Jump to content

Demonland

The 2018 Fixture Thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Macca said:

We've always elected our own board's and we've always stood on our own 2 feet ... I'm not sure where you get your information from.

PJ was recommended to us by the AFL and we duly appointed him.  We did receive a one-off grant of 1.4 million dollars in early 2013  but that's it.  As a comparison Port Adelaide were helped out to the tune of 14 million because of their lousy stadium deal with footy park.  Various other clubs have received large handouts as well in comparison. 

For further information read our annual reports.  I don't believe the scuttlebutt and innuendo from those with obvious agenda's - most of it is lies.

I wasn't sure whether you were tongue in cheek when you said this but subsequent replies suggest not.

My first recollection of being saved by the AFL was in 2003 when we as members had our last chance to vote in some Board members of our choosing - Coglin and Phillip.  When they joined the Board they took on responsibility of unpaid liabilities of millions of dollars (including a tax liability quietly hidden in the bottom draw of a desk) the inept Szondy Board lost.  The AFL bailed us out and gave us over a million bucks from memory and this at a time when it could have suited them to shunt us off to where ever and get rid of our basket case of a club.  Thankfully Demetriou had an expansionist vision and wanted us to both remain in the competition and to stay in Melbourne.

Then of course there was the tanking fiasco overseen by an inept Stynes/McLardy Board not voted in by the members but allowed to replace the Gardner Board when they realised and election was unwinnable and it was best for the Club to let Jimmy take over.

The tanking fiasco (yes, I know, we didn't tank it was just all a joke) and the inept management that landed us with Neeld, Connolly, McLardy and Schwab as the four pillars on which footy clubs are built left us with an interim coach and a percentage of 52% or thereabouts. 

The AFL stepped in and provided us with a brilliant CEO and competent Board and the financial support to pay out Schwab (who only months earlier had been granted a contract extension by McLardy), Neeld, Connolly and perhaps a few others.  If you think the AFL weren't in control of all that and that Jackson at least initially wasn't totally in control reporting straight to the AFL then you live in a different land to me.  The only way Jackson would have taken the job was if he had both total control and the full backing of the AFL. Our part in selecting him would have run something like "if you want AFL support and money appoint this man".

And how much more support do you expect from the AFL?  Whilst the most embarrassing club in the AFL we held the Queens Birthday fixture and were granted Anzac Eve.  How must the Dogs, Saints and Roos felt about that? Annual blockbusters which we have are gold as they don't relate to performance. 

Many sweat the small stuff but the AFL have brought us back to life with their help and now many here are bemoaning their lack of support.

I'm not sure if other clubs are the same but my one true hatred about this club is the inherant victim mentality its supporters have.  Thankfully the Club itself doesn't have it.  Thank heavens Jackson has a "can do" attitude and understands this game and is positioning us to succeed within it.

Yes Red, sadly for some Footy is a business but I reckon there is a very good chance that if it wasn't we'd have joined Fitzroy in the graveyard and then we'd really have something to moan about.

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it was the case with Demetriou that his bonus was directly linked to match attendances.  One would suspect Gil has something similar.  They then have the incentive to maximise those numbers, or at least create the situation for maximum attendances. 

So given that scenario, they will structure the fixture with the likelihood of maximum personal return.  No point sending Collingwood or Essendrug to Geelong as the ground can't fit the numbers.  No point playing North against Fremantle at the MCG when they will attract only 20k, much the same as Hobart.  Get Carlton playing on Friday night and more numbers will turn up than Carlton on Sunday afternoon or (unfortunately) Melbourne on Sunday afternoon. 

The fixture is still rigged to maximise the CEO personal return.  Our position has improved as we are no longer sent to Etihad ( because we get more spectators at the G).  Our position has changed because we have proven to get the crowds to Anzac eve and QB. 

But it takes a long period of sustained crowd numbers to convince the AFL.  Sustained crowd numbers come from SUSTAINED success, not on the back of 1 year ( even if our attendances in that year were in the top quartile of the Teams)

We will get a better fixture when we get more numbers to games.  Winning alone will not sway City Hall.  But winning starts to draw back the interest from the supporters.

We need to keep winning, and then keep winning next year and the year after.  Then the AFL will take notice. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

means that the lesser 4 Vic clubs will always be there just to make up the numbers.

I disagree with this statement. The AFL will do everything in its powers to stabilise all clubs. 

However, with one big proviso- they wont do it forever, they are running a business not a charity. Once the AFL has bedded down, signed agreements with the club that wins the 3rd Melbourne Stadium then it will move onto team rationalisation.

On-field success and past history will stand for nothing -  bottomline dollars & cents will be the determining factor if you survive or go.

