The AFL are trying to kill Melbourne

[DemonWA 3,436]

Dont agree with ya Striker

I'd prefer to play the crap teams and be half a chance of a win rather than get butf&cked under Friday night lights but make some cash. We have already been given a heap of cash from the AFL. Winning games will get us more members and in time we will earn the right to play more games against the power houses

[Macca 16,173]

What's your solution then? Put crap clubs in the prime time slots more often? That destroys the AFL's product, with awful, low quality football, and/or beltings, being broadcast nationally/internationally. That's simply not a viable long term option for the AFL. Give us more home games against big sides? We drew 28,000-odd to our home game against Hawthorn this year. How much does that net us? Not a lot. Yes, it might nominally be better than a 15,000 game against Gold Coast, but drawing those kinds of numbers to home games isn't going to make us financially stable either. What will make us long-term financially stable? Getting people interested in us. That way, we'll draw bigger sponsorship, we'll pull bigger crowds consistently, and we'll then become a more attractive option to the AFL. How do you get people interested in us? You don't shove us onto the big stage when we're not good enough for it. You get us winning games. Winning starts to bring people back. It shrugs off the pall of doom that presently surrounds us. It makes us less of a joke. If we win 7 or so games this year, then next year we'll maybe get a prime time game and/or one or two more home games against Victorian sides. Then we build from there. Your solutions are short-term fixes that aren't really fixes at all. They're just complaints.

I've put my argument forward. Only time will tell. I believe my solution involves a long term fix.

Lets agree to disagree

[3Dee 1,153]

I want a hard draw. Problem with our inability to improve over last six years is the lack of tough draw.

Whenever we seem to play a run of 3 - 4 games against top 8 sides we usually get into some sort of mental capacity to actually turn up and perform, which leads to a win, a loss in a winnable game & then drop of form again.

It's a pattern all too familiar.

Personally in favour of a lotto style draw (after each team plays each other once) instead of being gifted "like for like" games.

We will beat Collingwood this year.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Bailin Out

[Demon Stalwart 255]

I don't know why such concern ???

Its really very simple

START WINNING GAMES , because with Success comes Acknowledgement, with Acknowledgement comes Reward .

With Reward comes Growth and with Growth comes Financial security .

That's what we all want and though this year may seem to lack in the Financial Stakes if we are ever going to win games it must be under this draw

Our First round match against St Kilda should be a no-brainer now .

A first up win one would believe especially considering the disarray St Kilda are now in as well as the players they have lost during the trade period not to factor in how our own list has improved!

If we don't start winning then we don't deserve anything anyway.

Does anyone here actually believe that in light of our recent recruiting and that Paul Roos is now Coach that we wont start winning Games ????

Personally I cant wait for the season to Begin it will be nice to have something to actually Cheer about again

[Dr. Gonzo 22,415]

Dont agree with ya Striker

I'd prefer to play the crap teams and be half a chance of a win rather than get butf&cked under Friday night lights but make some cash. We have already been given a heap of cash from the AFL. Winning games will get us more members and in time we will earn the right to play more games against the power houses

This is about who we host in home games though, not about TV exposure or playing extra bottom-placed teams. We could have the exact same draw with a variation on who we play home & away and be a million dollars better off.

[Tatu 416]

I believe we would be Frank Williams, not the Masked Schmuck... Hawthorn would be our Roddy Piper.

lol... Classic...

[Macca 16,173]

Most, if not all, are buoyant about the new season with a new coach, new Admin, new players and a revamped board. I'm extremely hopeful myself and have said as much in a few other threads. In another thread I said the following ...

Bring on the tough games now I say. We've got ourselves a top notch experienced coach and there's a stack of players who can improve out of sight. If Roos can instil belief and confidence then we should make some big improvements (not all our players will respond so there might be some early casualties) I'd be astonished if Roos can't get this group up in the early rounds. Most good coaches have an immediate impact.

