Silks Restaurant

[dee-luded 2,959]

I get that...but equal billing is not going to happen when you have clubs with massive supporter bases that's why there needs to be an across the board cap to equalise the spending and allow all clubs the opportunity of the ultimate success. In the end it is the only way for a club to really build a supporter base.

All of the big clubs with the exception of Collingwood have built there memberships on the back of consistent premiership success. Unfortunately for us it is a distant memory and that's why our supporter base is ageing. There were a lot of Melbourne jumpers around in the 60's but by the 70's they started to disappear.

Good management and on field success but in this time the AFL will need to put something into the mix or we could end up like the EPL where only a few teams have a chance for the life of the comp. a very sad state of affairs.

No most of them have done it off the back of advantage just as we did when we were the sole footy club at the 'G'. Every player wanted to play on the 'G'.

Our generosity, or that of the MCC, has helped to cause our weakness, & our lack of fighting, biting, & scratching for what we want, is mostly the rest of it.

watch other clubs grow in desperation, & brown paper bags enter the scene, and the 'politically nice guys' come last,,, for 45 years.

Edited March 2, 2013 by dee-luded

[Red and Bluebeard 2,090]

In some ways you remind me of Yoda.

Surely you mean "Of Yoda in some ways me you remind"

[jumbo returns 6,741]

Jumbo returns for PM!

Can't tell if they're friendly claws or nasty claws.

[rjay 25,086]

No most of them have done it off the back of advantage just as we did when we were the sole footy club at the 'G'. Every player wanted to play on the 'G'.

Our generosity, or that of the MCC, has helped to cause our weakness, & our lack of fighting, biting, & scratching for what we want, is mostly the rest of it.

watch other clubs grow in desperation, & brown paper bags enter the scene, and the 'politically nice guys' come last,,, for 45 years.

Unfortunately it is a money driven industry and that drives me to distraction, I would like to see a lot of what you are saying but it's just not going to happen. TV fronts the money to keep all teams viable, TV demands the best drawing games on Friday night, TV gets what it wants because it's paying the bills.

We're the fools who just take what's given have a grumble but love the game and turn up regardless of how many times they kick mud in our faces.

The MCG would not be the stadium it is today without the AFL and the home ground arrangements. The MFC and Cricket could not afford the up keep of the ground let alone the re build. The AFL would be headquartered at Waverley and that's where the GF and other major games would be played, the MCG would have become a run down or down sized relic from the past. Waverley was the bargaining chip and once the AFL got what they wanted Waverley disappeared, it had nothing to do with our generosity.

[rjay 25,086]

One thing the AFL did to try to even up the competition was to introduce priority picks !!

Eddie's abuse of power continues - even down to the symbolism of holding the function at Silks. To think that there was a time when he criticized us for spending time at ski lodges!!Rather than wasting club's his money touting its wealth , he should be giving all his supporters dental vouchers!

The fact is that an even competition is in everybody's best interest

Absolutely it is...and you could see the drop off in crowds and interest last year with a lot of one sided games.

[Sir Why You Little 37,125]

In some ways you remind me of Yoda.

excellent. Yoda is one of the absolute geniuses of the Universe so i will take that in my stride.

And yes the MFC has got to improve otherwise we will die.

6 years of rubbish will not cut it....and counting.

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

Theres a very simple solution to this problem. ALL gate proceeds from EVERY game in the season, apart from the finals(should go to the finals clubs), are taken by the AFL . at the end of the year the AFL divides the total gate receipts by 18 and gives each club its even share. That way the AFL can continue to base fixturing around maximising the number of "blockbuster" games without the less successful clubs missing out financially.

The clubs get their cash, the AFL get a more even comp, and the TV gets their "blockbusters".

There it is .

Edited March 2, 2013 by Munga

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Jumbo returns for PM!

Couldn't do any worse than what we have.

On topic we are not a viable viewing club at the moment so we get what we are worth, an extra 20,000 watching our games won't make us any more competitive.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Why does a surplus in the treasury equate to good governance? Howard and Costello had every opportunity in the boom years to take this country to the stratosphere but were poor visionaries.

