HAVE NORWOOD DONE A DEAL?

Leadership is all about pandering to a select few these days, didn't you know that?

And when you're a leader, everyone else is working to worry about your reputation.

What a crock.

bigclock wrote:
Doesn't this decision apply to West Adelaide's ban on recruiting also?

Yes, and your point?

did westies do a deal?

The Emperor wrote:did westies do a deal?

Precisely - doesn't it matter that Westie have done a deal?

It makes no difference to West and I don't think they asked for that deal anyway. They had a 12 month ban, finishing 31st December this year. They were free to recruit after that.

Norwood were banned from recruiting for 18 months, covering the whole of next season.

The League would know there is no justification for this prostitution of the integrity of the competition, purely to presumably guarantee a vote they needed.

You can look forward to Norwood replacing 2 players they wouldn't have seen next year with 2 mature VFL players and win another premiership or two.

So treating West and Norwood equally is unfair.... Alrighty then

I agree with a lot of what's said here - however - where then should Norwood get the players needed to replace their current AFL listed ones? Just dig them out of the ammos?

Also, hypethetically, would the recruiting ban that was handed down have been as harsh if the AFC reserves side was on the agenda back then?

bigclock wrote:So treating West and Norwood equally is unfair.... Alrighty then

One ban was longer than the other. i.e they were not equal.
One ban prevented recruiting for next year, one didn't. i.e they were not equal.
One side was going to vote "No" to the Reserves proposal, making it a 5-3 vote. i.e. they were not equal.

Gingernuts wrote:I agree with a lot of what's said here - however - where then should Norwood get the players needed to replace their current AFL listed ones? Just dig them out of the ammos?

Also, hypethetically, would the recruiting ban that was handed down have been as harsh if the AFC reserves side was on the agenda back then?

But GN, what if they suddenly lost 10 players to retirement, or long-term injuries? They weren't foreseen when the penalties were handed down either, should the ban be lifted then? It's a penalty for a serious breach, you cop the consequences.
And the reserves debate has been going on since well before the penalty was handed down.

So the SANFL should have allowed West to recruit players but not Norwood to replace AFC players?

Do you seriously think Norwood changed their vote to recruit 2 players next year? LOL

If your club had voted No there would be no deals to be able to be done (if in fact your acqusations are at all true) which no ones is able to prove - but don't let that stop you from bagging out NFC.

As the Sanfl knew of West Adelaide's exceeding the Cap prior to the completion of the season yet allowed them enough time to recruit Mangen and Tuck before putting a penalty in place, I dont think WA fans should be feeling harshly done by. Supporters of the other 7 clubs have every right to question the SANFLs decision to ease the ban for both clubs. For what its worth I agree with Gingernuts. the two clubs will be losing players to a club that did not exist when the penalties were handed down so I would say it is uniquely unusual circumstances.

bigclock wrote:So the SANFL should have allowed West to recruit players but not Norwood to replace AFC players?

Do you seriously think Norwood changed their vote to recruit 2 players next year? LOL

If your club had voted No there would be no deals to be able to be done (if in fact your acqusations are at all true) which no ones is able to prove - but don't let that stop you from bagging out NFC.

The SANFL should have left both bans in place. Neither club was less guilty simply because a new team is entering the competition next year.
And no, it wasn't the only reason Norwood changed its vote, but Norwood's statement refers to 'concessions' it negotiated. What do you think that means?

The way my club voted can't have been influenced by the ban being lifted because we don't get any advantage from that.

Flag No.9 wrote:

bigclock wrote:So the SANFL should have allowed West to recruit players but not Norwood to replace AFC players?

Do you seriously think Norwood changed their vote to recruit 2 players next year? LOL

If your club had voted No there would be no deals to be able to be done (if in fact your acqusations are at all true) which no ones is able to prove - but don't let that stop you from bagging out NFC.

The SANFL should have left both bans in place. Neither club was less guilty simply because a new team is entering the competition next year.
And no, it wasn't the only reason Norwood changed its vote, but Norwood's statement refers to 'concessions' it negotiated. What do you think that means?