I'm not intending to dampen the mood - on the contrary, I see this fixture debate as largely an off field issue with only a few connections to the football side of things. To me it's all about the dollars with regards to this fixture - I would rather see us play against the big clubs at the MCG. If Roos gets us playing good footy (which is everyone's hope) we will want to take on the big boys. Let's not shy away from the contest.

I'm willing to wager that not many Victorian teams are interested in playing against us in home games. It effects their bottom line as well. They would most probably prefer to be playing against the bigger drawing teams (the exact same thing that a few here are advocating for our club) So why not use that attitude to our advantage?

So, in a nutshell ...

1) Victorian teams would most probably have us as a non preferred home fixture

2) These same teams probably wouldn't mind at all if they were drawn against us in games

3) We might prefer to play against these Victorian teams in our home games (there are a number of posters who are against this idea)

4) We would probably rather not play against these Victorian teams in away games (mostly connected to point 3)

Win, win, win, win.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Macca

[wretched.sylph 164]

What's your solution then?

he has stated his solution over and over again: give every team an equal opportunity to take profits from the gate. pretty simple.

Put crap clubs in the prime time slots more often? That destroys the AFL's product, with awful, low quality football, and/or beltings, being broadcast nationally/internationally. That's simply not a viable long term option for the AFL.

"prime time slots" are not the issue here. we will play the same games regardless of which strip the players are wearing, but we'll lose less money if the strip isn't white.

Give us more home games against big sides? We drew 28,000-odd to our home game against Hawthorn this year. How much does that net us? Not a lot. Yes, it might nominally be better than a 15,000 game against Gold Coast, but drawing those kinds of numbers to home games isn't going to make us financially stable either.

are you serious? no, 28000 is not nominally better than 15000, it is the difference between a humble profit and a significant loss. there is nothing "nominal" about that.

What will make us long-term financially stable? Getting people interested in us. That way, we'll draw bigger sponsorship, we'll pull bigger crowds consistently, and we'll then become a more attractive option to the AFL. How do you get people interested in us? You don't shove us onto the big stage when we're not good enough for it. You get us winning games. Winning starts to bring people back. It shrugs off the pall of doom that presently surrounds us. It makes us less of a joke. If we win 7 or so games this year, then next year we'll maybe get a prime time game and/or one or two more home games against Victorian sides. Then we build from there.

Macca has argued that winning isn't likely to gain us better fixtures. his argument has not been refuted and i don't see how it can be: "big club, big fixtures" has clearly been the AFL's strategy for decades. furthermore, winning games simply must be more difficult for clubs which are financially hamstrung (for any reason). it is significant, in terms of winning games over the coming years, that MFC cannot pay 100% of the salary cap.

Your solutions are short-term fixes that aren't really fixes at all. They're just complaints.

of course they are complaints. complaint is the only response to injustice available to those without power. we have no power, and biased fixturing is an injustice.

fair and equitable fixturing and scheduling is not a luxury to be earned but a basic right shared by every club participating in the competition.

Edited November 1, 2013 by wretched.sylph

[Sir Why You Little 34,473]

I find it interesting this debate....

I do not think the AFL are trying to kill us at all, never have actually..

It is we the club who must get better at what we do.

I also know the costs of televising each match.

The MFC are not on prime time timeslots because we are no guarantee to be competitive.

Mass audience turn off at half time costs a TV network $millions over a season....

If our forward line starts kicking big scores we shall be taken seriously.

[Macca 16,173]

he has stated his solution over and over again: give every team an equal opportunity to take profits from the gate. pretty simple.

"prime time slots" are not the issue here. we will play the same games regardless of which strip the players are wearing, but we'll lose less money if the strip isn't white.

are you serious? no, 28000 is not nominally better than 15000, it is the difference between a humble profit and a significant loss. there is nothing "nominal" about that.

