On 30/09/2013 at 02:54, Baghdad Bob said:

You can continue to bicker about the fact the heart surgeon didn't fix your ingrown toe nail when he performed the triple bypass operation that saved your life.

I'm glad we've got men running the show now instead of the boys you supported to the end claiming they were being undermined. Hopefully you can now see the difference or do you still pine for the old crew?

The point missed here is that the entire competition is almost entirely reliant on TV revenue. Ipso facto, it is TV that grows the brand. That is the only feather in Vlad's ample cap. As such, there will always be poorer clubs, which will suffer on a cyclical basis as their performances do not garner TV ratings. I do not doubt we have had mismanagement issues, but, for instance, the entire so-called "tanking" saga was seminal in the AFL's very own rules and structures. A framework of the AFL's own invention. In attempts to get off the bottom and thereby be a more attractive proposition for TV air time, we went for draft picks. Ill advised I have no doubt, but it occurred because the AFL set the framework. On several occasions, Demetriou publicly stated he did not believe there was the slightest trace of evidence that we tanked

The AFL is a a socialist organisation in the true sense of the word. Yet it's CEO gets a salary which is not commensurate with other CEO's in a similar size businesses. Simple as that.

I posted this on the Franklin Sydney thread - Dimitriou's much stated "preservation of the integrity of the game" has been thrown out the window over this.

TIME, ANDREW!!!!!

  On 01/10/2013 at 02:38, iv said:

The point missed here is that the entire competition is almost entirely reliant on TV revenue. Ipso facto, it is TV that grows the brand. That is the only feather in Vlad's ample cap. As such, there will always be poorer clubs, which will suffer on a cyclical basis as their performances do not garner TV ratings. I do not doubt we have had mismanagement issues, but, for instance, the entire so-called "tanking" saga was seminal in the AFL's very own rules and structures. A framework of the AFL's own invention. In attempts to get off the bottom and thereby be a more attractive proposition for TV air time, we went for draft picks. Ill advised I have no doubt, but it occurred because the AFL set the framework. On several occasions, Demetriou publicly stated he did not believe there was the slightest trace of evidence that we tanked

The AFL is a a socialist organisation in the true sense of the word. Yet it's CEO gets a salary which is not commensurate with other CEO's in a similar size businesses. Simple as that.

Club membership have never been higher, interest in the game has never been higher, AD has made football a year round event, good for us because we don't do well in winter. AD has established the code in NSW and Qld and while many think this is silly the same was said of expansion into Sydney.

The tanking saga saved our lives. Got rid of people who were not the required standard and cost us nothing. The AFL paid the fine and funded the removal of those that had mismanaged us. We now have Jackson and Roos - thanks AFL. And in an investigation that focused on rorting for draft picks have a look at the penalty. NO loss of draft picks. So for tanking we got Scully who went to GWS and we got two comp picks. For those two picks we got (about) Hogan and Barry. What more do you want. In terms of handouts we get it in spades and yet people still whine.

Those complaining about AD's salary are just plain silly. Good people get good money. AD has kept the competition flourishing and MFC alive. Not a bad effort.

And Mono I agree about the Sydney COL allowance. But I'd rather Sydney have Buddy than GWS. GWS are who we are competing against at the moment, not Sydney.

I think he is an evil genius. Not matter how much he mishandles situations, leaks, manipulates and mis-speaks he gets the outcomes he wants and is like teflon - nothing sticks to him.

  On 01/10/2013 at 03:58, Baghdad Bob said:

Club membership have never been higher, interest in the game has never been higher, AD has made football a year round event, good for us because we don't do well in winter. AD has established the code in NSW and Qld and while many think this is silly the same was said of expansion into Sydney.

The tanking saga saved our lives. Got rid of people who were not the required standard and cost us nothing. The AFL paid the fine and funded the removal of those that had mismanaged us. We now have Jackson and Roos - thanks AFL. And in an investigation that focused on rorting for draft picks have a look at the penalty. NO loss of draft picks. So for tanking we got Scully who went to GWS and we got two comp picks. For those two picks we got (about) Hogan and Barry. What more do you want. In terms of handouts we get it in spades and yet people still whine.

Those complaining about AD's salary are just plain silly. Good people get good money. AD has kept the competition flourishing and MFC alive. Not a bad effort.

