Desperate AFL clubs turn to the dark side
By Vince Rugari, 31 Oct 2012 Vince Rugari is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Adelaide Crows, AFL, kurt tippett, Melbourne Demons
Shaun McKernan applying pressure for the Crows (Slattery Images)
Related coverage
There are two things that clubs just can’t do in the shamelessly controlled environment that is the AFL. One is to pay players more than what the salary cap allows.
The other is to gain draft access to players you are not entitled to by deliberately losing games.
Fans, players and sponsors are presented with a world where, in theory, every team has a chance of winning the premiership.
Once a club steps outside of these boundaries, it becomes a full-blown assault on the very fabric of the competition.
If it is proven that Adelaide and Melbourne have chosen to circumvent the rules and cheated the system – by rorting the salary cap and tanking respectively – then they deserve to have the book thrown at them.
What drove them to do so? From this perspective, they were both more tragic hero than greedy villain.
For the Crows, it was only one player that was paid outside of the cap. One of the best key-position players in the competition, sure, but he wasn’t perfect.
This was not systematic skirting of the salary cap laws. This was a once-off. Adelaide was not ready to lose Kurt Tippett, a player they had invested significantly in, as an uncontracted player to the Gold Coast, his hometown, for nothing.
So he signed a contract for another three years in 2009. At the same time, he entered a clandestine agreement with an ‘exit clause’ and a shadowy, undeclared side-payment.
One player is never worth that much trouble.
The Demons also did a deal with the devil in the very same year. They opted for a shortcut to the top and decided rebuilding meant hoarding promising young players, not bricks-and-mortar hard work.
Melbourne may as well have torn their own heart out. But if it turns out that this coaching staff meeting in “the vault” really happened, and that the Dees only planned to win four games in the 2009 season, then AFL House will do it for them.
Few competitions in world sport put such a value on fairness as the AFL does. It is key to the sustained success of the league.
Take away the light at the end of the tunnel for the average fan, and replace it with a situation like in the Premier League, where only a handful of teams can realistically win the title.
All of a sudden, the AFL loses its romance and becomes a different consideration altogether.
Sponsors part with such huge amounts of money to be a part of this utopian vision of equality. Television networks pay millions because of the spectacle – because anyone can supposedly win.
This system is reliant certain rules and structures, like the salary cap and the draft, which aim to stop clubs from becoming either too good, or too bad.
There are only so many elite players you are allowed keep on your books. The salary cap dictates this.
Adelaide had no right to keep Tippett in the tricolours if it took an undeclared six-figure sum outside of the salary cap – which was hidden from the AFL – to convince him to sign a new contract. This is cheating.
If the payment could have been made under the salary cap, but wasn’t, then those in charge are fools of the highest order for getting themselves into this mess.
Take this possibility off the table and the seemingly money-hungry ruckman-forward would have almost certainly looked to move elsewhere in 2009 – maybe to the Suns, maybe to another club – instead of staying put.
By the same token, if a shortage of elite players manifests itself into a poor season with few wins, you get the pick of the bunch in the national draft. There used to be the priority pick, too.
But if you manufacture a poor season then you deserve to be thrown out of sport altogether.
There will be debate about what tanking actually means, or whether the AFL was asking for this by rewarding mediocrity with talented teenagers, but it’s all rubbish.
In sport, you know the moment you cross over to the dark side, and when you do, it is fraught with danger.
If there is one thing to take from a week that has torn away at the very integrity of the AFL model, it’s that what might seem like a fast track to success at first will almost certainly end up a highway to hell.
Vince Rugari is an Adelaide-born journalist who cut his teeth on the sporting graveyard that is the Gold Coast. He fancies the round ball and the Sherrin, and used to be a handy leg-spin bowler before injury curtailed a baggy green push. He is a Port Adelaide fan by birth, as painful as that has been recently. He's now sports editor of The Area News in Griffith, NSW.
![]()
Passionate about your AFL? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily AFL email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- Adelaide Crows, AFL, kurt tippett, Melbourne Demons


October 31st 2012 @ 6:48am
Bill said | October 31st 2012 @ 6:48am | Report comment
“This was not systematic skirting of the salary cap laws. This was a once-off – a desperate, face-saving act fuelled by the burning losses of Phil Davis, Jack Gunston and Nathan Bock in years gone by.”