Abbott's latest policy? 'We'll cut public service jobs?' Wow! Creative, inspiring and has NEVER been done before - the guy's good.

That's okay, Palmer will continue to build his Titanic and Reinhart will be the richest woman in the cemetery.

Now, back to equity....players deserve the coin they get, the game's brutal. There should be a salary cap on footy departments.

I hope we keep our Queen's Birthday game.

Equally when does spending money you don't have make you any better? We at Melbourne have a certain amount of money an fortunately the current board are, we hope, spending it wisely. Some of the previous Boards spent more that we had and nearly sent us to the wall; you getting my drift?

[CBDees 3,167]

Unfortunately it is a money driven industry and that drives me to distraction, I would like to see a lot of what you are saying but it's just not going to happen. TV fronts the money to keep all teams viable, TV demands the best drawing games on Friday night, TV gets what it wants because it's paying the bills.

We're the fools who just take what's given have a grumble but love the game and turn up regardless of how many times they kick mud in our faces.

The MCG would not be the stadium it is today without the AFL and the home ground arrangements. The MFC and Cricket could not afford the up keep of the ground let alone the re build. The AFL would be headquartered at Waverley and that's where the GF and other major games would be played, the MCG would have become a run down or down sized relic from the past. Waverley was the bargaining chip and once the AFL got what they wanted Waverley disappeared, it had nothing to do with our generosity.

I cannot agree that the TV sponsors, the AFL or whoever at any stage would swap the MCG for AFL Park at Waverley. It would be a financial disaster and massively unpopular with the footy public. The AFL Grand Final would be more likely to be played interstate than it ever would transferring from the centrally-located "G" to Arctic Park. If the MCCMFC (which is where we started) played hardball in relation to our traditional home stadium (isnce 1858) then we would have all our games there in the time slots we wanted. Now we have the tail wagging the dog!

[Moonshadow 17,677]

Can't tell if they're friendly claws or nasty claws.

Friendly. Sorry should've put wink emoticon jr.

[jumbo returns 6,741]

Equally when does spending money you don't have make you any better? We at Melbourne have a certain amount of money an fortunately the current board are, we hope, spending it wisely. Some of the previous Boards spent more that we had and nearly sent us to the wall; you getting my drift?

Of course. Having said that, wasn't our previous Board also critiqued for its archaic business practices? Practices that failed to raise revenue and were short sighted in their approach?

[Redleg 41,424]

As some have posted on here already, don't be foooled by Eddie and his mates bleating about the equalisation situation, when they say they are sick of supporting poorer clubs. It is actually the poorer clubs supporting them.

I spoke to one of our Directors yesterday about this issue and the major factor at work here is the fixture. The big clubs are given extra money by virute of commercially lucrative draws and the spin off that comes with that. The poorer clubs are condemned to fill in spots, that will never help their financial position.

Distribute games fairly and the money flows, but of course the AFL won't do this, because of its vetsted interests.

The argument needs to be brought out into the open and stop Eddie and his mates from hijacking it, with their spin and BS.

[Biffen 12,946]

Equally when does spending money you don't have make you any better? We at Melbourne have a certain amount of money an fortunately the current board are, we hope, spending it wisely. Some of the previous Boards spent more that we had and nearly sent us to the wall; you getting my drift?

Not really the place for politics Robbie but your conservative views on nearly every subject bore me to death.

Your over simplistic presentation of fiscal issues is as tedious as the Liberal mantra "we will not raise interest rates"

when in fact the raising and lowering of interest rates is set by the Reserve Bank.

Successful Economic policy in Australian Fiscal matters has been lead by Keating and more recently Rudd/Swan.

Your advocation of stringency during duress (GFC) would have been financial suicide for this country .

The money in the coffers doesn't belong to Liberal or Labor mate ,and the spending of it is what keeps this society ticking or limping along ,as the case may be .

It's not your private account that the reds are spending so relax .It belongs to us all .

If you know something on the issue ,share it ,but don't parrot pathetic media grabs . I though you might have a little more to you than that .