And Mono I agree about the Sydney COL allowance. But I'd rather Sydney have Buddy than GWS. GWS are who we are competing against at the moment, not Sydney.

So Jackson, Hamilton, Oakley and Aylett had nothing to do with that? They were not pioneers in "establishing" the code interstate. All the hard work had been done when AD inherited the holy grail.

  On 01/10/2013 at 04:58, iv said:

So Jackson, Hamilton, Oakley and Aylett had nothing to do with that? They were not pioneers in "establishing" the code interstate. All the hard work had been done when AD inherited the holy grail.

Ask Fitzroy and Swan supporters how they view that era.

Anyway, we can agree to differ.

  On 01/10/2013 at 03:58, Baghdad Bob said:

... I agree about the Sydney COL allowance. But I'd rather Sydney have Buddy than GWS. GWS are who we are competing against at the moment, not Sydney.

So much wrong with your viewpoints and I am happy to differ with you on them but this point is where I really take issue.

I hope our new coach doesn't carry that sort of defeatism into 2014.

  On 01/10/2013 at 04:58, iv said:

So Jackson, Hamilton, Oakley and Aylett had nothing to do with that? They were not pioneers in "establishing" the code interstate. All the hard work had been done when AD inherited the holy grail.

Quite right. The first major broadcasting rights deal preceded Demetriou upon which Vlad has been able to hitch his wagon. It was Graeme Samuel who deserves the credit for making television rights the lynchpin of the AFL brand. Without the money, the new franchises would never have gotten off the ground let alone created the Ablett/Scully situations.

I think Eddie McGuire got it right tonight on AFL360 by pointing out the danger to the game resulting from the path Vlad is taking.

We might well be under the gun at the moment but the club to keep an eye on in the near future is St. Kilda. The vibes coming out of that place are disturbing.

Oh, and by the way, South Melbourne became Sydney before the AFL Commission was established and Fitzroy was broke when it was shipped off to Brisbane. By that time they had languished in extremely poverty for years. I felt sorry for them when they died but they were unsustainable at the time.

  On 01/10/2013 at 12:47, Whispering_Jack said:

Quite right. The first major broadcasting rights deal preceded Demetriou upon which Vlad has been able to hitch his wagon. It was Graeme Samuel who deserves the credit for making television rights the lynchpin of the AFL brand. Without the money, the new franchises would never have gotten off the ground let alone created the Ablett/Scully situations.

I think Eddie McGuire got it right tonight on AFL360 by pointing out the danger to the game resulting from the path Vlad is taking.

We might well be under the gun at the moment but the club to keep an eye on in the near future is St. Kilda. The vibes coming out of that place are disturbing.

Oh, and by the way, South Melbourne became Sydney before the AFL Commission was established and Fitzroy was broke when it was shipped off to Brisbane. By that time they had languished in extremely poverty for years. I felt sorry for them when they died but they were unsustainable at the time.

I think he did too 'Jack', the worry is the rubbish that came out of King's mouth a bit later. Get in the game he say's or perish, we now have the US AFL. King is not overly intelligent and thinks clubs can bring in a boom recruit or 2 and win the title like they do in the US, I think it's more likely to be a US model with an EPL result where we will have a few clubs at the top and the rest providing limited competition.

At least in the EPL the season is always kept interesting as there are many prizes on offer, not jut the big one. You have the FA cup, whatever the other cup is called now, playing for a spot in Europe, promotion and relegation.

With our game a lot of clubs are out of the running before the season starts or at least within the first few rounds the rest are effectively dead rubbers. This can't continue.

We're not out of the woods yet by a long shot but you are right with St Kilda, things look very grim down there.

  On 01/10/2013 at 03:58, Baghdad Bob said:

Club membership have never been higher, interest in the game has never been higher, AD has made football a year round event, good for us because we don't do well in winter. AD has established the code in NSW and Qld and while many think this is silly the same was said of expansion into Sydney.

The tanking saga saved our lives. Got rid of people who were not the required standard and cost us nothing. The AFL paid the fine and funded the removal of those that had mismanaged us. We now have Jackson and Roos - thanks AFL. And in an investigation that focused on rorting for draft picks have a look at the penalty. NO loss of draft picks. So for tanking we got Scully who went to GWS and we got two comp picks. For those two picks we got (about) Hogan and Barry. What more do you want. In terms of handouts we get it in spades and yet people still whine.

