Jump to content

Dr. Gonzo

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Dr. Gonzo

  1. Private ownership is the one big thing I hate about US sports. I just don't get it. We would no longer be members but season ticket holders. If you get saddled with a bad owner (like Woody Johnson and his sons for my NY Jets) or one who thinks he can dictate to the coach and GM like Jerry Jones at the Cowboys you're absolutely screwed and there's nothing the supporters can do about it. Not only that but they'll be looking at more and more ways to gouge money from supporters, say goodbye to GA tickets.

  2. 1 hour ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

    another option - by far my preferred one - is that the afl finally embraces it's quasi-socialism and instead of clubs making revenue on gate takings, finals, merchandise etc., the afl takes it ALL and splits all revenues such as those, as well as broadcast rights etc., evenly between the 18 clubs

    no more haves and have-nots, but instead everyone is on an equal footing

    This should have happened 20 years ago once they began compromising the fixture for tv dollars.

    If at the end of all this Melbourne ends up merging or dying I'll be lost to the AFL. I don't think that would've been the case in the past but the game on its own is not enough to keep me interested anymore. Without the tribalism of supporting the club I have since I was born, that my family support, footy as it is played in the AFL would hold little interest.

    • Like 8

  3. 8 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    as a stadium it is very hard to value. The original developers went broke and the AFL got it for one dollar in return for agreeing to play there for around 20 years.

    So it's chicken and egg...without the AFL it has little if any value so as a lender how do you rate it as a security. Land value?? Would a government allow you to demolish it.

    In the 80's some clubs borrowed against their grandstands etc. The banks realised it was a bit of a myth that they had any security

    Land that size in the CBD? Yeah I'm pretty sure it would have some value

  4. 7 hours ago, Demons1858 said:

    There might not be a next year as there is no garantee all clubs will survive especially those getting annual afl / mcc hand outs ... when assets get devalued as is happening now, banks come calling to recoup debt ... mfc need to do everything they can now and in the next few years ... suspect they will be calling on only wealthy supporters to help initially ... without income mfc staff will also lose jobs

    The clubs own 1/18th share of Docklands don't they? 

    • Like 2

  5. 9 hours ago, Baghdad Bob said:

    Well well well.  Someone, in the opinion business, gets it wrong.  Let's call him names, let's vent and let's not recognize that in footy we've all been horribly wrong at times.

    He had an opinion.  He didn't hurt anyone but now we'll start vilifying him shall we??  


    Settle down Cam

    • Haha 1

  6. 1 hour ago, HardBallGet said:

    The AFL is a sexist disgrace. Gil has said he is committed to playing the remaining 16 rounds plus finals of AFL at some stage this year, yet AFLW is cancelled with 3 games remaining. I know this is probably irrelevant given it is unlikely either formats will recommence in 2020, but on principle it is poor. It is time to stop treating AFLW as a level of equality the AFL has gifted to women. 


    We'll be lucky if there still is an AFLW next season (not to mention a few AFL clubs too)

  7. 15 minutes ago, Jaded said:

    It's very easy for people to say 'lets close schools', but the reality is our healthcare system and our economy are both under great duress.

    Some of us don't have the luxury of working from home, and we have small businesses which employ people. If the kids don't go to school, we have two options, close our business (so 6 people lose their livelihood, including ourselves), or have their 70 year old grandparents look after them.

    This is just us, but what about nurses? doctors? people working in food production? pharmaceuticals? 

    If you close schools now, you are looking at prolonged closures, job losses, a greater hit to our economy and increased pressure on our already struggling health care system.

    Kids are the least vulnerable to this disease, and while there is a  risk of infection within families, and while I applaud teachers for risking their own health, right now, this is the best option for the greater good.

    Schools are being extra cautious and have cancelled all incursions, excursions, assemblies etc. 

    Everyone is doing their best in what is a very difficult time. The less armchair experts get involved, and sprout unnecessary fear and panic, the better. 


    P.S.- if you can, please support small businesses during this time. A lot won't survive this otherwise. 