What are you stupid? None of these players had been taken when Tippett signed the deal. The only one that you’re even close on is Bock but he was taken AFTER Tippett was signed and taken from the GC’s reach.
October 31st 2012 @ 8:06am
TomC said | October 31st 2012 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Yeah. A very strange thing to get wrong.
October 31st 2012 @ 9:14am
Vince Rugari said | October 31st 2012 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Apologies lads. Brainfade, repaired.
Listening to 5AA last week as it all unfolded, I think the AFL part of my brain was fried a touch.
October 31st 2012 @ 9:41am
Jimmy said | October 31st 2012 @ 9:41am | Report comment
I look forward to the forthcoming police investigation into the match fixing allegations against Melbourne.
October 31st 2012 @ 10:09am
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Has someone made allegations of match fixing?
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 10:13am
Vince Rugari said | October 31st 2012 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Depends entirely upon your definition of ‘match fixing’. To attempt to lose a match and win only four in a season comes pretty bloody close.
October 31st 2012 @ 10:24am
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 10:24am | Report comment
But if you’re crap to begin with, you’re already a 95% chance of losing those same games. Melbourne have been crap forever. And already in the off-season they have been forced to offload some high draft picks for next to nothing, and so it continues.
At some point late in a season, a team out of finals contention is entitled to plan for the future.
Once upon a time we called it “blooding kids”.
There is no better way to develop kids than give them game time, and that means putting aside short term goals for future benefits. That is the perogative of every club.
GWS did it all last season. It knew it would lose more games than it won, but there is no better way to develop youngsters than to throw them in the deep end. Is anyone accusing the Giants of match fixing?
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 10:36am
Matt F said | October 31st 2012 @ 10:36am | Report comment
There’s a diference between trying to win but not being good enough and deliberately going out there to lose, which it appears Melbourne have done. The players may not have been involved but it’s sounding more and more likely that the coaching staff put together tactics to try and lose games.
October 31st 2012 @ 10:41am
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Matt – they didn’t have to try too hard – they were crap.
Crap teams lose more games than they win.
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 10:53am
Matt F said | October 31st 2012 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Of course but we now know that they deliberately tried not to win games. The witness statements are in, at least according to reports, and they seem quite damning. The fact that they might have lost those games anyway doesn’t change what they did.
October 31st 2012 @ 11:10am
Brewski said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:10am | Report comment
I actually agree with both Matt and TC, they both have valid points, there is a very blurry line on what is, and what is not tanking, every team would blood players, or play them in new positions etc when finals are out of reach, and if there is a prize for doing so (priority pick) then perhaps there is more reason to do it.
Its very subjective, perhaps the priority pick should be taken away, never have been involved in a AFL club and coaching environment it is pretty easy to point a finger, i know from even grass roots footy if a team has no chance of making the finals the club will blood colts etc late in the season ………. is that tanking ?.
i would be very very suprised if players go out to lose on purpose, but it appears something needs to be done., coaches will rort the system no matter what the rules, that is why when coaches bleat about needing more interchange players or capping the rotations, the games rulemakers should actually do the opposite of what they want.
October 31st 2012 @ 11:24am
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Brewski
I believe the priority pick has been taken away now, and that really was biggest problem.
In the year in question, Melbourne got Scully and Trengrove in the first few picks.
The thing is that only one no. 1 draft pick has ever won a premiership, so history shows that getting the no. 1 draft pick is actually not the route to success.
However, if you can snag two top picks, increasing the chances of landing a future champion, then that certainly can influence the thinking of clubs.
If a club wants to finish bottom to get that no. 1 draft pick, then my only response is: I pity their supporters, and how hopeless and unimaginative is that club’s hierarchy?
Meh – let clubs finish bottom – someone has to finish bottom – I don’t care who it is as long as it’s not my club.
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 11:39am
Matt F said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:39am | Report comment
It’s certainly a very blurry line. Is playing players out of there regular positions tanking or just experimenting with new ideas to potentially use next season? Is blooding kids a sign of looking to next year, after the current year has been lost, or is it an excuse to drop the better players in an attempt to lose matches and gain extra picks?
As TC says, only one number one draft, Luke Hodge, pick has won a premiership. Also it should be noted that Hawthorn acrually made the prelim final in the year that he was drafted. They had the number one pick because of the Croad trade with Fremantle. It supports the growing realisation that the best strategy isn’t to go down the bottom, load up with good picks, and surge to a flag on the back of young talent.