Those complaining about AD's salary are just plain silly. Good people get good money. AD has kept the competition flourishing and MFC alive. Not a bad effort.

And Mono I agree about the Sydney COL allowance. But I'd rather Sydney have Buddy than GWS. GWS are who we are competing against at the moment, not Sydney.

It wasn't the tanking saga that got rid of people. It was our team's performances in those first few games.

It's interesting how so many club presidents are standing up to criticise the system that allowed Sydney to make its bold approach to snare Buddy. The Swans themselves didn't do anything wrong but they were aided and abetted by a system that prevented the majority of the clubs to even consider making a bid for one of the most exciting players in the competition. The presidents have been empowered by the AFL Commission which rolled over to them last week on the PP issue. Now they will win on this one too and the loser will be Demetriou and GWS.

Anyone who heard their CEO, David Matthews being interviewed on Fox Footy last night would be aware that he was totally crushed to the point where he was arguing and aggressive with Mark Robinson. It wasn't a good look and he and the AFL have a big job ahead of them to ensure that club stops leaking $ in a market that learned to love the Western Sydney Wanderers who regularly draw crowds of 20k to their home games.

I wonder if they publish details of the annual cost of that outfit to the AFL?

  On 01/10/2013 at 21:09, Whispering_Jack said:

It's interesting how so many club presidents are standing up to criticise the system that allowed Sydney to make its bold approach to snare Buddy. The Swans themselves didn't do anything wrong but they were aided and abetted by a system that prevented the majority of the clubs to even consider making a bid for one of the most exciting players in the competition. The presidents have been empowered by the AFL Commission which rolled over to them last week on the PP issue. Now they will win on this one too and the loser will be Demetriou and GWS.

Anyone who heard their CEO, David Matthews being interviewed on Fox Footy last night would be aware that he was totally crushed to the point where he was arguing and aggressive with Mark Robinson. It wasn't a good look and he and the AFL have a big job ahead of them to ensure that club stops leaking $ in a market that learned to love the Western Sydney Wanderers who regularly draw crowds of 20k to their home games.

I wonder if they publish details of the annual cost of that outfit to the AFL?

Even though he had plan b, c & d 'Jack'. No I think they only had plan a and he was totally p....off.

  On 01/10/2013 at 13:24, rjay said:

I think he did too 'Jack', the worry is the rubbish that came out of King's mouth a bit later. Get in the game he say's or perish, we now have the US AFL. King is not overly intelligent and thinks clubs can bring in a boom recruit or 2 and win the title like they do in the US, I think it's more likely to be a US model with an EPL result where we will have a few clubs at the top and the rest providing limited competition.

At least in the EPL the season is always kept interesting as there are many prizes on offer, not jut the big one. You have the FA cup, whatever the other cup is called now, playing for a spot in Europe, promotion and relegation.

With our game a lot of clubs are out of the running before the season starts or at least within the first few rounds the rest are effectively dead rubbers. This can't continue.

We're not out of the woods yet by a long shot but you are right with St Kilda, things look very grim down there.

King was talking absolute nonsense. "dont complain just do a better deal" A bit hard to do when the AFL is giving the Swans an extra $1m to play with and they can offer immediate success.

Maybe he should offer to run Nth and find out what the real world is like.

  On 01/10/2013 at 21:09, Whispering_Jack said:

It's interesting how so many club presidents are standing up to criticise the system that allowed Sydney to make its bold approach to snare Buddy. The Swans themselves didn't do anything wrong but they were aided and abetted by a system that prevented the majority of the clubs to even consider making a bid for one of the most exciting players in the competition. The presidents have been empowered by the AFL Commission which rolled over to them last week on the PP issue. Now they will win on this one too and the loser will be Demetriou and GWS.

Anyone who heard their CEO, David Matthews being interviewed on Fox Footy last night would be aware that he was totally crushed to the point where he was arguing and aggressive with Mark Robinson. It wasn't a good look and he and the AFL have a big job ahead of them to ensure that club stops leaking $ in a market that learned to love the Western Sydney Wanderers who regularly draw crowds of 20k to their home games.

I wonder if they publish details of the annual cost of that outfit to the AFL?

