I think it'll work out okay. It's in his interests (from a broadcasters point of view) to get every team as competitive as possible. Broadcasters hate paying money for [censored] quality matches, likely explaining his support of a priority pick last year. He's focused on keeping his clients happy and it'll be even more of an issue going into next year's rights negotiations.

The better Melbourne are playing ASAP the happier the broadcasters and the higher the AFL's asking price. If we're still losing every game next year in the midst of negotiating the rights, it makes it harder for the AFL to justify their asking price.

Given he handled the last broadcast rights I'm confident this would be at the front of his mind. Better teams, better games, better product.

Not expecting anything to particularly change.

Maybe a few chairs shuffled on the deck, thats about it.

GM has been there for years. Been involved with much. Hes got a better possi in the carpark and a pay rise.

Nothing wholesale to happen

I'm nervous......

From the little I watched on Fox, he wants 18 teams but says the Tasmanian question is unanswered....

Tassie relocation not out of the question for any struggling Victorian team.

From the little I watched on Fox, he wants 22 teams but says the Tasmanian question is unanswered....

18 teams 22 rounds

The obvious ace up our sleeve is that we are the MELBOURNE Demons, and I can't see any scenario where the AFL would have 18 teams without one named after the city where the game began.

We're also the oldest and founding club of the game. So I'd be a lot more nervous if I were a Saints, Bulldogs or Norf supporter. And who knows what'll happen to Essendon?

Guys you are all forgetting an important element.

TV

The broadcasters get screwed for the Max. cash so they have agreed on the basis that they get a number of fixturing items.

That is the games ( i.e. teams ) that rate the most on the best audience times.

Unless the AFL agree to take less money next time around nothing major is going to change.

GM will only be fiddling at the edges on this subject.

Lets not imagine that the AFL give Essendon and Collingwood Anzac day for any other reason than the TV requirement for the best ratings.

Except the TV ratings figures show that people are more inclined to watch good games or teams performing well rather than the "big clubs".

Except the TV ratings figures show that people are more inclined to watch good games or teams performing well rather than the "big clubs".

Trouble is dr the big clubs are the ones usually performing well.

Vlad is dead....long live Vlad.

He reminds me of Gerry Gee!

Yes but his legs seem solid.

The obvious ace up our sleeve is that we are the MELBOURNE Demons, and I can't see any scenario where the AFL would have 18 teams without one named after the city where the game began.

We're also the oldest and founding club of the game. So I'd be a lot more nervous if I were a Saints, Bulldogs or Norf supporter. And who knows what'll happen to Essendon?

Have'nt you noticed the Australian disregard for our own history.

Trouble is dr the big clubs are the ones usually performing well.

Carlton? Essendon? Richmond?

18 teams 22 rounds

OMG - 22 teams! The talent pool isn't that deep. And how many more maggots would that require? The cesspool is even shallower than the player talent pool.

The obvious ace up our sleeve is that we are the MELBOURNE Demons, and I can't see any scenario where the AFL would have 18 teams without one named after the city where the game began.

We're also the oldest and founding club of the game. So I'd be a lot more nervous if I were a Saints, Bulldogs or Norf supporter. And who knows what'll happen to Essendon?

We all know - they will be rewarded with more marquee games, the ANZAC in particular

Biffen is very vindictive RTG. He actually sniped an invite to a posh polo even at Werribee Mansions. Unfortunately, he cut loose on the free pizz, groped a couple of socialites and got turfed out. He has managed to transfer the blame for this sordid affair onto polo players in general.

Nobody told me the canapés were for everyone,that Ruki Bailleu was a straight male, or that Champagne is meant to be sipped.

Still find it ridiculous that you can't lay bets at the polo.

Highly unlikely there will be a next time but at least I got some antiques to pawn from the day.

The Chirnside portrait sits proudly in the Gat.

My memory of it is still hazy-I had a few chukkas of my own.

reality hits the fans.

adelaide boy=minus 1

on carltons list=minus 2

barracks for stkilda=minus 3.

wears private schoolboy clobber=minus 4.

hasnt started shaving yet=minus 5.

this man has nothing going for him.

In an ideal world, the AFL need to allocate each club an equal number of Friday night games, Saturday night games, home games against big clubs, etc, an even distribution of all the desireable and money generating commodities within football.

Then the AFL, in it's scheduling for instance, must "buy-back" the opportunity for Friday night matches, if it wants to allocate more to a specific team.

Each commodity must be given a dollar value, and that must be reimbursed by the AFL if a team does not receive any of its allocation.

And teams like Collingwood can have more Saturday home games, but they must be required to pay a fee to have any beyond their fair and equitable distribution.

Maybe that would work?

Interesting concept and something the AFL could explore as part of its equalisation strategy. It's not dissimilar in a commercial sense from clubs selling home games to far flung territories prepared to pay, such as NZ, NT and Tassie.

I could imagine another "trade week" being put into the off-season schedule for clubs to negotiate their deals.

I didn't intend for it to be clubs negotiating with other clubs what games they get.

I just think that the current fixture is inequitable, and a monetary figure should be put on that, and then clubs compensated.

The AFL would still set the fixture as they do now.