Macca has argued that winning isn't likely to gain us better fixtures. his argument has not been refuted and i don't see how it can be: "big club, big fixtures" has clearly been the AFL's strategy for decades. furthermore, winning games simply must be more difficult for clubs which are financially hamstrung (for any reason). it is significant, in terms of winning games over the coming years, that MFC cannot pay 100% of the salary cap.

of course they are complaints. complaint is the only response to injustice available to those without power. we have no power, and biased fixturing is an injustice.

fair and equitable fixturing and scheduling is not a luxury to be earned but a basic right shared by every club participating in the competition.

There's definitely 2 camps here and sometimes it's best to just agree to disagree. For what's it's worth I can see the other side of the argument but can't agree with it.

We all want what's best for the club but there's nearly always going to be a difference of opinion on how to best get there. I see yours and my view as a long term one but the counter argument sees it as short term. I also see this as going into bat for the club and wanting what's best for the club rather than anything disruptive or destructive.

I don't necessarily see the AFL as trying to kill us off either. By continually matching up the better performed Victorian sides, there's always some fallout. But the bottom line is that the club needs to fight tooth and nail for any benefit that might come our way.

[titan_uranus 22,363]

he has stated his solution over and over again: give every team an equal opportunity to take profits from the gate. pretty simple.

I know. I then proceeded to discuss his solutions, which involve giving Melbourne home games against Victorian sides. It was a rhetorical question before I discussed it. Pretty simple.

"prime time slots" are not the issue here. we will play the same games regardless of which strip the players are wearing, but we'll lose less money if the strip isn't white.

I assume by referring to white you're referring to home v away. I'm not otherwise sure what you're trying to say with this line.

are you serious? no, 28000 is not nominally better than 15000, it is the difference between a humble profit and a significant loss. there is nothing "nominal" about that.

Yes, I am. Stop talking about a 28,000 home game attendance against Hawthorn as being some sort of financial boon. It's a modest profit. Running three or four modest profits doesn't make us financially stable in the long run. Yes, it is better than running those same three or four games as 15,000 crowds. But that's a 2014 thing. Not a long term thing. If we keep drawing 28,000 crowds to home games against Hawthorn and co., we're going nowhere. What will fix that? Becoming more competitive. Ergo, 2014 home games against Victorian clubs do very little for us.

Macca has argued that winning isn't likely to gain us better fixtures. his argument has not been refuted and i don't see how it can be: "big club, big fixtures" has clearly been the AFL's strategy for decades. furthermore, winning games simply must be more difficult for clubs which are financially hamstrung (for any reason). it is significant, in terms of winning games over the coming years, that MFC cannot pay 100% of the salary cap.

His argument has been refuted - North Melbourne. North Melbourne is not a big club. In 2014 they will play five Friday night games, and have home games against Essendon, Richmond, Hawthorn and Geelong. Why? Because in the last two years they've lifted their performances, become more attractive and competitive, and have a brand that is not disastrous. Meanwhile, Collingwood in 2014 has 2 fewer Friday night games than 2013, plus 9 games on Foxtel and three consecutive Sunday twilight games. Why? Because they weren't as good in 2013 as they have been in recent years.

I don't know what our status is on the percent of the salary cap that we're able to pay, but I also don't know what that figure is for any other club, so I can't speak to whether we're at a disadvantage.

of course they are complaints. complaint is the only response to injustice available to those without power. we have no power, and biased fixturing is an injustice.

fair and equitable fixturing and scheduling is not a luxury to be earned but a basic right shared by every club participating in the competition.

How melodramatic. Fair and equitable fixturing is impossible in our game. Unless everyone plays the same games, the draw will inherently be unfair. Interstate clubs have to travel 11 games per year, most Victorian clubs are half that. Once you accept that AFL simply cannot, in the realm of possibility, be fixtured fairly, you have to accept that there will always be some clubs with better draws than others.