This fixture clearly put the ball in the court of members and supporters, the AFL tenure and Jacksons tenure with the MFC is coming to an end.

Fun times ahead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

I wasn't sure whether you were tongue in cheek when you said this but subsequent replies suggest not.

My first recollection of being saved by the AFL was in 2003 when we as members had our last chance to vote in some Board members of our choosing - Coglin and Phillip.  When they joined the Board they took on responsibility of unpaid liabilities of millions of dollars (including a tax liability quietly hidden in the bottom draw of a desk) the inept Szondy Board lost.  The AFL bailed us out and gave us over a million bucks from memory and this at a time when it could have suited them to shunt us off to where ever and get rid of our basket case of a club.  Thankfully Demetriou had an expansionist vision and wanted us to both remain in the competition and to stay in Melbourne.

 

Then of course there was the tanking fiasco overseen by an inept Stynes/McLardy Board not voted in by the members but allowed to replace the Gardner Board when they realised and election was unwinnable and it was best for the Club to let Jimmy take over.

The tanking fiasco (yes, I know, we didn't tank it was just all a joke) and the inept management that landed us with Neeld, Connolly, McLardy and Schwab as the four pillars on which footy clubs are built left us with an interim coach and a percentage of 52% or thereabouts. 

The AFL stepped in and provided us with a brilliant CEO and competent Board and the financial support to pay out Schwab (who only months earlier had been granted a contract extension by McLardy), Neeld, Connolly and perhaps a few others.  If you think the AFL weren't in control of all that and that Jackson at least initially wasn't totally in control reporting straight to the AFL then you live in a different land to me.  The only way Jackson would have taken the job was if he had both total control and the full backing of the AFL. Our part in selecting him would have run something like "if you want AFL support and money appoint this man".

And how much more support do you expect from the AFL?  Whilst the most embarrassing club in the AFL we held the Queens Birthday fixture and were granted Anzac Eve.  How must the Dogs, Saints and Roos felt about that? Annual blockbusters which we have are gold as they don't relate to performance. 

Many sweat the small stuff but the AFL have brought us back to life with their help and now many here are bemoaning their lack of support.

I'm not sure if other clubs are the same but my one true hatred about this club is the inherant victim mentality its supporters have.  Thankfully the Club itself doesn't have it.  Thank heavens Jackson has a "can do" attitude and understands this game and is positioning us to succeed within it.

Yes Red, sadly for some Footy is a business but I reckon there is a very good chance that if it wasn't we'd have joined Fitzroy in the graveyard and then we'd really have something to moan about.

 

 

In the recent past we've received a one-off grant of 1.4 million and PJ was steered our way.

PJ went after Roos and got him but that's his job.  And the club paid Roos' salary too. 

I can't find any other recent handouts. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Macca said:

And maybe the 4 lesser clubs in Melbourne need to find a way to fight back. 

Yeah its called make money. Quite simple really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

I know it was the case with Demetriou that his bonus was directly linked to match attendances.  One would suspect Gil has something similar.  They then have the incentive to maximise those numbers, or at least create the situation for maximum attendances. 

So given that scenario, they will structure the fixture with the likelihood of maximum personal return.  No point sending Collingwood or Essendrug to Geelong as the ground can't fit the numbers.  No point playing North against Fremantle at the MCG when they will attract only 20k, much the same as Hobart.  Get Carlton playing on Friday night and more numbers will turn up than Carlton on Sunday afternoon or (unfortunately) Melbourne on Sunday afternoon. 

The fixture is still rigged to maximise the CEO personal return.  Our position has improved as we are no longer sent to Etihad ( because we get more spectators at the G).  Our position has changed because we have proven to get the crowds to Anzac eve and QB. 

But it takes a long period of sustained crowd numbers to convince the AFL.  Sustained crowd numbers come from SUSTAINED success, not on the back of 1 year ( even if our attendances in that year were in the top quartile of the Teams)

We will get a better fixture when we get more numbers to games.  Winning alone will not sway City Hall.  But winning starts to draw back the interest from the supporters.

We need to keep winning, and then keep winning next year and the year after.  Then the AFL will take notice. 

Yep. Gill was already talking about breaking crowd numbers this year. 

That still doesn’t explain Carltanks Red Carpet ride. 

Hopefully the get thumped each friday..

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Macca said:

In the recent past we've received a one-off grant of 1.4 million and PJ was steered our way.

PJ went after Roos and got him but that's his job.  And the club paid Roos' salary too. 

I can't find any other recent handouts. 

 

Macca as my post above suggests whenever we've tried to stand on our "own two feet" as you've suggested we've tripped over badly.

We've received handouts twice that I can recall and I've outlined them. Thank heavens they have.  We were inept but aren't now because they basically took over control of our club.