I take no issue with the criticism of the cost of living allowance given to Sydney and GWS. IMO it's wrong. There are clearly other things that are wrong. Father son comes to mind allowing teams to pick up players below their real value. The draw, the split of earnings from crowd attendances, the Sydney academy and so on and so forth. These are issues that in medical parallels range from ingrown toe nails to broken arms, they can be fixed because the body is strong. In a business as complex as the AFL who is dealing with 18 self interested clubs (just note the hypocrisy of Carlton's Buddy comments), State and Federal governments and drug and other authorities the landscape changes continually, reasons for decisions change and mistakes will be made. Perfection in relation to the smaller issues is not what I judge the CEO of the AFL on. I judge him on the big issues.

Aus kick numbers have never been higher.

Attendances are close to historical highs.

TV ratings are high.

Facilities that clubs now have are exceptional compared to a decade ago.

Stadiums have been developed and if you happen to be in SA or go there as I do the move to the Adelaide Cricket Ground and the brokering of the move from AAMI Stadium is a wonderful thing for football.

AFL has a greater National presence under AD with two new teams

Revenue has grown from about $170m to $440 in his time allowing money to be poured back into the game.

Player welfare is much greater and support for players who leave the game is now available.

There is now a coaches association.

Struggling clubs are now supported rather than extinguished or moved.

In short, the AFL has consolidated its position as the premier sport in Australia despite the challenge from world codes like soccer and basketball.

While many look at the performance of the AFL in terms of how it effects their club I don't. I look at the overall strength of the game. PA have shown this year that with good management the AFL provides an environment where teams can prosper. No PP there and no COL allowance. We have shown that with bad management teams can suffer and I suspect Saints as well. Hawthorn were worse than us in 1996 and rejected our takeover. The path of the two clubs, operating under the same conditions, shows the difference management can make but the AFL have provided the opportunity to all.

If we fail it won't be because Sydney had a cost of living concession. It won't be because we were denied a PP, which, by the way, was an AFL decision supported by the other clubs not determined by them, it won't be because of the draw.

AD has given us an environment where we can succeed, we just haven't.

Aussi rules has never been stronger. That's AD's primary objective and legacy and he's done it very well.

p.s. i love caro too

  On 02/10/2013 at 00:31, Baghdad Bob said:

I take no issue with the criticism of the cost of living allowance given to Sydney and GWS. IMO it's wrong. There are clearly other things that are wrong. Father son comes to mind allowing teams to pick up players below their real value. The draw, the split of earnings from crowd attendances, the Sydney academy and so on and so forth. These are issues that in medical parallels range from ingrown toe nails to broken arms, they can be fixed because the body is strong. In a business as complex as the AFL who is dealing with 18 self interested clubs (just note the hypocrisy of Carlton's Buddy comments), State and Federal governments and drug and other authorities the landscape changes continually, reasons for decisions change and mistakes will be made. Perfection in relation to the smaller issues is not what I judge the CEO of the AFL on. I judge him on the big issues. Aus kick numbers have never been higher.Attendances are close to historical highs.TV ratings are high.Facilities that clubs now have are exceptional compared to a decade ago.Stadiums have been developed and if you happen to be in SA or go there as I do the move to the Adelaide Cricket Ground and the brokering of the move from AAMI Stadium is a wonderful thing for football.AFL has a greater National presence under AD with two new teamsRevenue has grown from about $170m to $440 in his time allowing money to be poured back into the game.Player welfare is much greater and support for players who leave the game is now available.There is now a coaches association.Struggling clubs are now supported rather than extinguished or moved. In short, the AFL has consolidated its position as the premier sport in Australia despite the challenge from world codes like soccer and basketball. While many look at the performance of the AFL in terms of how it effects their club I don't. I look at the overall strength of the game. PA have shown this year that with good management the AFL provides an environment where teams can prosper. No PP there and no COL allowance. We have shown that with bad management teams can suffer and I suspect Saints as well. Hawthorn were worse than us in 1996 and rejected our takeover. The path of the two clubs, operating under the same conditions, shows the difference management can make but the AFL have provided the opportunity to all. If we fail it won't be because Sydney had a cost of living concession. It won't be because we were denied a PP, which, by the way, was an AFL decision supported by the other clubs not determined by them, it won't be because of the draw. AD has given us an environment where we can succeed, we just haven't. Aussi rules has never been stronger. That's AD's primary objective and legacy and he's done it very well.