Why do we have no power? Because no one cares about us. People care about Collingwood and co - their members care, their fans care, Channel 7 cares, the radio broadcasters care, etc. No one cares about Melbourne, so we have no power. How might we go about getting some of that back? A few home games against Victorian clubs does nothing, especially given that at this point in history Victorian clubs are quite good on-field. What might help is us starting to win again. If we lose the 'impediment' tag that PJ has said, that will make Channel 7 less fearful of having our games on TV. That will mean more games vs Victorian clubs, and that will begin to make us a more enticing scheduling prospect.

Fair and equitable fixturing is not a 'basic right' at all. That is fanciful to say the least. Fixturing is unequal, and to get a better slice of the pie we have to earn it. We will earn it by winning games, and that is exactly what the 2014 draw allows us to do. If we stop relying on the AFL to float our boat and we start doing the hard work ourselves, through good recruiting, coaching, training, playing, administration, all that stuff, and we improve our brand, then the commercial fixturing will improve for us.

[Macca 16,173]

We won 8.5 games in 2010 and we were starting to make some real strides. 2011 was predicted by many here as a year where we'd make some real progress.

In the 2011 fixture we received 7 home fixtures against interstate sides. 7 ... 7 games where turning a decent profit from any of these games was an awfully difficult exercise.

So those who think we'll get more home games against Victorian sides as a matter of course should temper their optimism. We've been fixtured 27 home games against interstate teams in the last 4 years (including next year)

[Dr. Gonzo 22,415]

We won 8.5 games in 2010 and we were starting to make some real strides. 2011 was predicted by many here as a year where we'd make some real progress.

In the 2011 fixture we received 7 home fixtures against interstate sides. 7 ... 7 games where turning a decent profit from any of these games was an awfully difficult exercise.

So those who think we'll get more home games against Victorian sides as a matter of course should temper their optimism. We've been fixtured 27 home games against interstate teams in the last 4 years (including next year)

Yep it's an uphill battle - conversely when the "big" Vic clubs have down years are they punished with their fixtures the following year? I'd like to see a breakdown of Carlton's home games vs interstate clubs over the last 10 years, Essendon too. Edited November 1, 2013 by Dr. Gonzo

[wobbie 26]

The AFL don't give a flying rats about actual game attendances - only to the extent that attendance will sometimes indicate an increased TV audience (i.e. a "blockbuster" game). Would they be playing games on the Gold Coast and in Western Sydney if they did?

They want us languishing and dependent, they're only "helping" us because it's in their interest. They need plenty of clubs for the back-to-back all weekend long TV extravaganza, Friday night to Sunday night, maybe even Monday night because they just can't help themselves! (It is becoming tiresome and nauseating IMO).

When the time's right we'll be told we're an unsustainable liability and merged to a different geographical region, in some manner. This will maximise TV revenue and eliminate their liability.

I probably won't be going to any games next year, I've had enough of the AFL. Why continue to sink your money into this dead horse? Let the AFL blow their own money on it.

[Macca 16,173]

Yep it's an uphill battle - conversely when the "big" Vic clubs have down years are they punished with their fixtures the following year? I'd like to see a breakdown of Carlton's home games vs interstate clubs over the last 10 years, Essendon too.

It never effected Carlton's fixturing when they were a basket case. Essendon were poor for a few years but they've had that Docklands deal locked in for a number of years now. They've always had good fixturing anyway.

As for Collingwood, they've got their own set of rules. 9 prime time TV games in 2006 after finishing 15th with 5 wins in 2005. They've got all those supporters to be catered for!

That very same year (2006) we received 3 prime time TV games after playing finals (again) in 2005. Miraculously, we only had 5 home games against interstate sides that season (there were only 6 interstate sides going around in those days!)

[Binmans PA 26,105]

I want a hard draw. Problem with our inability to improve over last six years is the lack of tough draw.

