article in yesterdays paper.

Link? Having trouble finding it.

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?

Niether the Australian Govt nor the AFL is in danger of going broke .

I am aware of the difference between a surplus and a deficit.

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.

That's the answer 'Roost', we need a period of sustained success and we will be a power again.

Link? Having trouble finding it.

read the actual paper mate. Can't remember whether it was the Aged or Hun?

read the actual paper mate. Can't remember whether it was the Aged or Hun?

Yeah found it - here it is for those interested.

Reflecting the attitude at Silks that day, McGuire said: ''So far, the best ideas I have heard have been to reach into the pockets of clubs who have acted in a responsible manner and if that is the best some clubs can come up with, then no wonder we are in this situation. We have acquiesced and acquiesced, but enough is enough.''

This attitude is what angers me the most in football and society in general. These clubs/people who have gotten fat off nothing other than sheer circumstance and the game being rigged in their favour come out swinging at the majority as soon as we want to either equal things up or swing things a little back in our favour. Eddie says he's sick of acquiescing? The league has been acquiescing to the likes of the Pies for the better part of two decades to the detriment of the vast majority of other clubs seeing them getting fatter and fatter while the rest of us starve on the streets.

The league and other clubs allowing the Pies/Bombers to own ANZAC Day every year (and then they kick up a stink when someone else even wants to play on the same day in a different state) is acquiescing. The league sending clubs interstate 6 times a year while the Pies travel only 3 or 4 every single year is acquiesing. The Pies/Blues/Bombers being shoved down our throats on FTA every single Fri/Sat night while the rest of us are relegated to matches against soulless franchises in graveyard slots every other week is acquiescing.

They say they are sick of other clubs digging into their pockets because they have managed themselves well while others are mismanaged and can only come up with taking from them but it is a fallacy. They have become larger, richer and more powerful at the expense of these other clubs. The thing we want most is not your money but to be compensated for the treatment we have received over the last decade or so and then allowed to compete on an even playing field with even draws and equal exposure on FTA in games people will actually give a stuff about. They say no-one wants to watch the Dogs v GWS but no-one wants to watch the Pies v GWS either. Neutral people (in Victoria at least) want to watch Richmond v North or Melbourne just as much as they want to watch Richmond v Essendon or Carlton. The big clubs and the AFL have convinced us this is not true in order to sell the game for more to the networks (because they can point to larger memberships/attendance as an easy sell) instead of doing the hard sell and convincing them it is THE GAME people want to watch and not specific clubs week after week.

It really gets me angry especially considering the fans don't seem to have a voice in this and the AFL is clearly about anything other than "integrity" "fairness" or an even "competition". They are about money only, not as a means to an end but an end in itself (much like society in general these days). The easiest way to maintain the integrity of what is supposed to be a professional sport and not a business is to make the draw fair and transparent every year so everyone knows how the draw is drafted and no-one can complain. Give each club equal exposure in a few big games a year even if it means taking a short term hit from the media rights over the long term integrity of the competition.

The article states each club was requested by the AFL to supply a proposal on equalisation measures following Colless' letter to them last year. Geelong made theirs public (at least initially) and it is a must read for anyone who gives a damn about this type of thing. I would love it if the MFC would do the same and am going to request a copy of them this week as a member of 24 years as I feel I am entitled to know how those in charge at my club go about representing me and my club to the AFL. If equalisation means no more Queens Bday then go ahead, I don't want to be beholden to someone who will pull the carpet from under us as soon as it is no longer beneficial for them to give us their charity. I hope our club is fighting hard in the back rooms and discussing this with the likes of the Dogs, North, Port and Brisbane as we are all in trouble (Vic clubs moreso) as soon as the AFL/rich clubs decide they've had enough and want to devour us.

TL;DR the rich clubs got rich off our hard work, time to unionise.

Edited March 3, 201312 yr by Dr. Gonzo

We would all be a lot better off without AD being paid $3M+ a year to fly first class and represent the football public at the London Olympics.

We need to win games of football, that solves the problem.

I think we have seen the worst of it, hopefully in years to come we a list that dominates and supporters jump aboard.

Then the AFL will give us home games against the big V clubs.

That is the best way to deal with it, just concentrate on winning games and building and improving our talent.

We need to win games of football, that solves the problem.

I think we have seen the worst of it, hopefully in years to come we a list that dominates and supporters jump aboard.

Then the AFL will give us home games against the big V clubs.

That is the best way to deal with it, just concentrate on winning games and building and improving our talent.

1) During the early part of last decade when we regularly made finals we still got shafted with a rubbish fixture for the most part.

2) Why is it necessary for some clubs to have this requirement while others get gifted good fixtures year after year?