October 31st 2012 @ 11:48am
Brewski said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:48am | Report comment
@ Matt….. the truth, probably as usual, is probably somewhere in between, blooding new players, new game plans, with a eye on a higher pick is probably where it is at.
One mans tanking is another mans freedom fighter, no !, one mans tanking is another mans terrorist.
October 31st 2012 @ 10:35am
Australian Rules said | October 31st 2012 @ 10:35am | Report comment
I’m certainly no apologist for Melbourne, they deserve whatever is coming to them.
But Vince, I think the distinction should be made…
this club didn’t “set out” to win only 4 matches for the 2009 season. They were just crap, barely competitive with their best team.
With 4 games to go in a miserable year, some in power thought that the best thing to salvage from the season would be to get 2 No.1 draft picks and re-build – losing the last 4 games would ensure that.
Make no mistake, the revelations of teh meeting are galling and I’d rip up my membership if it was my club. But clearly this was the stupid act by some board members of a desperate, down-and-out club…not the year-long masterplan of the coach…and certainly not the players.
October 31st 2012 @ 11:06am
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:06am | Report comment
I certainly agree that the people who should be most annoyed are Melbourne members, not just for remaining mediocre for so long, but for pissing good draft picks up against the wall.
For example, Cale Morton, a no.4 pick, has ended up at West Coast for pick no. 88!!
As for the fans of other clubs, meh, crap team finishes bottom – so what?
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 11:50am
Vince Rugari said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Caroline Wilson’s report is pretty clear in the club not wanting to win any more than four matches for the 2009 season. If that was the case the whole club would have had to been in on it.
October 31st 2012 @ 11:50am
Diablo said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:50am | Report comment
It makes Italy’s Serie A look a model of propriety in comparison. I can’t see the difference. Match fixing to avoid relegation or match fixing to get the best draft picks?
The Italian FA has banned the players and coaches involved and some of them are now serving time in jail. The clubs were kicked out of Serie A and will spend the next few years in the lower divisions. I await to see what the AFL will do in comparison.
October 31st 2012 @ 11:58am
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:58am | Report comment
Diablo
Let me spell out the difference for you.
Melbourne was a hopeless team, lost games and finished bottom. Whenever they played a game against a team above it, they were odds on to lose, and they did lose – that’s actually the opposite of match fixing. The result expected by everyone, including bookies, actually takes place.
In the Serie A, Juve had refs on the payroll, were allowed to select their own refs (for decades) and won championships.
Do you see the difference now?
One team was hopeless and finished bottom, the other was able to fix the whole comp to win championships (and/or qualify for Europe).
Also, in the Serie A, German lower divisions, and throughout Asia, you get crime syndicates bribing both teams and refs to get a particular scoreline, they bet on that scoreline, and they clean up.
Do you see the difference now?
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 12:21pm
Diablo said | October 31st 2012 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Cheating is cheating TC. The only difference is that one is your favourite sport and the other a sport you obviously don’t like. Defend the indefensible if you like. A whole club can conspire together to lose games and you’re ok with that?
October 31st 2012 @ 12:56pm
Australian Rules said | October 31st 2012 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Both of you make good points.
But cheating to win seems different from cheating to lose…even if there’s a potential horizon benefit in losing.
October 31st 2012 @ 2:08pm
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
As AR intimates, competitions are set up so that teams can prove themselves as the best and win championships.
If a team cheats to win the championship, it’s unfair to the other teams and sullies the whole competition.
But if a hopeless team finishes bottom instead of 2nd bottom – who is that affecting?
The real competition in terms of deciding the winner is at the other end of the ladder – who wins the wooden spoon is immaterial.
If pathetic teams want to remain pathetic teams at the bottom of the ladder, good luck to them, it’s a percentage boost when my team plays them.
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 2:12pm
Jimmy said | October 31st 2012 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
TC, let me spell this out for you, manipulating the outcome of a match to ensure that you lose is, wait for it, match fixing. It is as simple as that.
There should be jail time for those involved in this.
October 31st 2012 @ 2:29pm
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
No Jimmy – let me spell it out for you – you’re wrong.
If teams/players/coaches/officials collude to bring about a certain result (as happens every weekend in soccer somewhere in the world) – that’s match fixing.
If a team is hopeless, is clearly rebuilding, and everyone knows it is rebuilding, and loses when it is expected to lose – that is actually the opposite of match fixing.