Whenever we seem to play a run of 3 - 4 games against top 8 sides we usually get into some sort of mental capacity to actually turn up and perform, which leads to a win, a loss in a winnable game & then drop of form again.

It's a pattern all too familiar.

Personally in favour of a lotto style draw (after each team plays each other once) instead of being gifted "like for like" games.

We will beat Collingwood this year.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure about that one.

[Macca 16,173]

One more vital part of the fixture to consider are the "Blockbuster" games (for want of a better word) There are all sorts of levels of blockbuster games ... these games come under the banner of having ...

1) Good match-up or rivalry status

2) Good free-to-air TV ratings

3) Good crowd puller

4) Good levels of interest from the general public

5) One or both teams having high supporter numbers

6) Derby status

7) A well performed team or both teams being well performed

It's important to note that a lot of these blockbuster games are not all screened on free-to-air during prime time. We can't hope to be on free-to-air during prime time until we become a good team (a finals team?) It's the other games where the concern lies (in relation to our club in particular)

Apart from the Queens birthday clash, we really don't have enough to offer to come into any of the blockbuster categories. And we are all well aware that this particular clash has come under pressure in recent years. ... so by the time the AFL have finished working out and "rubber stamping" all these blockbuster type games, there are only so many games left over.

We are therefore primarily involved in the "leftover" games. The smaller clubs are always going to be at a disadvantage due to the way the fixture is organised. Even GWS have more "locked in" games than us (the 2 games against the Swans)

A small way out of this is for the club to identify how we can get into the Blockbuster "club" without being a great team. If we're a team involved in the finals on a regular basis, we will create some opportunities for ourselves but even if that happened, we still don't tick all the boxes.

The Bulldogs won 8 games this past season and only received 2 free-to-air prime time TV games for the 2014 season. Carlton won 11 games this past season and only made the finals on default - they have received 11 free-to-air prime time TV games for the 2014 season.

In summary, the manic desire for the AFL to maximise crowd numbers, TV viewers and gate receipts is nearly always going put the smaller clubs at a big disadvantage. Over a decent period of time, the "arranged" fixture effectively creates a bigger division between the rich and the poor. The Draft and the salary cap now only equalise things to a certain extent.

My argument focuses on those "Potential" games where the club can make some real money (not a complaint about our lack of free-to-air prime time TV games - that's a commercial decision made by channel 7)

Edited November 2, 2013 by Macca

[Whispering_Jack 27,978]

This time last year I had no particular inclination to watch any Port Adelaide game that didn't involve my own team and I think the majority of the football public shared that view.

It didn't take much to change that perception and by the end of the season, their games were almost compulsory viewing.

Winning games, some outstanding players and exciting footy was all it took.

[titan_uranus 22,363]

One more vital part of the fixture to consider are the "Blockbuster" games (for want of a better word) There are all sorts of levels of blockbuster games ... these games come under the banner of having ...

1) Good match-up or rivalry status

2) Good free-to-air TV ratings

3) Good crowd puller

4) Good levels of interest from the general public

5) One or both teams having high supporter numbers

6) Derby status

7) A well performed team or both teams being well performed

It's important to note that a lot of these blockbuster games are not all screened on free-to-air during prime time. We can't hope to be on free-to-air during prime time until we become a good team (a finals team?) It's the other games where the concern lies (in relation to our club in particular)

Apart from the Queens birthday clash, we really don't have enough to offer to come into any of the blockbuster categories. And we are all well aware that this particular clash has come under pressure in recent years. ... so by the time the AFL have finished working out and "rubber stamping" all these blockbuster type games, there are only so many games left over.

We are therefore primarily involved in the "leftover" games. The smaller clubs are always going to be at a disadvantage due to the way the fixture is organised. Even GWS have more "locked in" games than us (the 2 games against the Swans)

A small way out of this is for the club to identify how we can get into the Blockbuster "club" without being a great team. If we're a team involved in the finals on a regular basis, we will create some opportunities for ourselves but even if that happened, we still don't tick all the boxes.