Edited March 2, 2013 by Biffen

[whatwhat say what 22,934]

I've been espousing the completely socialist model of the pool of gate receipts being split evenly for at least a decade.

I've spoken to people at the AFL about it, from 'rich' and 'poor' clubs about it, and the general feeling is it will never fly because of the likes of the Silks contingent will never support it.

I still say it makes sense, and is by far and away the easiest way of evening things up - that way there's no need for a cap on external revenue sources (eg pokies, membership, merch sales etc) or football department spend.

The latter will be the next thing that comes in I would imagine.

It won't work, the wealthier clubs will continue to find a way around it.

And the AFL changed their nomenclature to fixture from draw quite deliberately a few years back. It's forever destined to be uneven now as its geared towards tv revenue more than anything else.

Great thread btw, really enjoyable reading.

Edited March 2, 2013 by DemonAndrew

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

As some have posted on here already, don't be foooled by Eddie and his mates bleating about the equalisation situation, when they say they are sick of supporting poorer clubs. It is actually the poorer clubs supporting them.

I spoke to one of our Directors yesterday about this issue and the major factor at work here is the fixture. The big clubs are given extra money by virute of commercially lucrative draws and the spin off that comes with that. The poorer clubs are condemned to fill in spots, that will never help their financial position.

Distribute games fairly and the money flows, but of course the AFL won't do this, because of its vetsted interests.

The argument needs to be brought out into the open and stop Eddie and his mates from hijacking it, with their spin and BS.

Hence what i suggested in my post earlier. It will remove the conflict of interest with the draw

[rjay 25,086]

I cannot agree that the TV sponsors, the AFL or whoever at any stage would swap the MCG for AFL Park at Waverley. It would be a financial disaster and massively unpopular with the footy public. The AFL Grand Final would be more likely to be played interstate than it ever would transferring from the centrally-located "G" to Arctic Park. If the MCCMFC (which is where we started) played hardball in relation to our traditional home stadium (isnce 1858) then we would have all our games there in the time slots we wanted. Now we have the tail wagging the dog!

Unfortunately that's not what happened, the AFL built Waverley for a purpose and whether they would have moved the big games there or not (and remember one GF was played there) the MCC felt threatened enough by the prospect. Your argument may be correct but it is a long dead horse.

Theres a very simple solution to this problem. ALL gate proceeds from EVERY game in the season, apart from the finals(should go to the finals clubs), are taken by the AFL . at the end of the year the AFL divides the total gate receipts by 18 and gives each club its even share. That way the AFL can continue to base fixturing around maximising the number of "blockbuster" games without the less successful clubs missing out financially.

The clubs get their cash, the AFL get a more even comp, and the TV gets their "blockbusters".

There it is .

Agree and I would probably throw in the finals or at least a part of it.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,287]

The problem with only addressing the issues in the fixture with monetary compensation is that it is only a band-aid solution to what is really a long-term problem. You can throw a few million at us, North, Dogs etc and keep giving us home games in poor time slots against teams no-one wants to watch but that will only keep us barely afloat and beholden to those who "compensate" us (as is happening now).

The real need is to make the fixture an even draw (many ways this could be done) so that there is transparency in who plays who and when & where they play. The reason being that without an even draw clubs may stay afloat through being compensated but they will never be able to grow their support base which is the bottom line of being able to improve the financial situation. There is also the knock-on effects of less sponsorship revenue, less corporate match-day revenue, less exposure to new supporters etc that the AFL policy on maximising attendances leads to.

I've been saying for years that some of the smaller clubs should be forming a bloc within the AFL to challenge the financial heavyweights who dominate the league otherwise in time the big clubs will get sick of "propping up" the small clubs and we will go the way of South and Fitzroy i.e. relocated to new markets. It's all very well and good to say "let them stand on their own two feet" but it doesn't work if you first cut them off at the knees.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Not really the place for politics Robbie but your conservative views on nearly every subject bore me to death.

Your over simplistic presentation of fiscal issues is as tedious as the Liberal mantra "we will not raise interest rates"

when in fact the raising and lowering of interest rates is set by the Reserve Bank.

Successful Economic policy in Australian Fiscal matters has been lead by Keating and more recently Rudd/Swan.