    It sucks and it is going to have a massive impact on the entire economy. I would not want to be a business owner right now.

    But I don't think you can escape the impact. Whether we close things (like schools) down now or in 3 weeks, you're just delaying the inevitable and allowing things to get worse in the meantime.

  8. 3 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

    The UK totally misread how to handle the situation and are now having to change tact. They've handled it differently to Australia.

    Schools will likely close at some stage, but the unanimous advice from the actual experts (and not Demonland posters) is that we're better off with them open currently. One of the main reasons is that if 4 million school kids are sent home it will have a devastating effect on the amount of people available to work in crucially needed jobs right now, including health professionals. It will also likely mean those school kids will be cared for by vulnerable grandparents.

    Not everything is as simple as you like to make it out to be mate.


    It's BS they're more worried about the impact on the economy than the availability of health care workers. You can't negotiate with a virus, you can't bargain and wait it out til the school holidays. Incompetent buffoons in charge everywhere who know nothing except their neo-liberal ideologies and worship of the marketplace. But at least Scotty has some stern words for those acting like idiots, I'm sure they'll listen.

    • Haha 1

  9. 3 hours ago, Pennant St Dee said:

    as is being in confined area with infected people 

    as others have said people still in work and schools still open

    contact sport is not increasing the risk

    School, work, supermarkets - essential services

    Professional sports - non-essential luxury entertainment

    The point is not to eliminate exposure, chances are a majority of people are going to end up contracting the virus at some point. The point is to slow it's movement through society so the public health system isn't overwhelmed and people die because they can't get treatment. Any non-essential activities should be reduced or eliminated to reduce the chances of infection and slowing the spread. But it will spread now that it's here, I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle. Borders should've been locked down a month ago but then again a month ago I was laughing at people who were worried about this. I thought it would be another SARS/Avian flu deal. The effects on health and the economy are beyond what I imagined it would be and for Australians it is going to get worse before it gets better.

    • Like 4

  10. 10 hours ago, AshleyH30 said:

    This is just my opinion, but I don't see the AFL getting far beyond round 1. The rate of infection is increasing exponentially at a rate of about 20% per day with confirmed cases doubling every 3-5 days (and that is only cases that meet their criteria for testing. The total number of cases could 10, 100, or even 1000 times more).

    With the rate of infection, we'll have the same as the UK this time next week, the schools will be closed (should be closed now), and probably within 2-3 weeks of that we'll be in full lockdown.

    The government has no true indication of how far this virus has spread as they can't test for it as they only have a limited number of tests. 2 People at my work have come down with a severe fevor, and are told they can't be tested.

    About a month ago I had a fever (over 40 degrees) combined with a pretty swollen throat (but not infected and wasn't too sore), chills, body/muscle aches, fatigue, headaches for 4 or 5 days etc and was the worst I have felt since I had glandular fever. GP did a swab test for flu which came back negative but I was off work for a week and so was everyone in my team who had it as well (I caught it off someone in the team and it went through almost all of us). Did I have coronavirus? I dunno maybe 🤷‍♂️

  11. 1 hour ago, Pates said:

    I can’t see ANZAC eve going ahead with fans should they still be playing games at the point, so either way that one is a loss and the QB from many reports could be right in the middle of the worst of it all so games could be postponed. To that point I would be demanding that next year we get the gate receipts of both games unless they go ahead with fans. 

    I really hope we keep our Alice game but there could well be concerns about spreading the virus up that way and I’d imagine it could be devastating to communities out there for people that are already vulnerable in health. 

    There's no way crowds are allowed back by Anzac Day. They've cancelled all Anzac ceremonies today haven't they?

    This might allow us to negotiate with the AFL/Tigers/Pies to allow us at least one of Anzac Eve or Queens Bday next year so we won't have the feast or famine and will be guaranteed one of them each year. I'd push for anzac eve in 2021 because hopefully we'll have crowds back by queen's Bday (though who knows...)

    • Like 1

  12. 1 hour ago, Mickey said:

    What's the point of shortening matches? 