The Bulldogs won 8 games this past season and only received 2 free-to-air prime time TV games for the 2014 season. Carlton won 11 games this past season and only made the finals on default - they have received 11 free-to-air prime time TV games for the 2014 season.

In summary, the manic desire for the AFL to maximise crowd numbers, TV viewers and gate receipts is nearly always going put the smaller clubs at a big disadvantage. Over a decent period of time, the "arranged" fixture effectively creates a bigger division between the rich and the poor. The Draft and the salary cap now only equalise things to a certain extent.

My argument focuses on those "Potential" games where the club can make some real money (not a complaint about our lack of free-to-air prime time TV games - that's a commercial decision made by channel 7)

We're currently in the bracket of clubs you'd deem 'small'. What is the number one predominant reason for this? Our sustained inability to be a competitive AFL side.

I maintain that if we can sustain AFL-level competitiveness, our fans will get back on the bandwagon, our crowds will go up, interest in us will go up, and that will lead to us getting a better commercial fixture.

You also can't separate the home games issue from the prime time issue. 7 gets better ratings from two Victorian clubs than it does from a Victorian club hosting a low-rating interstate side. If you give Melbourne more home games against Victorian sides, then you end up with more 'Melbourne v [Victorian club]' games, which Channel 7 doesn't want because Melbourne's in them, and more '[Victorian club] v GWS/GC/PA/Fremantle/etc' games, which Channel 7 also doesn't want. Let Melbourne host the crappy low-ratings interstate sides, and you then get more '[Victorian club] v [Victorian club]' games, which is what Channel 7 wants. So Channel 7 asks/demands the AFL for more games with two Victorian sides, which means, to get the interstate sides playing in Melbourne, the crap clubs like us end up hosting them, taking them off Channel 7's hands.

As I've said all along, if you were to take your complaint to the AFL and succeed in convincing them of your argument, you would end up with us getting more home games against Victorian sides, but that doesn't do a lot for us in the long run. It gives us short term modest profits, but if we keep losing and being absolute crap on-field, it does nothing in the broader scheme of things (we'll keep pulling crowds of 28,000 to home games against Hawthorn and QBD crowds will keep declining). But for long term financial success, we simply need to be a more competitive side, which will boost attendance at all games, assist sponsorship, get us back in prime time, and make us an enticing brand and opponent.

[Macca 16,173]

This time last year I had no particular inclination to watch any Port Adelaide game that didn't involve my own team and I think the majority of the football public shared that view.

It didn't take much to change that perception and by the end of the season, their games were almost compulsory viewing.

Winning games, some outstanding players and exciting footy was all it took.

And are Port Adelaide financially secure? It's all about the money and the last I heard, they received a grant of 9 million over 3 years (at the end of 2011?)

We're going to need a similar amount (ongoing) unless we start making a lot more money from our home fixtures.

We're currently in the bracket of clubs you'd deem 'small'. What is the number one predominant reason for this? Our sustained inability to be a competitive AFL side.

I maintain that if we can sustain AFL-level competitiveness, our fans will get back on the bandwagon, our crowds will go up, interest in us will go up, and that will lead to us getting a better commercial fixture.

You also can't separate the home games issue from the prime time issue. 7 gets better ratings from two Victorian clubs than it does from a Victorian club hosting a low-rating interstate side. If you give Melbourne more home games against Victorian sides, then you end up with more 'Melbourne v [Victorian club]' games, which Channel 7 doesn't want because Melbourne's in them, and more '[Victorian club] v GWS/GC/PA/Fremantle/etc' games, which Channel 7 also doesn't want. Let Melbourne host the crappy low-ratings interstate sides, and you then get more '[Victorian club] v [Victorian club]' games, which is what Channel 7 wants. So Channel 7 asks/demands the AFL for more games with two Victorian sides, which means, to get the interstate sides playing in Melbourne, the crap clubs like us end up hosting them, taking them off Channel 7's hands.

