I'm sorry I don't see it as a personal attack and didn't intend it to be. From what I can tell, coaches seem to use this thread to complain about the actions of others. I didn't actually directly mention either YAD or the veto. I referred to anyone who disapproved or had a problem with the trade. Until someone can explain to me otherwise, I stand by my comments that 'The only reason I can think of for anyone disapproving of the trade is pure jealousy' and 'If anyone else has a problem with us coming up with a trade that benefits us both I think they need to have a good hard look at why they're not happy'. I certainly don't lose sleep over other coach's trades either. But I do put a fair bit of time into my team and obviously it does bother me that others would voice their disapproval of another coach and I completing a trade that benefits us both.
Mate one coach vetoed and you put up that post. It's not hard to figure out who you were talking about even though you didn't mention his name. Have a look through the 2018 trade discussion thread, there are a few comments, reasons and concerns raised regarding the trengove trade. From what I see on page 2 you were close to vetoing it as well. Why were you considering putting in a veto for that trade?
Tbh my post was more in reply to choppers' comments and was directed not only to YAD but also choppers and Batfink, who had liked the veto post. It certainly wasn't meant to be a personal attack on YAD and I'm sorry if he took it that way. I was considering vetoing the Trengove trade because I was concerned Holky may have been getting taken advantage of, ie he was making a foolish decision that was not in his own best interests. In the end I decided the possibility of Trengove becoming 1st ruck at the dogs was reasonable enough to justify the risk he was taking. Is anyone suggesting I've pulled one over on Mick and he's losing out terribly from the trade? Given Goddard's potentially got 1 year left and Mick was gonna get nothing for the other guys, I can't see how that's the case. Honestly it appears as though some people are just disappointed Mick wasn't forced to throw those players back into the pool and it almost comes across as vindictive. He's been publicly criticised for offering trades weighted in his favour and now he does a trade weighted in the other coach's favour and some people have a problem with that too.
I don't want to harp on it so the last thing I want to say about this is that every coach should feel that they can voice their opinion, disagree or agree, like a post and raise ideas, that's what makes FU great. I appreciate that you apologised and the way you've responded to my posts. I'll leave the idea with you to raise post draft regarding putting some wording around the use of vetos if you feel that will get around coaches vetoing for the wrong reasons (not trying to imply that anyone has done so) and providing some guidance as to when they should be used. I don't feel there are any issues with it now but if you do so I'll put forward my opinion what to include and support the addition of this to the rules.
Can everyone stop bringing my previous trade into current events? I know it’s all a bit emotionally charged at the moment, but for once no one has the shits with me and I’d dearly like to keep it that way. As a side note, and I definitely know that you’re not having a crack at me @fresh, the aforementioned trade was offered to me. I didn’t chase it, propose it or do anything shady. So those who exercised their right within the rules and vetoed, no worries. Certainly didn’t please me but if that’s what you needed to do then good on ya. The few that felt the need to commentate or cheerlead attempting to influence others, just shows your own true colours. Anywho, back on current events, as I have no dog in the fight my thoughts are simply asses the trade logically and veto if it’s not within the rules - For me it doesn’t break any rules and it’s not a Dangerfield for Majak Daw or something silly, so I certainly won’t be vetoing.
Pardon the intrusion, but for rules clarification in general. Veto is in place to prevent cheating and collusion. it is not intended as a tool to protect the stupid or the misinformed. The reality is that within 18 or so individuals there will be significant variations in the evaluation of a trade. Best to stick to arguing the reasons behind a trade than anything else where possible. Both those subject to a veto vote, or those casting one should consider the other person perspective, it can be easy to miss something due to perspective. The FA has never had a veto carry properly (though one was retracted in the process), I belive because we may sail near the wind occasionally, but we don't cheat, (here is a reason why I have never traded with Wineglass Bay!!). IMHO and feel free to delete the post, veto is to prevent cheating, it has no other legitimate purpose.
All good fresh. I wholeheartedly agree that everyone should feel they can voice their opinion and have an equal say in how this comp runs. I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person so long as it's based on facts and logic. I certainly didn't mean to come across as personally attacking anyone, I was just calling it as I saw it based on the facts at hand. Maybe I was a little heavy-handed but I thought that's what choppers set up this thread for and I feel like I qualify as an 'old man' these days. As for the veto rules, I'm not suggesting they be re-written. Unfortunately I think in any set of rules, there will always need to be some element of playing within the spirit that is going to be open to interpretation. Len, it's always a pleasure to hear your voice of calm reason. It would be nice if we could find a way to get you across to the FU, a 19th team perhaps.