The way my club voted can't have been influenced by the ban being lifted because we don't get any advantage from that.

Maybe they have an agreement that West Adelaide will get the bad end of the stick from the umpires for the rest of the year?

I don't know ask NFC.

Flag No.9 wrote:

Gingernuts wrote:I agree with a lot of what's said here - however - where then should Norwood get the players needed to replace their current AFL listed ones? Just dig them out of the ammos?

Also, hypethetically, would the recruiting ban that was handed down have been as harsh if the AFC reserves side was on the agenda back then?

But GN, what if they suddenly lost 10 players to retirement, or long-term injuries? They weren't foreseen when the penalties were handed down either, should the ban be lifted then? It's a penalty for a serious breach, you cop the consequences.
And the reserves debate has been going on since well before the penalty was handed down.

Yep fair point. I ask again though, if the ban was to stand, where would they then source replacement players from?

Gingernuts wrote:

Flag No.9 wrote:

Gingernuts wrote:I agree with a lot of what's said here - however - where then should Norwood get the players needed to replace their current AFL listed ones? Just dig them out of the ammos?

Also, hypethetically, would the recruiting ban that was handed down have been as harsh if the AFC reserves side was on the agenda back then?

But GN, what if they suddenly lost 10 players to retirement, or long-term injuries? They weren't foreseen when the penalties were handed down either, should the ban be lifted then? It's a penalty for a serious breach, you cop the consequences.
And the reserves debate has been going on since well before the penalty was handed down.

Yep fair point. I ask again though, if the ban was to stand, where would they then source replacement players from?

Play 2 short maybe the only way some people will be happy    

What if the 2 replacement players came from Norwood's zone or they simply upgraded some U18s to senior ranks. I think that's fair-ish compromise. Or are they already allowed to do that??

bigclock wrote:

The Emperor wrote:did westies do a deal?

Precisely - doesn't it matter that Westie have done a deal?

So are you saying that West have done a deal?

Can anyone from West advise if the club have made a statement about their decision to vote yes and upon what it was based?

I wish I could - we have had NO meetings or reasons give for our decision. One can only assume they looked at the $$$ and our bottom line BUT I could be very wrong

Of course it was money.

Ok, so we cannot deduce a deal has been done at West because there is no statement upon which to base any such supposition.

Frankly, I would doubt there has been any negotiations given the expiry date of the recruiting penalty. There wouldn't be any point really.

One can't be certain about Norwood either. The only clue to this is their statement that they were able to secure "concessions" and their penalty runs longer.

I agree with Flag 9, a penalty is a penalty and other factors happening after that don't change it in my view. If you could foresee in a crystal ball all the things they (sanfl) didn't envisage, maybe they will eventually overturn this AFL Reserves fiasco.

I get more and more disillusioned every day that we are in the hands of magicians and sorcerors.

Tasmanian football isn't being run much better at the moment.

Oh well, back to Largs North Oval I go...

Some scuttlebugs may suggest that the major sponsor they share with the AFC threatened to walk if they didn't vote yes - could one also read into it that they were blackmailed in another way - Say hypothetically that we may divulge more 3rd party payment unless you change your vote... Just a conspiracy theory of course - not saying that is the case at any level by any sponsor but such theories are floating around.

I'm sure it is in Norwood and their various sponsors interests to tell us why they changed their vote when they meet their members and put such theories to bed - Was Joe put in an uncorfortable position and being made a scapegoat? Something isnt sitting right

from what i've been privvy too, lets just say sadly your first sentence has some merit

Very interesting to see the complete lack of presence of AdelaideFC on forums, once the deal was done. Makes the average fan wonder about why the disappearance.

In all honesty, is anyone on here capable of rational discussion on the topic at the moment ETTG?

There's a stack of emotion swirling around in the wake of this decision - which is totally understandable. So far most views expressed are those of anger, hatred, disgust, accusations of corruption and bribery. Were I in their shoes I would also be waiting until the sting goes out of things a bit before fronting up again.

And let's be honest - would anything they have to say be adequate for the majority of forumites now? I don't think so.