whole point is that Gill is heavily influenced by interest groups. One of the interest groups has been after the Swans for years. Gill has now taken the advice of the interest group and whacked the Swans.

I simply speculated that an outside hire for AFL CEO, would not have been beholden to the existing political architecture in the AFL.

In my opinion the World Leading Sporting Administrators are found in the NFL. The AFL and NRL go on tours to the USA every year to meet the NFL executives and learn about "Worlds Best Practice".

You can disagree with me on the NFL and "Worlds Best Practice". You can declare Gill as the best sporting administrator in the World.

I then spoke about the financial impracticalities of landing a good NFL executive.

Come on people. Open your minds and realise that analysis of an AFL issue can be looked at with outside material. It's not derailing a thread, it's providing a different perspective on the thread.

Gotta hand it to you Matt, you have a unique way of missing the point.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Perhaps I could try to interpret for non-speakers of Mattese.

Paragraph 1: Matt commends Ludwig for his real-world view.

Paragraphs 2-6: Matt proceeds to expound his own cloud-cuckoo-land view. This involves a metaphor that appears to describe the AFL as a building made out of feathers.

Paragraph 7: Matt speculates, bizarrely, that the AFL might be as divorced from reality as he is. This provides him with an opportunity to impress us with some figures that show how much he knows about a sport that most of us aren't interested in, or if we are, we go elsewhere to talk about it so we aren't boring the pants off those who aren't.

Paragraphs 8-9: Matt is barely able to contain his excitement as he hyperventilates over the vast amounts of money sloshing around the NFL, and wishes the AFL could find a way to generate enough of it to pay an American who doesn't even know what Australian Rules is an obscenely inflated salary that would put him in the top 0.01% of income "earners" in the world so that he wouldn't be beholden to sectional interests within the game, for some reason he doesn't explain, but possibly because he may have some experience of punching rich guys.

Matt would like to see the AFL heading down the same path as American sports, because, you know, they're really big and wealthy and powerful and everything. All of these are good things.

Bear in mind that this was originally a post about the AFL slapping a trade ban on the Swans.

I hope this helps.

Why do you and many others constantly feel the need to belittle Matt80? He said nothing offensive, rude or inaccurate. Just tell him you disagree and leave the sniping out of it. I don't know why he tolerates it.

[Ludwig]

Paul Marsh of the AFLPA also talks about the practicality of the settlement: Only 25 per cent of players off limits to Swans: AFLPA - AFL.com.au

A few key statements from the article:

THE SYDNEY Swans won't have to dramatically adjust their list management plan for 2015 after their trade ban was softened, the AFL Players' Association believes.

"Sydney are as comfortable as they can be and I think it sits into their strategy, so I'm not sure this will create any practical issues next year," Marsh told SEN.

"If I had to make a guess it might be 25 per cent [are off limits]."

Marsh said the League had reached a "practical compromise" with the Swans and it was time to accept the outcome and move on.

"Sydney haven't played outside the rules and that's been acknowledged by the AFL and everyone," Marsh said.

The way these things work (chronologically) in reality:

1. AFL and SFC enter unannounced negotiations.
2. An agreement is reached.
3. AFL state they are willing to soften the penalty.
4. SFC announce they are pleased for the opportunity to present their case.
5. They go through the motions of a formal hearing at the Commission.
6. Wait a few weeks.
7. Announce the decision reached several months earlier.

[jono2707]

I think what Matt was trying to say was that it might have been a good idea for the AFL to have appointed an accomplished administrator from outside the AFL......

[S.S. Bleeder]

Paul Marsh of the AFLPA also talks about the practicality of the settlement: Only 25 per cent of players off limits to Swans: AFLPA - AFL.com.au

A few key statements from the article:



The way these things work (chronologically) in reality:

1. AFL and SFC enter unannounced negotiations.
2. An agreement is reached.
3. AFL state they are willing to soften the penalty.
4. SFC announce they are pleased for the opportunity to present their case.
5. They go through the motions of a formal hearing at the Commission.
6. Wait a few weeks.
7. Announce the decision reached several months earlier.