Another article in today's Age about this indicating the Saints are voicing concerns about the big clubs meeting together to discuss how they want to run the competition. Hopefully the Commission listens to all parties when the meeting occurs on the 20th as it is for reasons such as this that it was created in the first place! I'd really like to know what our club is doing in regards to this issue as we have been very silent on it to date (although I acknowledge they ahve had other things on their plate). We need to ensure our voice is heard in this debate as the measures put in place by the AFL now will determine our long-term future, standing in the game and our ability to compete both on and off-field.

If anyone has any info on this or what our club raised as potential issues/solutions in our submission to the league I'd love to hear it.

1) During the early part of last decade when we regularly made finals we still got shafted with a rubbish fixture for the most part.

2) Why is it necessary for some clubs to have this requirement while others get gifted good fixtures year after year?

Because the big clubs have bigger memberships - which equals big dollars and profits for clubs and the league, money talks - especially in the AFL, which is predominantly a business first and sporting organisation second. It didn't used to be this way, but that is how it is.

The early part of last decade where we made the finals, the AFL was a different landscape altogether - it wasn't as much of a business.

Bottom line is that we need to increase our membership, that should be our main focus and in this current landscape - the best way to do that is win games of football.

Mark Neeld appears to be doing all the right things, the way our board handled our debt, has handled the tanking saga and turned over the list.

We are now ideally placed to really just concentrate on winning games and turning this club around.

Because the big clubs have bigger memberships - which equals big dollars and profits for clubs and the league, money talks - especially in the AFL, which is predominantly a business first and sporting organisation second. It didn't used to be this way, but that is how it is.

The early part of last decade where we made the finals, the AFL was a different landscape altogether - it wasn't as much of a business.

Bottom line is that we need to increase our membership, that should be our main focus and in this current landscape - the best way to do that is win games of football.

Mark Neeld appears to be doing all the right things, the way our board handled our debt, has handled the tanking saga and turned over the list.

We are now ideally placed to really just concentrate on winning games and turning this club around.

This is how the AFL currently operates but this is what we should be demanding is overturned in this round of equalisation talks. It's rubbish to suggest that just because we have a smaller membership that we should somehow be relegated to second division status. You say all we have to do is win but it is far more than that. If it is based on raw numbers then it doesn't matter how much we win we will still be shafted with the fixture and the fact is in a competition that wishes to be seen as equal and fair this is a key plank in achieving that. To compromise the fixture in the pursuit of dollars for some and second-class status for the rest leads to th smaller clubs having less match-day revenue, less sponsorship revenue and less exposure to potential new supporters which pure monetary payoffs will not compensate us for. These policies have long lasting effects on our membership base which even stringing some good seasons together will not fix. I'm not saying we would be as large as Collingwood if the draw was even and fair but we would definitely be sustainable and able to compete with those clubs - currently the AFL's policies don't really allow this to happen.

I'd also dispute your contention that the AFL was less of a business 10 years ago but even if that were the case then it makes no sense that we would still be disadvantaged by the fixture which we were and continue to be. If it were less of a business it stands to reason that there would be a fair draw in place but the AFL still manipulated the fixture to allow the big clubs to play each other twice every season while we had to host Port and Freo every year.

You must factor in the most Important factor into all this.

The latest Broadcast Rights cost Ch 7 & Fox $1.5 Billion which was higher than anyone expected.

In return these 2 Networks particularly 7 will demand to get top return for their purchase.

Ch7 are not interested in cellar dwellar games anymore

They NEED Blockbusters to pay the bills.

The AFL was chuffed when this deal went through. I wasn't

You must factor in the most Important factor into all this.

The latest Broadcast Rights cost Ch 7 & Fox $1.5 Billion which was higher than anyone expected.

In return these 2 Networks particularly 7 will demand to get top return for their purchase.

Ch7 are not interested in cellar dwellar games anymore

They NEED Blockbusters to pay the bills.

The AFL was chuffed when this deal went through. I wasn't

I understand all that but what I'm saying is the clubs need to force the Commission to dictate their own draw not allow the networks to dictate their schedule. It is an easy option to acquiesce and say we will put the big drawing clubs on every single week but the harder option is to hold your ground and make the argument that the networks will benefit from an even and fair competition and diversity of teams being broadcast in the best slots rather than having Carlton and Essendon shoved down our throats every single week. The fact is most people who are going to watch the footy on a Friday or Saturday night will probably watch regardless of if it is Essendon v Richmond or North Melbourne v Melbourne.

If this stance results in some short term pain for long term gain then the clubs need to ensure the Commission act with the games best long term interests at heart, not merely do what will give them the biggest bonuses each year.