I agree with pretty much everything you say Baghdad Bob, and it's terrific to see our only Indigenous sport gaining a higher profile nationally and largely being a force for good in Australian life. Andrew Demetriou has undoubtedly helped to facilitate this. Any ultimate satisfaction with AD though, means that you agree with his governance in respect to balance and opportunity in the competition as it stands NOW, and how the future is shaping on those issues. To me, it's worrying. I could be accused of being unrealistic in my utopian ideals, but the AFL could push a lot harder for equalisation.

The reason they are not is due to short term commercial pressures. So much revenue comes from TV broadcast rights now, that a rapid shift has occurred over the past few years in how clubs are advertised via the AFL. There is an inevitability to the AFL being dictated to by the free to air broadcasters, such that the exposure of lesser clubs to the public at large (those not having pay TV) is seriously diminished. Historically, members are everything to AFL clubs, and if you keep getting prime time exposure, it's an enormous gift of marketing. Equal exposure fixturing, the exclusive province of the AFL, can address this. It's not happening.

The Swans 'Buddygate' of this week highlights problems with the way clubs are allowed list improvement opportunities. I think the game should be given ample assistance to develop further in NSW and Queensland, and I'm not even that fussed about the Swans salary cap bonuses, for that reason. (but FFS the AFL are fooling nobody by justifying it on COL increases. The SA clubs would have a lower salary cap on that rationale. As would Geelong. I wish they'd call it what it is.) However, if you're going to give them the power to buy stars and guns, which the poorer clubs can't, then you MUST give those clubs other opportunities to improve/maintain their list, and this means draft assistance, with extended periods of untouchability for those draftees. A superdraft, where for example the bottom six clubs share the first 18 draftees, should occasionally be implemented. Basically a mini version of the concessions given to GC and GWS in their inception. The AFL as lead by AD, don't have the long term vision or courage for this.

Stadiums deals, such as those under which the Bulldogs, Kangas, and Saints have to suffer, are simply appalling. If you want an even competition, there is simply no justification for gate receipts to be anything but shared equally between clubs. NONE. In the age of saturation broadcasting, there are just too many variables affecting crowd numbers to have any club punished for poor crowd, for any reason.

All of this would require a very clear vision of a competition that trots out 9 games each week with even odds on the winner of each. THAT should be the aspiration, the goal that would create more excitement and supporter participation than ever before. What we have instead is a competition where 4 to 6 teams become largely irrelevant after 6 rounds of the season, and the signs are that this trend is growing. AD, as the head of the AFL, is not addressing this trend, and the competition needs someone who will.

  On 01/10/2013 at 02:38, iv said:

The point missed here is that the entire competition is almost entirely reliant on TV revenue. Ipso facto, it is TV that grows the brand. That is the only feather in Vlad's ample cap. As such, there will always be poorer clubs, which will suffer on a cyclical basis as their performances do not garner TV ratings. I do not doubt we have had mismanagement issues, but, for instance, the entire so-called "tanking" saga was seminal in the AFL's very own rules and structures. A framework of the AFL's own invention. In attempts to get off the bottom and thereby be a more attractive proposition for TV air time, we went for draft picks. Ill advised I have no doubt, but it occurred because the AFL set the framework. On several occasions, Demetriou publicly stated he did not believe there was the slightest trace of evidence that we tanked

The AFL is a a socialist organisation in the true sense of the word. Yet it's CEO gets a salary which is not commensurate with other CEO's in a similar size businesses. Simple as that.

Everyone gets the same amount from TV. Some clubs get better coverage on Friday nights etc that allow themto get more marketingand sponsorship dollars.

The real issue is the stadium deals.....

  On 02/10/2013 at 02:46, jnrmac said:

Everyone gets the same amount from TV. Some clubs get better coverage on Friday nights etc that allow themto get more marketingand sponsorship dollars.

The real issue is the stadium deals.....

Selective analysis of my post. i was responding to BB and his claim that the game has never been in better shape. The AFL industry in general in a better position than it was historically, due to one reason and one reason alone. The mega bucks paid for TV rights. As WJ rightly pointed out, the ground work for this revenue was well and truly done before Demetriou took the reins.

  On 02/10/2013 at 02:40, Webber said:

All of this would require a very clear vision of a competition that trots out 9 games each week with even odds on the winner of each. THAT should be the aspiration, the goal that would create more excitement and supporter participation than ever before. What we have instead is a competition where 4 to 6 teams become largely irrelevant after 6 rounds of the season, and the signs are that this trend is growing. AD, as the head of the AFL, is not addressing this trend, and the competition needs someone who will.