You forgot 1 1/2. AFL informally seek advice from interested parties, Eddie, Newbold and Gordon.

- - - Updated - - -

I think what Matt was trying to say was that it might have been a good idea for the AFL to have appointed an accomplished administrator from outside the AFL......

And that makes sense to me. Other codes have done it with success. The trouble is that the AFL is a "boys club".

[southsideswan]

Whose game is this anyway? We are being treated like the fans are a secondary attachment. If some deal is done (a nod and a wink) then that is equally as distasteful as the original restriction. This will not get any better until all the details are publicly made available.

On another totally unrelated topic .. I take the skipping mat approach .. see a posting by Matt and skip it.

[barry]

mCGuire is having a whinge about the new "deal".

Why do we need a deal anyway. The AFL told us our salary cap for 2015/16 and we should be left to fit as many players as we want into it.

[Bloods05]

Why do you and many others constantly feel the need to belittle Matt80? He said nothing offensive, rude or inaccurate. Just tell him you disagree and leave the sniping out of it. I don't know why he tolerates it.

Because I don't just disagree. I find his posts incredibly jejune and their implicit politics quite offensive. I know you don't see any politics in posts like this one, but I do. I like talking politics, even with clueless people, but not on a footy forum.

[Bloods05]

I think what Matt was trying to say was that it might have been a good idea for the AFL to have appointed an accomplished administrator from outside the AFL......

Yeah I know, but his idea of an accomplished administrator is so far wide of the mark it's not funny. Really it's not.

- - - Updated - - -

On another totally unrelated topic .. I take the skipping mat approach .. see a posting by Matt and skip it.

You're a fair man. Cruel, but fair.

[Bloods05]

mCGuire is having a whinge about the new "deal".

"Where this ban came from in the first place God only knows,? he said on Triple M on Thursday.

That is either breathtaking dishonesty or an astonishing lack of self-awareness. Either way, he needs to be slapped down by the AFL. Which won't happen.

[Matimbo]

I believe now, that the AFL should have gone for a highly rated NFL executive to be the CEO after Andrew D.

A brash NFL Executive would have not cared for playing the politics of McGuire, The AFL Commission or the Powerful Victorian clubs. The NFL is used to dealing with powerful Billionaire owners of Franchises. The NFL has the power to give these guys a whack if required.

The NFL guy would have looked at Eddie and thought to himself " you are not even a team owner, so what if you make media noise!

Gill, having grown up in the system is fully aware of the key backers who got him into the job. He now has to give the best possible hearing to the people who got him the position. He is therefore making little compromises that appeal to his supporters.

An NFL guy would have shaken some feathers, but you know that decisions would have been made without the political architecture currently in place.

Maybe the AFL commission did look at getting an NFL guy for the AFL CEO role. The money would have been the issue. For example the AFL players salary cap is just over $10 million in 2015, to fund around 44 players on a list. The NFL salary cap is $133 million in 2015, to fund around 63 players on a roster.

The difference in the pie is astonishing, and I'm sure the senior executives in the NFL are making great money. The NFL commissioner Roger Goodell took home $44 million last year.

Poor Gill is on food stamps in comparison. What highly rated NFL senior operator is going to come to Australia to be paid food stamps!

I know I should just take the "skip all Matt80 posts" option but I can't let this go unanswered.

There are many examples of high profile US execs being appointed to run major Australian corporations - Sol Trujillo at Telstra and George Trumbell at AMP being the most notable. Invariably they fail because the local market dynamics, politics and culture are hugely different and the import can't adapt. In both the Telstra and AMP cases, the US CEO departed with the company in far worse shape and this would almost certainly be the case if one was appointed to run the AFL. I can't think of any really successful examples to balance this. Really dumb idea.