VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Sunday, November 03, 05:21:30amLogin ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345 ]


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 2/08/16 2:23pm
Author: Dr J
Author Host/IP: 203.35.32.87
Subject: Re: Serious question ...
In reply to: Satan 's message, "Re: Serious question ..." on 26/07/16 12:55am

Satan your response seems to focus a bit on academies as a big reason why some clubs are always shit.

I don't see it that way. Academies are good for all in the AFL as they bring a broader talent pool. If Mills wasn't drafted by Sydney via the academy, Josh Dunkley would be playing for Sydney not the Bulldogs.

Clubs giving up future picks was their own decision. The holders of those picks might use them on academy players or they might use them on regular draft picks. Academy players are available for all other clubs to pick from, therefore expanding the talent pool.

Lets stop using the academies as excuses for other teams shitness.

Maybe just maybe other teams are run and managed better than the "big 4".

To TT's original question, I don't have any hard evidence to support this, but the Big 4 seem to base a lot of their decisions on the impact of supporter backlash or emotion. Essendon's decision to allow Hird to drag the club through the mire throughout 2012-15 would seem to be based on him being a club great. Collingwood's decision to appoint Buckley was perhaps based more on emotion than any hard evidence that he was the best coach available at the time. Richmond's decision to extend Hardwick's contract, well who knows why that decision was made. Carlton - Kernahan as President, really???

Other clubs, simply make the decision based on what is best for the club and move on. Geelong not re-signing Johnston, Kelly and Stokes is a good example of not letting emotion rule.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Replies:



Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT+11
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.