Those that complain don't understand the concept of biting the hand that feeds you.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yep. Gill was already talking about breaking crowd numbers this year. 

That still doesn’t explain Carltanks Red Carpet ride. 

Hopefully the get thumped each friday..

This is the best, and most likely outcome of this whole thing.  The fact they have got the 4 Friday games, that's the truly abysmal element of the fixture.  We can't change it, so let's just sit back and watch it all crumble for the Blooz.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Macca as my post above suggests whenever we've tried to stand on our "own two feet" as you've suggested we've tripped over badly.

We've received handouts twice that I can recall and I've outlined them. Thank heavens they have.  We were inept but aren't now because they basically took over control of our club.

Those that complain don't understand the concept of biting the hand that feeds you.

Of course we were inept ... we all witnessed the debacle.

My point was about the monetary handputs in the recent past and my point still stands.

A 1 4 million grant and that's it.

Unless someone knows of other monetary grants or handouts.

The work done by PJ is to be expected ... that is what he is there for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Macca as my post above suggests whenever we've tried to stand on our "own two feet" as you've suggested we've tripped over badly.

We've received handouts twice that I can recall and I've outlined them. Thank heavens they have.  We were inept but aren't now because they basically took over control of our club.

Those that complain don't understand the concept of biting the hand that feeds you.

Im stick with my conspiracy theory - the AFL is sending the MFC members and supporters a clear message - stand on your own two feet or we will remain in control. With all due respect Blind Freddy could see it just some MFC members and supporters cant. 

 

9 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

That still doesn’t explain Carltanks Red Carpet ride.

Smart move by the AFL - they are ensuring 3 strong bids for the 3rd Stadium in Melbourne - so they are strengthening the financial position of Carlton, Collingwood and Richmond. May I add at the expense of the non-bidding clubs is Bulldogs, North etc

So either way which ever bid they select will have strong financial backing - smart 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2013 Jackson came out and said that we had good income streams and tbat we weren't a basket-case (off- field)

As for on-field,  we were cactus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Macca said:

Of course we were inept ... we all witnessed the debacle.

My point was about the monetary handputs in the recent past and my point still stands.

A 1 4 million grant and that's it.

Unless someone knows of other monetary grants or handouts.

The work done by PJ is to be expected ... that is what he is there for.

We may be talking at cross-purposes.

You said we had stood on our own two feet.  We haven't. Even with your chosen limited time frame we've received handouts.  Many haven't.  Over a longer period we've received more than most.  Hardly standing on our own two feet.

And the work PJ has done "is to be expected"?!  Wow.  If exceptional is to be expected I'd hate to be your employee. He's been unbelievably good.  The crowning glory will be to instigate a succession plan that cements his great work.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Macca said:

And maybe the 4 lesser clubs in Melbourne need to find a way to fight back.  Yesterday I proposed here on this thread that a joint venture could be put to the AFL by the 4 clubs with regards to Friday night or Saturday night games on free-to-air. 

Do nothing and we can expect more of the same. 

Good idea Macca.

Ironically not that long ago the five or six powerhouse clubs (including Adelaide and West Coast) used to get together before AFL meetings to discuss their strategy. Not sure if they still do it officially but I am sure they keep the back door communications open.

The problems for the lesser clubs is that they have competing agendas in the sense that GCS, GWS, and Brisbane are alter egos of the AFL. That only leaves the four Vic clubs (North, Dogs, Saints and MFC) to argue the alternative strategies.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

We may be talking at cross-purposes.

You said we had stood on our own two feet.  We haven't. Even with your chosen limited time frame we've received handouts.  Many haven't.  Over a longer period we've received more than most.  Hardly standing on our own two feet.

And the work PJ has done "is to be expected"?!  Wow.  If exceptional is to be expected I'd hate to be your employee. He's been unbelievably good.  The crowning glory will be to instigate a succession plan that cements his great work.

Well,  I do expect a well paid CEO to be able to do his or her job to a high standard.

And I haven't judged PJ against our previous CEO's.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

He's been unbelievably good.  The crowning glory will be to instigate a succession plan that cements his great work.

I agree with you. However, the massive game changer is coming - the removal of poker machines. 

"Instigating a succession plan that cements his great work" may prove to be the biggest under statement of all time in an era of rising costs and one of your major revenue streams days being numbered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DemonAndrew said:

first up, it's a fixture, not a draw

i have no issues with who we play, but some of the choices around timings are utterly bizarre

from a financial pov, i think it's pretty crippling, and really, cos it's a fixture and not a draw, that's all that matters; we'll be up against it this year to turn a positive unless our side is very, very good and we make finals

we simply must win more than 13 games to make finals, and quite honestly i think 12 will be a stretch as i'm writing off those two games against footscray after the nt trips

DemonAndrew would you mind explaining the difference.