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 3:23pm
Australian Rules said | October 31st 2012 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
I actually think you’re drawing a long bow there TC.
You’re saying it doesn’t matter – suggesting that people expected Melbourne to lose and they did…so what?
Yes, but by deliberately playing key players out of position, Melbourne were drastically reducing their chance of winning. They were diluting the integrity of the match…it affects the fans, the clubs, betting agencies, sponsors and a multitude of other stakeholders.
Your comments are sounding strangely apologist…or worse, apathetic, as if it doesn’t matter.
October 31st 2012 @ 9:48am
Acorn said | October 31st 2012 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Melbourne could have all the first round draft picks for the last 10 years and still not win anything. that club is cloaked in failure, rotten to the core. Only Melbourne could take #1 draft picks and turn them into average players. their systems, coaches, administration, the lot is a complete shambles and they deserve everything they’ve got coming their way. Will the AFL put them out of their misery?
October 31st 2012 @ 10:07am
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 10:07am | Report comment
I always thought Melbourne had been naturally crap for 48 years, but no, they were intentionally so!
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 10:04am
The Big Fish said | October 31st 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Melbourne and North should merge and become Melb. Kangaroos. not sure who else to merge maybe bulldogs and GWS to give 16 clubs. way not enough players to support 18 clubs IMO.
October 31st 2012 @ 10:38am
Matt F said | October 31st 2012 @ 10:38am | Report comment
GWS have only existed for a year and you want them to merge?
October 31st 2012 @ 12:44pm
Pope Paul VII said | October 31st 2012 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Amusing as North Melbourne Melbourne and Melbourne North Melbourne , and the Demonic Kangaroos sound, ah no. North do have some integrity.
October 31st 2012 @ 10:23am
Richard said | October 31st 2012 @ 10:23am | Report comment
Cheating is the complete opposite to sportsmanship. Melbourne’s tanking, Adelaide’s salary cap abuse, drug taking by the US Postal Cycling Team, it’s all cheating, by those who forgot about the playing of sport and focused instead on the business of sport.
Cheating ultimately destroys those who partake in it, and if a sport allows cheating to become widespread and unchecked , it will ultimately destroy the sport.
Food for thought for those who allow the business side of sport to blind them to the importance of sportsmanship. I hope Adelaide and Melbourne are the only teams in the AFL to have cheated, but I’m not so sure that’s the case.
October 31st 2012 @ 10:27am
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Collingwood was involved with a dubious deal re Buckley back in 1993.
The outcome?
His young team mates went on to win a hatrick of premierships and Buckley never got to win one.
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 10:37am
Matt F said | October 31st 2012 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Two of which involved beating Buckley’s Collingwood side in the GF!
October 31st 2012 @ 11:51am
Vince Rugari said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:51am | Report comment
What goes around, comes around in sport… it might not seem or feel like it at first, but it generally happens… Armstrong is the perfect example. He got his.
October 31st 2012 @ 11:30am
matt h said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:30am | Report comment
With the AFL beholden to betting interests these days (like any other sport), match fixing is a most serious ifor them. Melbourne have conspired to ensure that sports betting agencies have unknowlingly defrauded putners by offering them bets that cannot be won. Also the Demons have defrauded the betting agencies themselves, who have offered longer odds on Melbourne’s opposition and lost their cash to the successful punters. So the AFL has no choice but to throw the book at them. It is no different to cricket’s match fixing or to a jockey taking a bribe to lose a race. Criminal activity. Fraud.
October 31st 2012 @ 11:34am
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:34am | Report comment
You obviously don’t know too much about punting.
How long do you reckon the odds were on Melbourne back then?
How many dills would have accepted even those long odds for a team going nowhere fast?
Honestly, some of the silly comments one comes across.
Maybe Melbourne should be stripped of its wooden spoons as punishment for being so crap?
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 12:23pm
matt h said | October 31st 2012 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
It’s still fraud. I got 1.06 on, say Richmond to beast Melbourne, when I should have got $1`.01 or all bets off. I know about the meeting, so I bet $10,000 to win $600 knowing I can’t lose. that is the situation that this sort of behavior sets us up for. Every bet on a Melbourne game during this period is invalid. And diehard Melbourne supporters may have had a sneasky $20 here or there thinking “surely they can beat the Tigers”. and they did their money, as well as the cost of tickets to see a side that were set up to fail. The whole thing stinks.