But we'd receive a cash sum in return for idiotic fixtures such as 10 Sunday twliight games in a row, playing our only Saturday night game in a round where the big game is Anzac Day or Easter Monday, and playing home games against interstate clubs at Etihad.

We and other teams should be fairly compensated for having to put up with this rubbish.

Likewise clubs with favourable fixturing should suffer a penalty.

To do this, the AFL would add or deduct to the normal dispensation that is given to all clubs.

Say the base is $10mil.

We might end up getting $12.5mil with compensation.

Collingwood might get $8.5mil after deductions.

OMG - 22 teams! The talent pool isn't that deep. And how many more maggots would that require? The cesspool is even shallower than the player talent pool.

We all know - they will be rewarded with more marquee games, the ANZAC in particular

mono have you miss read the comment from Matt demon?

The way I read it he is saying 18 teams and 22 games.

I didn't intend for it to be clubs negotiating with other clubs what games they get.

I just think that the current fixture is inequitable, and a monetary figure should be put on that, and then clubs compensated.

The AFL would still set the fixture as they do now.

But we'd receive a cash sum in return for idiotic fixtures such as 10 Sunday twliight games in a row, playing our only Saturday night game in a round where the big game is Anzac Day or Easter Monday, and playing home games against interstate clubs at Etihad.

We and other teams should be fairly compensated for having to put up with this rubbish.

Likewise clubs with favourable fixturing should suffer a penalty.

To do this, the AFL would add or deduct to the normal dispensation that is given to all clubs.

Say the base is $10mil.

We might end up getting $12.5mil with compensation.

Collingwood might get $8.5mil after deductions.

Sorry, Machsy. I misunderstood your original post. But is there scope for clubs to "trade" timeslots? Of course, it would require four clubs to agree to any change. But imagine, for a moment, that Melbourne v Bulldogs is scheduled for Easter Monday afternoon and Geelong v Hawthorn for an early game on Easter Sunday. I could see Melbourne and the Bulldogs being willing to consider an offer from Hawthorn and Geelong (presumably financed, at least in part, by the TV rights holder) to swap. We wouldn't agree for $1 and I'm sure we would for $5 million. So somewhere in between those two values is the market price.

"The most pressing couple (of challenges) I can think of are the continued support and structural improvement in our group of clubs, having a strong competition,"

This was the headline for me.

What the above entails is unknown at this stage.

His desire to have a consolidation of support in Tasmania is admirable, and the only way they will get a team if their own in the medium to long term future.

That cause will have to include not allowing NM to play any more games there and attempting to coax Hawthorn to play more games there in the short term and then leave in the medium to long term at some point.

It makes it very hard to get the variables right but it may just be a case of kicking the can down the road on Tasmania once again. He said he didn't see a team there in the decade, but if he allows NM to continue to split the state with Hawthorn, then this will be confirmed in my eyes.

As for what this means for our club, his words should be a comfort that we will be given time to get our house in order in an 18 team competition for a few years yet.

*And it also completely takes the wind out of the sails of our resident concern troll Household Demon.

Sorry, Machsy. I misunderstood your original post. But is there scope for clubs to "trade" timeslots? Of course, it would require four clubs to agree to any change. But imagine, for a moment, that Melbourne v Bulldogs is scheduled for Easter Monday afternoon and Geelong v Hawthorn for an early game on Easter Sunday. I could see Melbourne and the Bulldogs being willing to consider an offer from Hawthorn and Geelong (presumably financed, at least in part, by the TV rights holder) to swap. We wouldn't agree for $1 and I'm sure we would for $5 million. So somewhere in between those two values is the market price.

Oh yeah, you could definitely customise it to be like that.

No reason at all why you couldn't.

That's just the path I took it down.

But the original idea is only a starting point.

Carlton? Essendon? Richmond?

Good point Doc. And should Collingwood drop-off just as GWS and CGS begin to dominate will TV ratings take a nosedive?

If we stop getting home games against 7 of the 8 non-Vic clubs and start getting regular home games against Essendon, Carlton & Richmond we might have a better chance at becoming self-sufficient.

Spot on. I agree with Eddie - the big clubs shouldn't be penalized for their success. But by the same token they should not get a ridiculously huge leg up by being able to play so many premium games that sponsors just love.

It is the ultimate in short termism (and further evidence of them putting short term profit over long term health of the game) for the AFL to argue that maximizing the dollars for the TV rights depends on having the big clubs playing against each other in stand alone marquee time slots. Give all clubs a a crack at those games and over time clubs will improve and there will be more cracking top shelf games and less a gap bewteen the best and worst games. Imagine PJ trying to sell 4:40 twilight games against GWS on Fox to potential sponsors and the corporates (which apparently is where all the money is now for home games)

As Machsy said, I too am undecided.

Although I can certainly say Andrew Demetriou drove me mental and a fresh face in the position is pleasing.

I just hope he can reconnect the game back to the fans a steer away of the ridiculous commercialization resulting in increased ticket, food, and drink prices.

Gone of the days (over the Demetriou era) of fence banging and enjoying a relatively priced pie and full strength beer whilst sitting in the stands.

Those days will never come back m8. It will get more Commercialized because the televisions channels will make it like that for rating. they own the AFL not us.