I was talking to a couple of journalist mates who are from NSW and don't follow AFL. They were laughing about some of the weird AFL centric terminology and calling the draw a Fixture was one of the things they brought up. They said its a schedule not a Fixture and wondered why it was called that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Good idea Macca.

Ironically not that long ago the five or six powerhouse clubs (including Adelaide and West Coast) used to get together before AFL meetings to discuss their strategy. Not sure if they still do it officially but I am sure they keep the back door communications open.

The problems for the lesser clubs is that they have competing agendas in the sense that GCS, GWS, and Brisbane are alter egos of the AFL. That only leaves the four Vic clubs (North, Dogs, Saints and MFC) to argue the alternative strategies.

It's another way into the game ... we've got 5 big money-spinners this season but we need to push that number up to 7 or 8.  For some clubs,  7 or 8 big money-spinners is their minimum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Macca said:

Think I'm right in saying that we first switched to playing a lot on Sunday's was when Diamond Joe was Pres. 

And didn't North initiate the whole Friday night footy thing? ... no representation at all for them this time around except for Good Friday. 

Maybe the smaller Victorian clubs could band together and put some proposals to the AFL?  I'm not sure any of us would mind playing the Saints,  Bulldogs and/or North on a Friday or Saturday night (with free-to-air coverage)

PJ needs to find more ways of getting a decent deal ... in saying that he has landed the ANZAC eve fixture and the home game in round 1 against the Cats are terrific steps in the right direction.  And the 800k per game negotiated with the NT Government is another great deal (from a financial viewpoint)

I've said for a few years now that the smaller clubs should get together as a bloc - even included some non-Vic clubs who get routinely shafted as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I've said for a few years now that the smaller clubs should get together as a bloc - even included some non-Vic clubs who get routinely shafted as well.

Yep ... and as we've discussed previously,  clubs like Collingwood make big dollars even from their 7 away games in Melbourne (based on the large sales of their premium 18 game memberships)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I've said for a few years now that the smaller clubs should get together as a bloc

Would we all sing Kum ba yah at the start or the end of the bloc meetings?

Maybe we could run the meetings at Centrelink. Lets name the bloc - The Brotherhood of St Lawrence.

Why dont you put forward this suggestion at the next AGM? 

I would much prefer we spend our time working on ways we can stand on our own two feet. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm more troubled by the spelling..."to" when it should be "too".

I meant spelling. What a [censored] I am.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day, MFC supporters are going to stop whinging about: fixture, Etihad, injuries, luck, umpires, Etihad, Buckenara, Etihad, handball, compensated interstate games, Etihad, the bounce of the ball; the MCC waiting list etc...

Grow a pair, and realise that we reap what we sow.

 

Surely Barassi’s ‘If it is to be it is up to me’ does not pertain to the MFC, or us supporters.

 

Thought of the day: It is only 2 train stops from the G to Etihad.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

Yeah its called make money. Quite simple really. 

Hard to when you're handicapped by the AFL (not just MFC, all the traditionally smaller clubs)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

Would we all sing Kum ba yah at the start or the end of the bloc meetings?

Maybe we could run the meetings at Centrelink. Lets name the bloc - The Brotherhood of St Lawrence.

Why dont you put forward this suggestion at the next AGM? 

I would much prefer we spend our time working on ways we can stand on our own two feet. .

You're an idiot if you don't think the bigger clubs are already do the same thing. Look at how the "equalisation" discussion was hijacked a couple of years ago and who was on the working group for that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, TGR said:

One day, MFC supporters are going to stop whinging about: fixture, Etihad, injuries, luck, umpires, Etihad, Buckenara, Etihad, handball, compensated interstate games, Etihad, the bounce of the ball; the MCC waiting list etc...

Grow a pair, and realise that we reap what we sow.

 

Surely Barassi’s ‘If it is to be it is up to me’ does not pertain to the MFC, or us supporters.

 

Thought of the day: It is only 2 train stops from the G to Etihad.

 

 

Add Jack Watts to that list of moaning...

Also it’s four stops more often than not as trains are on the city loop - from Richmond to parliament to central to fragstaff to southern cross

Also re the q addrsssed to me, I would presume it’s called a fixture not a draw because it’s ‘fixed’ in terms of who plays when and where, and it’s not a draw cos it’s not ‘even’, ie everyone plays each other twice, both home and away

No idea why nrl people would call it a schedule, perhaps cos the timing of their games are not fixed but scheduled by the tv network preferences?

Edited by DemonAndrew
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×