Carlton Supporters Club

I know of a club where a big name polled the most votes in the final game of the year in a game which he struggled bumping his way into 10th to trigger his 50k bonus. Whispers all around the room , the player was embarrassed especially as he told all his team mates before of his trigger.

Oh Corey McKernan.

Not really. The award is a joke and pretty much fixed.

What happened?
Did you expect him to go on...I didn't.
He played 19 games.
Many of those he was hardly sighted.
But he obviously performed a role that the coaches were happy with...whether that was as a decoy, or his forward pressure.
He did what was asked of him to the extent he earned votes.

Betts is only retiring because of the north Melbourne match where he hurt himself he looked done.  Before that he looked like playing to 400.

A cynic might say that his decision was made based on income he might be getting vs what he would have gotten to play on.

I know of a club where a big name polled the most votes in the final game of the year in a game which he struggled bumping his way into 10th to trigger his 50k bonus. Whispers all around the room , the player was embarrassed especially as he told all his team mates before of his trigger.

I didn't realise they are supposed to sit down at the end of the season and issue votes retrospectively as per the list management guidelines.

Perhaps they just give votes on the day when and where it is deserved?

If you think Plowman getting votes is corrupt, then Walsh winning must be corrupt as well, you can't have it both ways. If Plowman's votes came undeservedly, they came from someone who deserved them, maybe from Walsh but maybe also from Weitering or McKay. You can't know, you are free to arbitrarily choose a bias, but it is still a bias!

Most of the voters were sacked at the end of the season so who did the votes; Sayers and Diesel?

I think most supporters would agree that Walsh and Weitering were our two best players and would have McKay, Cripps, Ed Curnow or Saad in their top five, taking into account games played of course. In fact, all of those players were in the top six in our Jim Park Award.  Kennedy and Newman make the top ten in the Jim Park Award, displacing Plowman and Betts.

If the voting was manipulated, why would the beneficiaries be Plowman and Betts?  What would be the point?

It's hard to argue against Walsh, Weitering, McKay, Cripps, Ed Curnow and Saad leading the voting; their performances were overt , easily recognised and they played most games.  It becomes harder for the average punter to recognise players who are following instructions and unobtrusively carrying out selfless acts. 

Only 3 onballers in the Top 10. Is that a reflection of our weak mid or does it show that it is an award for the role players?  I assume the latter.

Deservedly so !
And the sackings will continue until Plowman doesn’t get a vote…!

The voting would have to be done on a week to week basis by the coaches and the results filed away.  
You wouldn't remember much about Round 1 at the end of August.
Any fiddling would have to take place post season and not involve the coaches at all.

Kennedy and Newman polled well in our Jim Park
Kennedy played only 13 games
Newman played 14 games

The way the CSC (Jim Park) award is structured it depends a lot on numbers voting each week and a the ability for there to be a wide variance in vote allocation.
A big number one week for a player who impressed in a week where a lot of folks voted would be possible.
A tighter voting system would apply in the CFC Best and Fairest and number of games played would be a more significant factor.

Not really. The award is a joke and pretty much fixed.