As I've said all along, if you were to take your complaint to the AFL and succeed in convincing them of your argument, you would end up with us getting more home games against Victorian sides, but that doesn't do a lot for us in the long run. It gives us short term modest profits, but if we keep losing and being absolute crap on-field, it does nothing in the broader scheme of things (we'll keep pulling crowds of 28,000 to home games against Hawthorn and QBD crowds will keep declining). But for long term financial success, we simply need to be a more competitive side, which will boost attendance at all games, assist sponsorship, get us back in prime time, and make us an enticing brand and opponent.

But aren't we going to be a better performed team next year? Your argument seems to be based on us remaining a basket case.

If we don't improve on field, they may as well wind the joint up. My argument has a bit of "Blue sky" behind it because it has to. I believe we have to get better - and if we do get better, we could therefore "Cash in" on some good drawing fixtures (but not next year)

Get set for the club to post a significant loss after next season (the AFL may well make up the shortfall)

We need to stand on our own 2 feet but we need the opportunity to stand on our own 2 feet. By June/July next year we may well be starting to travel well on the field but there's a good chance the money won't be rolling in at the same time.

Handouts and welfare have an expiry date.

[demon-4-life 467]

Mmm...lets see...

1. [censored] easy draw last year.
2. Easy draw this year.
3. Huge bail out package.
4. Two compensation picks for T.Scully.
5. A compensation pick in the early 20s for Sylvia compared to pick 17 for buddy.
6. A home game against Collingwood on Queen's birthday for as long as I can remember.
7. Two home games in the NT.

Evidence points to the contrary. But happy to be wrong.

[daisycutter 28,534]

I find it interesting this debate....

I do not think the AFL are trying to kill us at all, never have actually..

It is we the club who must get better at what we do.

I also know the costs of televising each match.

The MFC are not on prime time timeslots because we are no guarantee to be competitive.

Mass audience turn off at half time costs a TV network $millions over a season....

If our forward line starts kicking big scores we shall be taken seriously.

so, are the afl running a fta tv network system or a game of football

i know you work in the tv world but just how far should the tv industry be allowed to dictate the running of the game (which goes much much further than just prime time allocation)

[DeeSpencer 23,134]

Mmm...lets see...

1. [censored] easy draw last year.
2. Easy draw this year.
3. Huge bail out package.
4. Two compensation picks for T.Scully.
5. A compensation pick in the early 20s for Sylvia compared to pick 17 for buddy.
6. A home game against Collingwood on Queen's birthday for as long as I can remember.
7. Two home games in the NT.

Evidence points to the contrary. But happy to be wrong.

1+2. We finished bottom 2 both years. We are always going to get a draw that appears easy on football aspects. And the way people rate draws are often very superficial. A 6 day break going from a saturday arvo to a friday night is not a big deal when your opponent is doing it as well.

3. The bail out package isn't huge

4. A new club took our number 1 pick and future hope. Sure that compensation looks generous due to Scully's rubbish form but what about the brand damage it did to us

5. Again they didn't fudge the numbers. Sylvia is worth the same as Dal Santo

6. Yes we get QBday. But it becomes our only drawing game

7. The AFL are rapped at us moving those games to 2 different markets and the NT government are providing the bulk of the funding.

Everything the AFL gives us they then take something else. That's competition though so I understand it. Except I'd rather them not give or take anything instead of this rubbish they pull where they shift things around.

[titan_uranus 22,363]

And are Port Adelaide financially secure? It's all about the money and the last I heard, they received a grant of 9 million over 3 years (at the end of 2011?)

We're going to need a similar amount (ongoing) unless we start making a lot more money from our home fixtures.

But aren't we going to be a better performed team next year? Your argument seems to be based on us remaining a basket case.