October 31st 2012 @ 2:22pm
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
How can it possibly be fraud if Melbourne are tipped to lose, bookies, experts and punters tip them to lose, and they lose?
It’s actually the opposite of fraud.
By the way, here are the final seconds of that famous Melbourne vs Richmond game:
Melbourne are actually leading with 4 seconds to go, and Jordie McMahon takes a mark, about 45 metres out, siren goes, and he has to slot it after the siren for Richmond to win it (and for Melbourne to lose it).
Does anyone think this was a set up?
Now compare the situation with rigged soccer games which you get all over the world, the problem is endemic, not just in Asia but in Italy and Germany, where crime syndicates bribe players and refs to manufacture nil-all and 1-0 results.
How easy do you reckon it is to manufacture a nil-all or 1-0 result in soccer? I’d suggest to you that it’s the easiest scoreline to manufacture in the world – out of all sports – and that’s why it’s endemic.
In fact, only last weekend Juve managed a 1-0 win after the ref ruled Catania’s goal off-side when it clearly was onside. Pretty obvious that Juve continues to have refs in their back pocket. Everyone knows it too, but no one does anything about it.
How easy do you reckon it is to manufacture an after the siren win in Australian Football?
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 3:32pm
fadida said | October 31st 2012 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
Read “Calcio” a history of Italian football and you realise that the Italian game is incredibly tainted. A bit like the Tour, you are always suspicious of Serie A.
As a football(soccer) fan its a shame there is no relegation in AFL(I understand why). It would add huge excitement to the bottom of the table. Rather than tanking, teams outside the finals would have to fight for their lives. Adds huge excitement to games that are otherwise meaningless.
It’s a shame for the image of AFL, because it generally showcases the best traits of Australian sportsmen.
October 31st 2012 @ 11:36am
Brewski said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:36am | Report comment
I think it is different, no player has been acused of losing deliberately, or taking a bribe, or missing a goal etc, but from the reports, and lets face it, the media get carried away, that the Melbourne coaching panel appear to be walking a very fine line.
October 31st 2012 @ 11:52am
Kev said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:52am | Report comment
The AFL has to take responsibility for being so naive to believe that teams wouldn’t tank when priority picks were on offer and that it was so easy to qualify for it. Only they are capable of creating a system that encourages and rewards losing and then react with shock and horror when a side decides that losing their remaining games is a far more attractive option than chasing meaningless wins when their chances of making the finals are gone. I don’t put tanking in the same boat as salary cap rorting because as we see with Melbourne, it’s not a guaranteed path to success. It creates a culture amongst the entire team that losing is acceptable which then permeates into the young kids that are drafted into the club and you can say that Melbourne are still paying for it.
The AFL did the right thing in leaving the awarding of priority picks up to the discretion of the commission. How can they justify punishing Melbourne anyway? And if they did are they going to penalize them with draft exclusion? If they did that it means they push Melbourne’s development further back which ironically means that they’ll end up qualifying for high draft picks anyway.
October 31st 2012 @ 12:01pm
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
That’s the great paradox.
We are talking about a team desperately needing good draft picks to remain half-competitive.
Even after all those top draft picks, Melbourne remains hopeless.
So what exactly is their crime beyond being hopeless?
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 1:09pm
D.Large said | October 31st 2012 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
I hope the Dees get done, miss out on at least two drafts and it cripples the club for the short to medium term. Hopefully ensuring they fold.
October 31st 2012 @ 2:20pm
piesman2011 said | October 31st 2012 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
The crime is that in a game with the personal you have, you must do your best to win. Melbourne appear to have had meetings where the coaching staff were told to lose. The ramifications are the following:
Sides playing Melbourne were automatically given a win which gave some sides a boost and may have helped them get into the finals. Some would argue that Melbourne would have lost them all in 2009 but we will never know the truth. Melbourne deliberatly losing compromises the competition.
The AFL has made agreements with beating agencies that state that their competition is a fair one in which two teams are both trying to win. The tanking issue could mean that lawsuits are brought against the AFL because Melbourne were match fixing to lose their games. (just because they are match fixing for picks rather then money doesnt stop if from being matchfixing)
Melbourne’s match fixing (this is what it is if the coach was trying to lose) in the end has not gotten them much to date. However just because they are still bad doesn’t mean that they dont deserve to have serious conserquences for their actions.