Edited March 4, 201312 yr by Dr. Gonzo

I understand all that but what I'm saying is the clubs need to force the Commission to dictate their own draw not allow the networks to dictate their schedule. It is an easy option to acquiesce and say we will put the big drawing clubs on every single week but the harder option is to hold your ground and make the argument that the networks will benefit from an even and fair competition and diversity of teams being broadcast in the best slots rather than having Carlton and Essendon shoved down our throats every single week. The fact is most people who are going to watch the footy on a Friday or Saturday night will probably watch regardless of if it is Essendon v Richmond or North Melbourne v Melbourne.

If this stance results in some short term pain for long term gain then the clubs need to ensure the Commission act with the games best long term interests at heart, not merely do what will give them the biggest bonuses each year.

i agree mate, but the fact that the AFL extracted such a huge pool of money. The TV Stations would have stipulated a strong say in the draw, sorry fixture.

I cannot speak for Fox as i don't know there money pool, but i do know Commercial TV makes a very small profit or breaks even during the Home & Away.

They make $$$ in September.

Now with this new deal 7 will want to make money on the entire season as it cost them heaps. They have to. The AFL screwed them.

But i have no doubt 7 was heavily involved in the fixture.

Bottom feeder clubs are mere extras now.

They will all need assistance if you read the aricle today St. Kilda have paid $15 million to the Etihad shareholders. What a sham that has turned out to be!!!

I understand all that but what I'm saying is the clubs need to force the Commission to dictate their own draw not allow the networks to dictate their schedule. It is an easy option to acquiesce and say we will put the big drawing clubs on every single week but the harder option is to hold your ground and make the argument that the networks will benefit from an even and fair competition and diversity of teams being broadcast in the best slots rather than having Carlton and Essendon shoved down our throats every single week. The fact is most people who are going to watch the footy on a Friday or Saturday night will probably watch regardless of if it is Essendon v Richmond or North Melbourne v Melbourne.

If this stance results in some short term pain for long term gain then the clubs need to ensure the Commission act with the games best long term interests at heart, not merely do what will give them the biggest bonuses each year.

Unfortunately networks dictated the schedule when they paid out the big bucks. When we are a top team, playing football that people want to watch then we will be scheduled in the best time slots.

As for equalising the competition then I think a cap on FD spend is the best option, the so called tax really does create a wealthy v poor environment and who wants to be seen as the poor cousin. Cap spend and maybe ramp up the equalisation on game receipts, push for a rotation of Anzac day and other like games but realise this will also mean our QB game.

Building our membership base is crucial but that's going to be a 10 - 20 year plan and dependant on on-field success and good off-field management. Hawthorn have built there membership on the back of premierships in the late 70's - 80's that's why you will see a lot of there supporters in the 30's to 40's age group, they were kids when Hawthorn was a power.

We need to win games of football, that solves the problem.

I think we have seen the worst of it, hopefully in years to come we a list that dominates and supporters jump aboard.

Then the AFL will give us home games against the big V clubs.

That is the best way to deal with it, just concentrate on winning games and building and improving our talent.

Totally agree. Hard for the AFL to manipulate the fixture in September if we're in the grand final each year.

And that particular game's bigger than any other sporting contest in Australia every year.

In short, we're sure to turn a profit and remain viable if we're consistently going deep into September. It's in our hands.

That's why it's a huge relief we now have Neeld, Misson, Craig, T Viney, Brown and Rawlings in the football department.

You must factor in the most Important factor into all this.

The latest Broadcast Rights cost Ch 7 & Fox $1.5 Billion which was higher than anyone expected.

In return these 2 Networks particularly 7 will demand to get top return for their purchase.

Ch7 are not interested in cellar dwellar games anymore

They NEED Blockbusters to pay the bills.

The AFL was chuffed when this deal went through. I wasn't

exactly why i have suggested all gate receipts get taken by the afl and divvied up at the end of the year. problem solved

Totally agree. Hard for the AFL to manipulate the fixture in September if we're in the grand final each year.

And that particular game's bigger than any other sporting contest in Australia every year.

In short, we're sure to turn a profit and remain viable if we're consistently going deep into September. It's in our hands.

That's why it's a huge relief we now have Neeld, Misson, Craig, T Viney, Brown and Rawlings in the football department.

Do you think we would be able to sustain top 4 finishes for 10-15 years? Because that is the low point if we expect it to have a flow-on effect to our supporter base.

It's been said several times already but we have to start winning.

And when we do and we're handed Prime time games , we have to win them aswell.

We've teased Demetriou a couple times during his tender and he's given us primetime games and we have been downright embarrassing.
Little wonder he relegated us to Sunday twighlight times.

Winning sides cannot be ignored.

Oh and for long term viability .... We have to do it for at least a decade landing at least a couple of flags.

Edited March 4, 201312 yr by My TD

Why does a surplus in the treasury equate to good governance?

Ask Greece, Italy, England and the USA.