On 05/06/2013 at 05:23, chookrat said:

I respect the way North have not relied on draft concessions to develop their list.

I respect North too, but the reality is we have entered a period of free agency and the club is in a tailspin. I also have respect for the way in which Brisbane were able to win the first three-peat since the 50s and how Sydney have won two flags in the last decade. Don't you?

Don't kid yourself that the competition is even. Free agency assists the bigger clubs at the top of the ladder and the franchise clubs have a bigger cap.

Extending the salary cap is like opening another credit card to pay off the 1st credit cards debt.

We;ll end up further down the creek. 1st goal is too be viable, and halt our current debt, or it will blow out to another 5 million.

If we can stop and improve the debt for a low profit, then the extension of our cap would work to our favour.

Until then, the noose only tightens. From reports, we couldnt afford a payout. Yet we accept to pay more $$ to players?

  On 05/06/2013 at 05:56, TheBigFrog said:

Does the MFC have the money to pay its players more?

  On 05/06/2013 at 06:07, DeeVoted said:

Extending the salary cap is like opening another credit card to pay off the 1st credit cards debt.

We;ll end up further down the creek. 1st goal is too be viable, and halt our current debt, or it will blow out to another 5 million.

If we can stop and improve the debt for a low profit, then the extension of our cap would work to our favour.

Until then, the noose only tightens. From reports, we couldnt afford a payout. Yet we accept to pay more $$ to players?

Your analogy is deeply flawed for two reasons:

1. The club is backstopped by the AFL.
2. Unless we start winning the club will lose supporters and sponsors and are dead anyway.

Fitzroy were the last club to pay well under the cap and look where they are now.

  On 05/06/2013 at 04:27, sue said:

Will you be saying that when our good players are taken by other clubs under free agency? As much as it hurts, we may have to pay over the odds to retain them or attract strong players from other clubs. So if the AFL stumps up the cash and the permission to spend it on players I can't see how we could say no. If there are problems in winding it back over time, I'm sure this can be managed. As the team improves so will our income and equilibrium with other clubs will be reached.

Wouldn't say no to an AFL free kick. But it's a myth that our good players will be taken by other clubs under free agency.

With a young list we have more cap / cash to spare to equal any deals and our recent recruitment of Clark and Dawes indicate we are actually capable of beating other clubs for the services of players we want (I.e. beating Freo for Clark and Carlton (?) for Dawes...).

The media want to paint us as a hopeless and irredeemably bad case who are on a cycle of decline leading inevitably to our Fitzroy like exit from the AFL. I think this is rubbish.

I'd much prefer the AFL look at systemic inequities in the Draw, TV exposure, stadium deals and remove these impediments to us (and other clubs in a similar position) reaping the rewards and thriving when we get the team and footy right...

Sometimes if you take the hand out you can start believing you are a cripple... and then the cycle rolls on.

Terrible idea, just Eddie stirring trouble, patronising Melbourne, and taking an opportunity to remind everyone of the high and mighty position of Collingwood.

Oh look, North Melbourne have come out saying it is stupid and a bit insulting. Well played, Mr, McGuire.

Slightly more merit in an equalisation of footy department funding, but the best strategy is as a few people have noted, an equalisation of the commercial benefits of stadium deals and fixturing. Yes, the AFL will always maximise returns by tweaking the fixture, but that comes at the cost of individual club's commercial position, and as such those clubs should be generously compensated.

Also, free agency must be adapted to ensure that powerful clubs can't over-use the super incentive of being able to claim additional players without giving up draft position. It's a recipe for a steady teasing apart of the competition into a permanent two-class structure.

Melbourne's problems can only be resolved by persistent, careful an wise action by and within the club. AFL might help us to recruit the best people to assist with that in the football department and commercially, but there is no good case for giving us artificial advantages on the field.

  On 05/06/2013 at 01:21, Fat Tony said:

Casey is not the answer. It would be akin to Fitzroy playing its games at the Western Oval. Our home is the MCG and it is highly accessible to greater Melbourne. Building something that is remotely close to AFL standard would cost millions and would diminish our crowds. Moreover, locality has become much less important to which clubs people support in the TV age and winning has become more important.

Geelong have done it.

This 'play out of two big stadiums' idea is thinking of 20 years ago up until these new teams rocked up and Geelong found that they can make a mint if they own everything and get 25k people every week.

Now the expansion teams will work from something akin to that model.