October 31st 2012 @ 2:27pm
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
I don’t accept it’s as clearcut as you make out.
It’s perfectly legitimate for clubs to choose a course of rebuilding for the future (if they are out of finals contention).
That means early ops to some players to allow full recovery, blooding kids, trying out new game plans.
That is all perfectly legitimate, but likely to result in short term pain.
It’s a non-issue because bookies and punters will adjust their assessments accordingly.
That is a totaly different scenario to teams/players/coaches/officials colluding to bring about a certain scoreline or game event or result, and thus attempting to pull the wool over bookies and punters.
It’s two very different things.
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 4:55pm
Kev said | October 31st 2012 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
Unless there is evidence of a clear directive from the senior coach that players should be instructed to not try how can anyone tell if teams are tanking? The line between tanking and a coach wanting to do something unexpected or giving younger players more experience is quite gray. Playing players out of position, playing a side stacked with rookies, using several new game plans over the year that may or may not be effective or sending players off for surgery early are just some of the decisions that to some, could be construed as tanking and to others it’s just what a coach worth his salt does.
Perceptions of tanking aside, the previous priority pick system was fraught with problems any way and having a simplistic criteria that judged the performance of teams over just 2 seasons was never going to help. I mean how can someone justify Brisbane receiving a priority pick despite having played off in 4 grand finals less than a decade ago?
November 1st 2012 @ 9:30am
piesman2011 said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:30am | Report comment
TC,
the term tanking is very broad and what you say makes perfect sense and I totally agree with you that it is fine to tank up to the point of the club telling the coaching staff they have to continue to lose matches (even if the coaching staff then ignore these instructions). Then it becomes match fixing which is something a lot worse. If the club told the coaching staff to lose then there will be major ramifications.
October 31st 2012 @ 3:41pm
Vince Rugari said | October 31st 2012 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
The crime is this: they made it so they were as hopeless as they could possibly be, which is not really a true reflection of their hopelessness.
What if there is another team that probably needs those top draft picks more, but didn’t get them because another team chose to ‘experiment’ and wanted them first? How unfair is that to the other team?
October 31st 2012 @ 11:55am
Brewski said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:55am | Report comment
I tell you who looks like a tanker ……. Bernard Tomic looks like a tanker …. i would actually go as far as saying … supertanker !!.
Supertankers as we all know are very big !.
October 31st 2012 @ 1:27pm
TW said | October 31st 2012 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
The comments about Melbourne on here only highlight a desperate Melbourne based club doing everything to survive – The next TV/Internet agreement may not have 18 clubs in it.
Anyhow events closer to home over here in Perth will have big ramifications for the WAFL – The two Perth based AFL teams have got their reserve teams albeit a controversary is raging already.
The 7 non aligned WAFL clubs are not very happy at all if radio talkback is any guide. The West Perth President has said on air their club has received heaps of calls already from members who will not renew.
Link to article –
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/150562/default.aspx
October 31st 2012 @ 1:43pm
Dogs Of War said | October 31st 2012 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
I would think the solution to this is easy.
Just go with a lottery type approach to draft picks. Each team gets a certain amount of chances at the order of the draft. Once you have a team drawn for a pick, they then are set in the order of draft pick position going forward.
So for example.
Top 8 is set in order as they have made the finals and shown they are already in the right order.
The Bottom 10 teams would enter the lottery like this:
Team that finishes 9th gets 1 chance
Team that finishes 10th gets 2 chances
down to that the team finishes last gets 10 chances
Sure you get more chances the lower you finish to secure a higher pick, but difference between each ladder position is small.
You could still organise a special pick for a team that has say averaged in the bottom 4 for 3 seasons in a row to assist them, cause really you want to be able to give a team that has been underperforming for some time.
October 31st 2012 @ 1:58pm
Matt F said | October 31st 2012 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
That’s the system that I’d like to see implemented. While it doesn’t entirely remove the incentive to finish lower down the ladder, it does significantly reduce the incentive as there are no guarantees that finishing a spot or two lower will get a better pick.
October 31st 2012 @ 2:12pm
TC said | October 31st 2012 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
No – I disagree that that is a solution.
Underperfoming teams genuinely need draft picks to have any hope of rebuilding, that must remain.
When it’s all said and done, Melbourne got draft picks that they absolutely needed because they were so hopeless. The perception of it is actually more damaging than the reality, at the end of the day, they were hopeless and a worthy recipient of the wooden spoon.