If we don't improve on field, they may as well wind the joint up. My argument has a bit of "Blue sky" behind it because it has to. I believe we have to get better - and if we do get better, we could therefore "Cash in" on some good drawing fixtures (but not next year)

Get set for the club to post a significant loss after next season (the AFL may well make up the shortfall)

We need to stand on our own 2 feet but we need the opportunity to stand on our own 2 feet. By June/July next year we may well be starting to travel well on the field but there's a good chance the money won't be rolling in at the same time.

Handouts and welfare have an expiry date.

I agree with all this; I don't think any of it contradicts my argument. Yes, if we don't improve on the field we're in trouble. Yes, we have to get better. If we do get better, yes, we could cash in on some fixtures.

I'm prepared for the club to struggle financially next year; we're implementing structural changes, paying Roos a big salary, and we have a fickle supporter base who won't start coming to games unless we start winning. We will start winning soon, so they'll come back, but that may not be in early 2014.

You speak of the 'opportunity' to stand on our own two feet. I believe the AFL has given us just that. By ensuring we have a fixture in which the opportunities to win are there, whilst limiting the games where beltings are likely (Port the only finalist we have to play twice, no trip to Geelong, etc.), they have given us as good a chance as they can to get some confidence in our game, get some wins on the board, and get fans coming back.

Indeed, we can't live off handouts forever. But when we need them, the AFL has been there to give them. Where does that money come from? In part, its large broadcasting contracts. I hate Channel 7's coverage and commentators, but I'm at least thankful for the reality that they pay a huge amount of money for it, and that has helped us in our time of direst need. So if they don't want to show us right now, tough for us. Let's make them, and our rival Victorian clubs, want to deal with us again.

[Macca 16,173]

I agree with all this; I don't think any of it contradicts my argument. Yes, if we don't improve on the field we're in trouble. Yes, we have to get better. If we do get better, yes, we could cash in on some fixtures.

I'm prepared for the club to struggle financially next year; we're implementing structural changes, paying Roos a big salary, and we have a fickle supporter base who won't start coming to games unless we start winning. We will start winning soon, so they'll come back, but that may not be in early 2014.

You speak of the 'opportunity' to stand on our own two feet. I believe the AFL has given us just that. By ensuring we have a fixture in which the opportunities to win are there, whilst limiting the games where beltings are likely (Port the only finalist we have to play twice, no trip to Geelong, etc.), they have given us as good a chance as they can to get some confidence in our game, get some wins on the board, and get fans coming back.

Indeed, we can't live off handouts forever. But when we need them, the AFL has been there to give them. Where does that money come from? In part, its large broadcasting contracts. I hate Channel 7's coverage and commentators, but I'm at least thankful for the reality that they pay a huge amount of money for it, and that has helped us in our time of direst need. So if they don't want to show us right now, tough for us. Let's make them, and our rival Victorian clubs, want to deal with us again.

Yep, it's always a good idea to know where you stand with someone when a debate arises. In the back of my mind, I'm almost convinced that we'll make some good strides next year - so I want the club to be able to cash in on those "Strides".

But I can see the other side of the argument too - we need some winnable games if a more conservative view is taken with regards to our improvement. I agree that the AFL will look after us for the time being so all is not lost.

It would just be nice to be able to post a healthy profit after next season (without the AFL's help) and ... be a reasonably well performed team on the field. I reckon only the latter can definitely happen next season (and that's with a big dose of wishful thinking)

However, Jackson didn't seem all that perturbed so maybe he knows something

This is what PJ said ...

“We are pleased to be playing our traditional Queen’s Birthday game against Collingwood and two games in the Northern Territory, building on our relationships in the Top End that began in 2010. Of course, our members and supporters will be provided with replacement games at our home, the MCG, for those games in the NT,” he said.

“The commercial opportunities in the 2014 fixture reflects our on field performance over the last couple of years. We accept that and look forward to improved commercial fixtures in the future as our team improves.”