  On 04/06/2013 at 20:06, Gorgoroth said:

Stuff it all, priority, salary cap, I want none of it,

I want the MFC to get their [censored] together and go back up he ladder because we are competent in all areas no because we keep getting hand outs.

If we are bad enough to qualify for their predetermined PPs - I am going to take it.

I am not going to cut my arm off because of pride.

  On 04/06/2013 at 23:55, Oucher said:

I agree with these guys that granting a PP is useless as it just gives the club another player that can be targetted by stronger clubs.

Excuse me?

We can't back ourselves to keep good players?

Who have we lost other than one bloke to a $6m contract?

We are a bad team and bad teams in draft regulated sports get good picks and we are going to take those and back ourselves to get a good player with them - assuming we don't invest them in a trade - and we are going to keep that player.

Oh, and the people that want you to think that draft concessions are 'not the way to go' are the ones that don't want to see another team hoarding all the best kids.

They can get stuffed.

If we are bad enough to qualify for those equalisation measures then we take them.

To be honest Brad Scott should just butt out.

His opinion on our club is not required, nor wanted.

If the AFL offer us anything we should take it, but only as part of Peter Jacksons total revamp of our football department.

  On 05/06/2013 at 03:45, why you little said:

AFL Footy will not be played out at Casey. It just won't happen.

Punt Rd is sitting next to a train station.

Winning football would get 40,000 to the 'G for an interstate killing.

Stop thinking small. To survive and prosper we must think bigger.

One day WYL, it will.. just as it is played at Kardinia Park, & at Launceston, & Hobart.

buy the area is not ready yet.

* we don't have to think bigger, we have to think more expansive... imo, your the one trying to stay the same. & the same has failed us.

the fact we've never had our own place is one of the reasons our supporter base has died. & our MCC supporters, I can only imagine is withering, & their young may be in other colours.

we have to learn to 'reach' Out to others to incorporate them, sorry, make them supporters & then one day members. but we need a Home, to wine & dine them Near the 'G'.

This is a brutal competition. I'll take any and all advantages afforded to us. God knows we need them.

  On 05/06/2013 at 08:07, rpfc said:

Oh, and the people that want you to think that draft concessions are 'not the way to go' are the ones that don't want to see another team hoarding all the best kids.

They can get stuffed.

If we are bad enough to qualify for those equalisation measures then we take them.

we need a temp helping hand with both, a PP & 3 Yrs of salary cap relief.

the salary cap relief could help straight off, with getting some instant quality players in & immediately helping the competitiveness.

the pp would help with the atrocious drafting over the last 10 years...

... we haven't recovered at all as a Club, since the salary cap penalties early this century.

I don't like the salary cap idea because it is unsustainable. It may be well and good to give the MFC an extended salary cap now to sort us out, but in two years when the dogs are still in the dump, does the AFL then give them an extended salary cap? And if PA crash this year, finish 14th, then spend the next 4 years in the bottom, do they get one? If the extended salary cap is normalised over 4 years, it is possible that 3-4 teams would need extended salary caps at once. It isn't a solution that can be applied to every team that needs help.

The other major problem with it is that it only assists with free agents. Unless you want to say 'extended salary cap and the first two picks in the pre-season draft', we won't get players. You can offer players all the money you want, but unless you trade 2 first round picks and aplayer you don't get a judd or an ablett. Maybe 'extended salary cap' and a PP that can be traded only' is a fair option?

The reason the PP 'works' is because you can re-do it every year and help the worst teams. It can also be spent how the team wants to spend it. Obviously, the PP doesn't work for reasons we are all aware of. I bet if we had our way again, we would have recognised the need for leaders and gone out and drafted/traded for some experienced leaders, and not just kids.

I still think any equalisation measures need to give the poor club some kind of trade bait to get other clubs interested.

  On 05/06/2013 at 08:40, deanox said:

I don't like the salary cap idea because it is unsustainable. It may be well and good to give the MFC an extended salary cap now to sort us out, but in two years when the dogs are still in the dump, does the AFL then give them an extended salary cap? And if PA crash this year, finish 14th, then spend the next 4 years in the bottom, do they get one? If the extended salary cap is normalised over 4 years, it is possible that 3-4 teams would need extended salary caps at once. It isn't a solution that can be applied to every team that needs help.