Your advocation of stringency during duress (GFC) would have been financial suicide for this country .

The money in the coffers doesn't belong to Liberal or Labor mate ,and the spending of it is what keeps this society ticking or limping along ,as the case may be .

It's not your private account that the reds are spending so relax .It belongs to us all .

If you know something on the issue ,share it ,but don't parrot pathetic media grabs . I though you might have a little more to you than that .

I'm not interested in the crap you go on with but rather than complain I very rarely read what you have to say. In this instance you've replied to me so I'll answer fairly simply so it doesn't go over your head. It's not the money that we have and that they spend that worries me mate, it's the money that they don't have that they spend that does. If the AFL or the MFC spend money they don't have what do you reckon happens? If you want a clue then look overseas to most of the European countries for an answer.

Money in the coffers is what's called a surplus, you understand that don't you?

[rjay 25,086]

I'm not interested in the crap you go on with but rather than complain I very rarely read what you have to say. In this instance you've replied to me so I'll answer fairly simply so it doesn't go over your head. It's not the money that we have and that they spend that worries me mate, it's the money that they don't have that they spend that does. If the AFL or the MFC spend money they don't have what do you reckon happens? If you want a clue then look overseas to most of the European countries for an answer.

Money in the coffers is what's called a surplus, you understand that don't you?

They get a better TV deal or charge more at the gate. Back to the footy boys.

[Sir Why You Little 37,125]

There is no way this competition can carry 18 teams long term.

It is not going to happen.

[Roost It 1,434]

Unfortunately it is a money driven industry and that drives me to distraction, I would like to see a lot of what you are saying but it's just not going to happen. TV fronts the money to keep all teams viable, TV demands the best drawing games on Friday night, TV gets what it wants because it's paying the bills.

We're the fools who just take what's given have a grumble but love the game and turn up regardless of how many times they kick mud in our faces.

The MCG would not be the stadium it is today without the AFL and the home ground arrangements. The MFC and Cricket could not afford the up keep of the ground let alone the re build. The AFL would be headquartered at Waverley and that's where the GF and other major games would be played, the MCG would have become a run down or down sized relic from the past. Waverley was the bargaining chip and once the AFL got what they wanted Waverley disappeared, it had nothing to do with our generosity.

The bigger clubs can have the Friday and Saturday night timeslots. Just give Melbourne 6 Saturday afternoon games per year against the big clubs and we'd be totally self sustainable. In fact if we were to become successful over a 15 year period we may even have the opportunity to become a big club again.Its not as hard as the big dicks at the top make out. It suits the powerful's agenda's to have weak clubs. It's what gives them power.

There is no way this competition can carry 18 teams long term.

It is not going to happen.

Absolutely it can. There's oodles of cash and it's far and away the number 1 game in the country.

[Sir Why You Little 37,125]

The bigger clubs can have the Friday and Saturday night timeslots. Just give Melbourne 6 Saturday afternoon games per year against the big clubs and we'd be totally self sustainable. In fact if we were to become successful over a 15 year period we may even have the opportunity to become a big club again.Its not as hard as the big dicks at the top make out. It suits the powerful's agenda's to have weak clubs. It's what gives them power.

Absolutely it can. There's oodles of cash and it's far and away the number 1 game in the country.

i agree with your logic but the current fixturing will starve the bottom clubs.

There maybe oodles of $$$$ but only the few are eligable for it.

This meeting of these Presidents right or wrong is very serious

[Dr. Gonzo 24,287]

Just to clarify - was there an article on this about a new meeting between some club Presidents or is this referring to the meetings a couple of weeks ago between Coll, Carl, Ess, Rich & Haw discussing the AFL's equalisation proposals such as cap on FD spending, taxing bigger clubs gate receipts etc?

[Sir Why You Little 37,125]

Just to clarify - was there an article on this about a new meeting between some club Presidents or is this referring to the meetings a couple of weeks ago between Coll, Carl, Ess, Rich & Haw discussing the AFL's equalisation proposals such as cap on FD spending, taxing bigger clubs gate receipts etc?

article in yesterdays paper.