I agree with your comments on COL adjustments, sharing of crowd revenues (both of which I mentioned) and stadium deals. I agree with the objective of 9 games all 50/50's.

The only comment I'd make is your view on the influence of TV and the draw. TV wants the best games with the best players. We were much more attractive to them under Bailey with Jurrah. We figured regularly If you're successful with good product to sell then you'll get good commercial results. In 2007, the year after we were the best performed Victorian club we played in the season opener against Saints and then had Hawthorn all to ourselves on Easter Monday the next week. Good clubs get the attention. It's why I've been on about our management who for too long were second class and we've been swamped by other clubs. We'll get airtime when we improve.

Whilst many look at PP's as an important concession from the AFL much more important has been their role in providing us with good management - Jackson and Roos. That's where we will see the most improvement.

I believe the AFL is addressing equalization, they've done it with us significantly this year with pseudo tanking penalties and they continue with money and management. It's big picture stuff. It may not be happening quickly enough for you but IMO it's moving steadily in the right direction. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next period regarding club's ability to pay 100% of the cap. That is the next "doable" item on the agenda IMO.

  On 02/10/2013 at 03:04, Baghdad Bob said:

I agree with your comments on COL adjustments, sharing of crowd revenues (both of which I mentioned) and stadium deals. I agree with the objective of 9 games all 50/50's. The only comment I'd make is your view on the influence of TV and the draw. TV wants the best games with the best players. We were much more attractive to them under Bailey with Jurrah. We figured regularly If you're successful with good product to sell then you'll get good commercial results. In 2007, the year after we were the best performed Victorian club we played in the season opener against Saints and then had Hawthorn all to ourselves on Easter Monday the next week. Good clubs get the attention. It's why I've been on about our management who for too long were second class and we've been swamped by other clubs. We'll get airtime when we improve. Whilst many look at PP's as an important concession from the AFL much more important has been their role in providing us with good management - Jackson and Roos. That's where we will see the most improvement. I believe the AFL is addressing equalization, they've done it with us significantly this year with pseudo tanking penalties and they continue with money and management. It's big picture stuff. It may not be happening quickly enough for you but IMO it's moving steadily in the right direction. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next period regarding club's ability to pay 100% of the cap. That is the next "doable" item on the agenda IMO.

No dispute on any of these points, but to say that one mode of equalisation (fixing admin) means the next mode is not needed, is conservative laziness I reckon. I understand your tv influence argument, and it's clearly a chicken and egg situation in part. My issue with it is different, and that is the effect exposure has on supporter development. It just doesn't fit with a policy aimed at developing equality to have certain clubs dominate that advantage, regardless of success. The other obvious issue is that certain clubs get disproportionate exposure based on their supporter numbers and NOT their ladder position, such as Collingwood. In fact this I would suggest is the prime driver to broadcast positioning. This is unsustainable to equalisation.

  On 02/10/2013 at 03:19, Webber said:

No dispute on any of these points, but to say that one mode of equalisation (fixing admin) means the next mode is not needed, is conservative laziness I reckon. I understand your tv influence argument, and it's clearly a chicken and egg situation in part. My issue with it is different, and that is the effect exposure has on supporter development. It just doesn't fit with a policy aimed at developing equality to have certain clubs dominate that advantage, regardless of success. The other obvious issue is that certain clubs get disproportionate exposure based on their supporter numbers and NOT their ladder position, such as Collingwood. In fact this I would suggest is the prime driver to broadcast positioning. This is unsustainable to equalisation.

I don't think one mode of equalisation means the next mode is not needed, hence my reference to 100% salary cap. I just think Rome wasn't built in a day.

I haven't done any research on individual club's exposure in relation to ladder position but there is a commercial reality for both the TV stations and the AFL. If people don't watch the footy on TV then advertisers won't buy time and the AFL won't get the revenue from TV. If the revenue doesn't come from TV then equalisation measures are much harder to implement and we will be significantly worse off.