The priority pick has already been eliminated, so I don’t see an issue going forward.
TC
October 31st 2012 @ 2:49pm
D.Large said | October 31st 2012 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Why must it remain?
Why should a poorly run club be given additional support? The people on the board of these clubs that are a rabble should do something about it; not wait for a handout. I can’t stand this socialist notion that we should do everything we can to engineer an even competition… Let the peasants eat cake.
October 31st 2012 @ 3:38pm
Brewski said | October 31st 2012 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
I disagree, must be the socialist in me, i like the idea of clubs on the borderline being given additional support, to even up the comp, lose a club, you lose plenty of fans, and you lose plenty of history.
When the weakest clubs folds, there is always the next weakest one and so on and so on !!.
Some of sports greatest stories are about clubs on their knees only to return and turn it around.
October 31st 2012 @ 3:03pm
Diablo said | October 31st 2012 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
All you need to have a fair and equitable competition is the salary cap. It works brilliantly for the NRL, HAL and many other sports leagues around the world.
Competition is the key word here, it’s sport not entertainment. Rewarding failure and giving struggling clubs a leg up just distorts the competition. Where’s the satisfaction in achieving success if it’s been handed to you in the form of concessions etc?
Most of the early premierships ‘won’ by the WC Eagles are suspect because the AFL panicked at the time and gave them overly generous draft picks and concessions to ensure the success of the expanded competition. They ended up creating a monster that dominated the comp for the next few years. Again, where’s the satisfaction if it’s handed to you on a platter?
October 31st 2012 @ 3:33pm
Brewski said | October 31st 2012 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
You honestly think the WCE were handed premeierships, LOL, if that was the case, why did they only win 2 and not 4.
And do you honestly expect WCE players and fans, to think their premierships are somehow tainted, sounds like someone has some issues !!.
Both the WCE and Dockers are not some freewheeling monsters that have ever dominated the comp for long periods of time, they are actually owned by the WAFC and primarily are vehicles to maintain and grow WA football, with their profits dispersed.
October 31st 2012 @ 4:03pm
Diablo said | October 31st 2012 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
I’ve heard AFL commentators say that the Eagles were given overly generous concessions in the early years and those premierships are tainted. You obviously were too young or not paying attention at the time. The Eagles entered the AFL and were struggling badly so the AFL gave them 5 years of concessions. Five years! How could they fail?
How about a fair and equitable competition where you only have a salary cap and everyone plays by the same rules? Otherwise just call yourself a form of entertainment like professional wrestling and we won’t confuse it with serious sport.
October 31st 2012 @ 4:10pm
Brewski said | October 31st 2012 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
Please name these commentators ?.
October 31st 2012 @ 10:27pm
Andy said | October 31st 2012 @ 10:27pm | Report comment
The eagles made the finals 3 times in the first 5 years and a grand final in there sixth..They were assembled as a powerful unit. \
November 1st 2012 @ 1:06am
Brewski said | November 1st 2012 @ 1:06am | Report comment
Correct Andy, i think in their first year they won 11 games and lost 11, diablo was obviously to young or not paying attention.
November 1st 2012 @ 8:28am
Lroy said | November 1st 2012 @ 8:28am | Report comment
Dude, exactly what draft concessios did they get in 1987? I dont recall too many Victorian clubs being interested on Steve Malaxos or Geof Miles (members of their original squad)
It took them 4 years to make a grand final, and that was after there was a cleanout of most of the players from the 1987 era… John Worsfold wasn’t picked up by Essendon… if you look at their history, every single WCE player was overlooked by other clubs, inluding Chris Judd..Brett Heady and Dean Kemp were taken at draft picks 98 and 120 or so… the only player the Eagles ever got as a priority pick early on was Peter Matera.. granted he turend out to be a gun, I think Cousins was a father and son deal (can’t recall exactly)… Jack Darling was passed over TWICE by a number of Melbourne based clubs when he went into the draft..
They only became a monster after they recrutied Mick Malthouse, so instead of blaming the AFL for non existent concessions blame him for introducing a level of professionalism that created a succesful footy club. Fremantle has been in the comp 18 years and still hasnt played in a grand final.
So instead of ranting, how about you quote some facts to back up your argument?
November 1st 2012 @ 9:14am
Andy said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:14am | Report comment
They might of hidden a few kids lol I think Jakovic went in the 80′s Cox was a rookie.