The other major problem with it is that it only assists with free agents. Unless you want to say 'extended salary cap and the first two picks in the pre-season draft', we won't get players. You can offer players all the money you want, but unless you trade 2 first round picks and aplayer you don't get a judd or an ablett. Maybe 'extended salary cap' and a PP that can be traded only' is a fair option?

The reason the PP 'works' is because you can re-do it every year and help the worst teams. It can also be spent how the team wants to spend it. Obviously, the PP doesn't work for reasons we are all aware of. I bet if we had our way again, we would have recognised the need for leaders and gone out and drafted/traded for some experienced leaders, and not just kids.

I still think any equalisation measures need to give the poor club some kind of trade bait to get other clubs interested.

I think its meant to be unsustainable... thats the whole point, its an quick short term pickyouup. to buy some mature quick fix players to bolster the list.

we need top quality leadership before we get more kids into our system... we haven't had Great Leaders since I don't know when.... Flower.

  On 05/06/2013 at 06:59, PaulRB said:

I'd much prefer the AFL look at systemic inequities in the Draw, TV exposure, stadium deals and remove these impediments to us (and other clubs in a similar position) reaping the rewards and thriving when we get the team and footy right...

Sometimes if you take the hand out you can start believing you are a cripple... and then the cycle rolls on.

You can't honestly expect the AFL to give us a better draw (financially), do you? Nobody other than Melbourne wants to watch us play. Nobody wants us to be on a Friday night, or on prime time TV, none of the good clubs want to play us.

We're going to get another draw next year involving 7/9 home games at the G against interstate clubs. We're going to be in lots of Sunday 1.10, Sunday 4.40, Saturday 2.10 games because they're not on TV. That's a commercial reality, and I do not blame the AFL for it.

Stadium deals do nothing for us - we're OK at the G, it's the Etihad tenants that are getting poleaxed.

I thought it was quite noble for some to come out and support a special salary cap for Melbounre - because if Melbourne were up the top I couldn't give a rats about helping any other team. Although maybe there is something behind it? Maybe an increased sallary would mean no priority pick or maybe Eddie McGuire was trying to win back some respect after the Goodes saga or maybe trying to avoid Collingwood sliding down the draft?

Even if we did get this increased salary cap I doubt we would use it - we only use 90ish% of the cap now. We are in debt agian but could just bite the bullet and attract a number of key players (like Clark) with big money and boom .... suddenly we are an okay team (need to get mids - Thomas).

I think even Eddie has worked out that having dysfunctional teams in an 18 team comp eventually costs everyone. Look at how many dud games were played last week. The AFL had manipulated the FIXture in the first 8 or 9 rounds that had the top 8 teams from last year taking each other on so there were numerous blockbusters for the night games and at least competitive matches down the bottom (Dees excluded). From now on there are going to be a lot of one sided matches that does nothing for the AFL brand and Its saleability. Equalisation is in everyone's interests

They can all go and get stuffed, no handouts, no AFL interference.

  On 04/06/2013 at 15:28, Choko said:

............. If it was Collingwood struggling, I would want them to rot......

I like the idea of them rotting but we can't let them die - if it wasn't for my hatred I couldn't go on.

  On 05/06/2013 at 14:34, ingeniokinetic said:

They can all go and get stuffed, no handouts, no AFL interference.

The AFL have already stepped in when it basically appointed us Jackson, they will probably play a role in assisting MFC to pay out Neeld.

If the AFL didn't send Jackson our way, we'd of continued our unethical ways - which is what has got us in this big mess in the first place.

We need the AFL's assistance, the place is a rabble - and getting worse, as a club we are in not far from being extinct atm.

  On 05/06/2013 at 09:12, dee-luded said:

I think its meant to be unsustainable... thats the whole point, its an quick short term pickyouup. to buy some mature quick fix players to bolster the list.

we need top quality leadership before we get more kids into our system... we haven't had Great Leaders since I don't know when.... Flower.

I don't think I explain properly sorry, I meant it is unsustainable, because it isn't a solution that can be 'the solution' ever year, or every second year, for struggling clubs.

The PP applied to everyone, it was a standard equalisation measure that was triggered and lots of clubs got.

The expanded salary cap will be an MFC only event that no other clubs get, that won't happen again. It won't solve the problem for the dogs in 4 years time when the AFL will have to come up with a new solution.

They need an equalisation measure than can be applied as a system to everyone, when they deserve or require it.

Expanded salary cap + priority picks.

This team really is that bad.