I'm in no way dismissing your concerns but it's a balancing act. We just differ on how good a job we believe the AFL is doing in balancing these things. I think they are doing a good commercial job giving all clubs the chance to succeed. I also think it's unrealistic to achieve perfect balance. I'm just thankful the AFL have a socialist view to football and not a capitalist view. If I supported a successful club like Hawks, who have sold games to Tasmania to survive and thrive, I'd be dirty that the clubs that didn't make sacrifices were on life support.

But that's just me.

  On 02/10/2013 at 03:34, Baghdad Bob said:

I don't think one mode of equalisation means the next mode is not needed, hence my reference to 100% salary cap. I just think Rome wasn't built in a day. I haven't done any research on individual club's exposure in relation to ladder position but there is a commercial reality for both the TV stations and the AFL. If people don't watch the footy on TV then advertisers won't buy time and the AFL won't get the revenue from TV. If the revenue doesn't come from TV then equalisation measures are much harder to implement and we will be significantly worse off. I'm in no way dismissing your concerns but it's a balancing act. We just differ on how good a job we believe the AFL is doing in balancing these things. I think they are doing a good commercial job giving all clubs the chance to succeed. I also think it's unrealistic to achieve perfect balance. I'm just thankful the AFL have a socialist view to football and not a capitalist view. If I supported a successful club like Hawks, who have sold games to Tasmania to survive and thrive, I'd be dirty that the clubs that didn't make sacrifices were on life support. But that's just me.

Depends whether you see it as a sacrifice, or innovative territory/supporter development. The latter for mine, much like MFC's NT push. On the balance of things, AFL policy up until recently has been good for the competition and the game, and of course there is no such thing as perfection. There is such a thing as pursuing perfection though, and it can be pursued, and Rome can be built more quickly, and with a better project manager

  On 02/10/2013 at 01:12, daisycutter said:

p.s. i love caro too

You and Old Dee both have a thing for her then?

Pardon me but there are double standards aplenty running through this thread. The OP mentioned several areas in which Demetriou has fallen asleep at the wheel during his watch but some would maintain these aren't big picture items and rather, we should determine the health of the organisation in terms only of the almighty dollar.

We're financially healthy because our sport is a great product and over almost three decades of an independent commission the groundwork was established by a succession of good people at the helm. Demetriou also earned his hefty salary in the early days. But he's lost it of late and recent developments which show the stronger clubs flexing their muscles and dictating what policy should be applied, the lip service paid to equalisation and fair fixturing and allocation of funding is getting out of hand. Money won't help clean up the ills in this competition for which Demetriou rarely accepts responsibility.

One case in point is the drug scandal which is only sitting at the tip of the iceberg. Essendon was running a supplements program that according to ­its own investigation produced a "pharmacologically experimental" environment. The AFL knew that the Bombers were looking at peptides, Demetriou was aware of the dangers of sports scientists but he wasn't looking closely enough until it was too late. Well, one or two might say (and it's been denied) not late enough to sound a warning to a club official but we are where we are and if when infraction notices are issued the cost won't just be counted in emotional terms at club level, there will be economic consequences and no doubt, at some stage, people are going to concede that the buck must stop somewhere.

  On 02/10/2013 at 22:06, Whispering_Jack said:

Pardon me but there are double standards aplenty running through this thread. The OP mentioned several areas in which Demetriou has fallen asleep at the wheel during his watch but some would maintain these aren't big picture items and rather, we should determine the health of the organisation in terms only of the almighty dollar.

We're financially healthy because our sport is a great product and over almost three decades of an independent commission the groundwork was established by a succession of good people at the helm. Demetriou also earned his hefty salary in the early days. But he's lost it of late and recent developments which show the stronger clubs flexing their muscles and dictating what policy should be applied, the lip service paid to equalisation and fair fixturing and allocation of funding is getting out of hand. Money won't help clean up the ills in this competition for which Demetriou rarely accepts responsibility.

One case in point is the drug scandal which is only sitting at the tip of the iceberg. Essendon was running a supplements program that according to ­its own investigation produced a "pharmacologically experimental" environment. The AFL knew that the Bombers were looking at peptides, Demetriou was aware of the dangers of sports scientists but he wasn't looking closely enough until it was too late. Well, one or two might say (and it's been denied) not late enough to sound a warning to a club official but we are where we are and if when infraction notices are issued the cost won't just be counted in emotional terms at club level, there will be economic consequences and no doubt, at some stage, people are going to concede that the buck must stop somewhere.

Stephen Danks