So, went for my walk around the new Perth Stadium yesterday. Its, generally, really quite impressive! There's plenty of bars and food outlets, so queues shouldn't be too long. There's more toilets than patrons (maybe not, but it appears that way). They built it with a proper concourse, so you can walk around the entire stadium, on two levels. You get some great views out of the stadium in all directions (worth turning up early / leaving late for a game, just for the views), and the TV's are friggin huge!!!! Two problems I've noticed though. The roof doesn't connect with the side walls, which allows a breeze to come through - great for summer to help keep things cool - but likely terrible in winter when the rains come in and drown the upper level concourse. I can see them retrofitting something here to enclose the stadium a little more - it is a bit of a safety hazard too. The other issue, which I think will drive me mad, and the reason for my rant, is the piss-poor design of fences. They have small concrete plinths around the front row, then a glass panel to help improve the view. But they've added some stupid steel frame, which completely blocks the view! I was sold my ticket as a normal seat, after calling the club to confirm (based on an experience at Adelaide Oval in the front row), so I'm quite pissed at my club right now for not being honest with me - and I'm quite pissed at the designers of the stadium for not thinking about this. The simple solution is to bolt the glass directly to the concrete, and remove the f*ck*ng steel. Anyway, a visual is probably easier - so here's my, apparently NOT restricted viewing seats.
Yep, just a fucking stupid design by some Engineer that has never watched a game of footy in his life!
what a cracker of a stadium !!! Even though no game was been played the atmosphere was amazing and will be electric when the eagles play. I felt like they have combined MCG and Etihad perfectly with views on level one as you walk around your able to stop and see the game , above levels like Etihad feeling like your ont top of the ground. TVs are massive sound system will blow you away. Pity about your view @JPK I suspect its a safety concern as it's very steep if someone was to fall hopefully the reinforcing will support the impact.
I do agree that the stadium in general is amazing - I really like it. Yeah, the glass will be there for safety - falls prevention - but surely some stronger glass bolted directly to the concrete could do the job. You can't tell me that a person falling onto the glass would apply more force than that of a bullet (or three)... think bullet-proof glass. There are plenty of options, unfortunately they went for the cheap and ugly option resulting in sh!t views.
would be interested to know from an engineering point of view. There was uproar when the tickets were released and members were able to change there seats. I think they should have tinted those windows in bleachers really hot up there
100% agree with this article. A great read , http://www.theroar.com.au/2018/01/29/dear-gillon-heres-fix-trades-free-agency-draft/
I certainly would enjoy it more and a reason to watch it , boring knowing basically where the draftees are going to land
I tend to agree with the general ideas behind this theory, but I don't see how having an auction is going to prevent players from going interstate and ending up at clubs they don't want to be with, to then get homesick and want to go home, but they can't because they're locked into potential contract extensions by a club who still wants them (and paid a high price for them) for up to 7 years. That bit actually sounds worse to me! Another thing I don't like here is essentially giving every rookie (1st to 7th year player actually) the same base wage, and only adding extra for games played, awards won, etc. We all know the Brownlow (for example) is a midfielders award, so the poor old back pocket who never gets a vote, but never has a goal kicked on him, gets no recognition (outside of club champions awards), so would otherwise be screwed over. Plus the 2m beanpole who is earmarked as the next great ruck star, can't get off minimum wage, because he takes 5 years to develop and play his first game... more to work on me thinks. I would however be more interested in draft night though, if it was a bit more interesting, as discussed in the article. I also like the idea of doing away with BS compensation for FA's. Its a start, and a bloody good one, but there's still some work to be done before the AFL was to implement major changes like this.
Are you shitting me After champion data released positions and explaining why they had Motlop as a midfielder due to him playing predominantly on a wing, then the prospectus gets released citing Motlop a Mid/Fwd supercoach has now back flipped.
So I finally got my hands on a Prospectus yesterday, no thanks to Champion Data! Last year I (along with others) suffered the fate of receiving my Prospectus about a week AFTER they were available in all good newsagents. A couple of years before that I got the 'your order has been dispatched' email. A week later, no sign of it. I gave them a call asking where my order was and they organised for another copy sent to me. 2 weeks later BOTH arrive within a day of each other. Did the postie have a read of it before delivering it? I live in metro Melb yet I paid $10 postage for zero privilege. I cracked it this year. I gave both CD and the delivery company a blast and got myself a refund. After hanging up (this was mid afternoon at work mind you), I jumped onto twitter and just happened to see the tweet showing all the newsagents that stock one of my favourite publications. 10 mins later I got the second last copy at that newsagent in my hands. I won't bother with the pre-order bullshit next year, the postage charge definitely wasn't worth it.
Well that absolutely sucks, doesn't it. I'm presuming it was a factor in you trading Motlop for Harbrow.
There seems to be quite a few people who have been screwed over by the Prospectus delivery. Looks like CD are really good at stats, and really crap at customer service. Kind of like most firms where the accounting and HR departments wield too much power (no offence to any accountants or HR reps out there).