    Shortening matches won't shorten the season, only less games will.

    It won't make the season go faster, unless they play mid week too to get 1 1/2 - 2 rounds into a week.

    It won't lessen the chance of contracting Covid 19, as it takes about 15-20mins of contact (I think I read somewhere). Unless matches are shortened to 10 mins, what's the point?

    It won't really lessen the load on players, they'll just go harder later in games.

    I don't understand what they are trying to achieve.

    Shorter games will be to play make up games mid week later in the year (assuming the season is suspended and is able to recommence in time)

    The AFL will pull out all stops to meet their tv commitments (198 h&a games and 9 finals)

    • Like 2

  13. 1 hour ago, Dame Gaga said:

    I think we have to be prepared for the whole season to be cancelled. This situation changes by the day and by the minute. It is depressing, but AFL 2020 may be a write off. We are in uncertain times. Never experienced anything like this before. Very disturbing to read about the hospitals in Italy deciding who should be treated and who should not, according to age or health, and they have one of the best health systems in Europe. It feels like we are in a science fiction novel. And not a good one.

    Thank god our capitalist system is built to withstand such crises 🤔

    • Haha 1

  14. 1 hour ago, Forest Demon said:

    It’s going to be bizarre to watch. Even as a fan, I wonder if I will still get as invested as I normally do without the roar of the crowd when something happens. We will find out I guess.

    I'm sure you will, were you invested when we played in Alice Springs or Darwin?

  15. 2 hours ago, BrisbaneDemon said:

    You need some luck to win the flag

    My mfcss is telling me we get off to a flyer on top of the ladder and then the season is called off

    OR we break the drought but no one is allowed in to watch it


    • Like 3
    • Haha 1

  16. 2 hours ago, Big Col said:

    Stats show that the Eagles do very well from the umps in home games (and not so well in away games to be fair). The most accepted explanation is that umpires are influenced subconsciously by the partisan crowd.

    Or they have WA umpires like Dean Marghetts who blatantly favours them. If it was just the crowd why don't the Dockers get afforded the same luxuries?

  17. 2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

    Semantics Hunter S

    the game is 18 a side

    Drop the Rotations and players will hold there positions a lot more. 

    Coaches will just have to deal with it, as they did before Sheedy made so much noise

    I'm not saying don't try that. I just don't think it will work.

  18. 7 hours ago, deanox said:

    Bumping this, in case anyone wants to comment: I think it's a really different take that just reducing numbers and worth discussing.

    They also need to pay free kicks against the scraggers holding/tackling players at contests before theyve taken possession of the footy. Every club does it.

    • Like 1

  19. 7 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

    But the great players always did play well late in a game That’s the whole point. 
    Robbie Flower didn’t rotate off the bench every 8 minutes 

    When did Tulip ever looked Fatigued?

    The games congestion problems all ramped up in the 90’s after Sheedy’s rule was implemented 

    Not all new rules work, and this is one of them

    But the overpaid AFL Suits do not have the gonads to admit this one. They will implement 30 other new rules to hide the root problems 

    Yes the increased interchange was a significant factor. But it wasn't the only factor. Total football, full team defensive zones etc these tactics coincided with the increased interchange. They are both contributing factors to the lack of flow in the modern game.

  20. 8 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

    I knew that would be your answer. 
    The Centre Diamond was a joke. It lasted one season

    Go ahead and invent your new game, just don’t call it Australian Rules Football


    But the centre square??? Out on the full? That's not Australian Football, not how it was played for the majority of the first 110 years anyway.

    • Like 2

  21. 4 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

    It could be 12 a side and there would still be congestion. The whole premise of the game from the coaches point of view is to stop the other team scoring, and maintain possession until a scoring opportunity presents.

    In your example 12 a side would make defensive zones untenable. The ground is too big and players can kick the ball too far too quickly to be able to cover distance between the opposition in a 12 man zone.

    There were always be some congestion around the ball but it would be drastically reduced and coaches would be forced to play man on man due to the zones being unworkable

    • Like 3
  • Create New...