Peter Jackson on The Sunday Footy Show

[monoccular 17,679]

"- PJ in discussion with the board about new contract"

Best news in a long time.

[NowWeKnow 130]

Peter Jackson always gives me the impression that we are actually a seriously professional football club (which is not the image I always have of the club).

This is going to make no sense to anyone who hasn't heard it (and possibly not even to those that have), but, every time I see or hear of Peter Jackson I can't help but think of that jingle for Peter Jackson menswear that use to be around. It just automatically announces itself in my head whenever I see him. "Peeeeeeeta Jackson!". It has a slightly suave, slightly heroic, man-of-the-moment, business-like sophistication to it which kind of suits him. If I were him I would arrange for it to play on loud speakers every time I entered a room unless of course everyone else hears it in their head the same way I do - then he wouldn't need to (but I doubt that).

[Sir Why You Little 37,330]

^^^First shop on the right hand side of the main entrance at Southland when i was a kid!!

[ManDee 7,332]

^^^First shop on the right hand side of the main entrance at Southland when i was a kid!!

Second on the right, I think a bank was first.

[Guest]

I don't have time for Hutchy either but just for the record he runs a substantial pr company and is up to the gills in moolah.

Back to the main thread and thanks to those who caught the interview.

He might be but it still doesn't mean he isn't a slob (which I was implying). I probably distorted the sentence a bit by adding in the bit 'about sleeping on the back seat of his car.'

[Redleg 41,994]

^^^First shop on the right hand side of the main entrance at Southland when i was a kid!!

Bourke Street near Queen Street in CBD.

[Sir Why You Little 37,330]

Second on the right, I think a bank was first.

hahaha i think you are right!!

'Twas 40 years ago!!

[Dr. Gonzo 24,457]

One criticism I do have about Jackson is that I don't get the impression he sticks up for the club or pushes our agenda as much as he should. For instance the fixture, instead of pushing for a fair fixture or at least one where we're not seriously disadvantaged every year he comes out with stuff like "when we improve on-field we'll get better fixtures" ignoring the fact that performance and fixture should be completely separate from one another. Earlier in the year when we raised the request for an annual ANZAC Eve match with Richmond it was shot down by some who commented in the media yet I didn't feel Jackson really went out there and pushed our agenda.

[Sir Why You Little 37,330]

One criticism I do have about Jackson is that I don't get the impression he sticks up for the club or pushes our agenda as much as he should. For instance the fixture, instead of pushing for a fair fixture or at least one where we're not seriously disadvantaged every year he comes out with stuff like "when we improve on-field we'll get better fixtures" ignoring the fact that performance and fixture should be completely separate from one another. Earlier in the year when we raised the request for an annual ANZAC Eve match with Richmond it was shot down by some who commented in the media yet I didn't feel Jackson really went out there and pushed our agenda.

Sorry Dr. G. Only after we start winning games will we get a better fixture.

Hey on QB we kicked 3 goals all day.

It was a yawn fest.

The list must improve. PJ is right.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,457]

Sorry Dr. G. Only after we start winning games will we get a better fixture.

Hey on QB we kicked 3 goals all day.

It was a yawn fest.

The list must improve. PJ is right.

That's got nothing at all to do with playing 7 of the 8 non Vic sides as home games and only one home game against Carlton and Essendon in 5 years.

[chookrat 4,268]

One criticism I do have about Jackson is that I don't get the impression he sticks up for the club or pushes our agenda as much as he should. For instance the fixture, instead of pushing for a fair fixture or at least one where we're not seriously disadvantaged every year he comes out with stuff like "when we improve on-field we'll get better fixtures" ignoring the fact that performance and fixture should be completely separate from one another. Earlier in the year when we raised the request for an annual ANZAC Eve match with Richmond it was shot down by some who commented in the media yet I didn't feel Jackson really went out there and pushed our agenda.

The AFL's business model is based on growing it's revenue base and it does this be drawing crowds and tv audience. It would be futile to push the case for a better fixture with the way we play, however, as we improve so will our fixture

fixture.

[daisycutter 29,897]

The AFL's business model is based on growing it's revenue base and it does this be drawing crowds and tv audience. It would be futile to push the case for a better fixture with the way we play, however, as we improve so will our fixture

fixture.

we all know that chookrat

but it doesn't make it a fair or equal competition

in fact it tends to perpetuate the current strong versus weak divide

[Sir Why You Little 37,330]

That's got nothing at all to do with playing 7 of the 8 non Vic sides as home games and only one home game against Carlton and Essendon in 5 years.

its got a lot to do with it.

At present no one turns up because we are awful to watch.

[Macca 17,120]

Those who believe that we'll get a fairer fixture in terms of revenue if we become successful on the field are ignoring history.

Right through the Daniher years when we played finals in 6 different years, we continued to get rubbish fixtures, year in, year out. For proof, go back and have a look at our homes games in those years.

We've constantly been locked in as a team to play our home games against the "interstate" teams whilst the bigger drawing clubs like Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, Geelong, Hawthorn and Essendon have been constantly "drawn" to play each other "home & away", year in, year out. The advantages that these teams have had over a prolonged period of time is enormous.

2007 was a classic example (remembering that we'd played in the finals in the 3 preceding years and had played finals in 6 of the 9 preceding years)

1) Our home games in 2007 were against 5 interstate teams as well as home games against North, the Dogs and St.Kilda. That's 8 home games where it's hard to turn a dollar.

2) This season, on the back of 7 fruitless years, we received 7 home games against interstate teams as well as home games against North & the Dogs. That's 9 home games where it's hard to turn a dollar.

Not much difference hey?

[Earl Hood 6,151]

Those who believe that we'll get a fairer fixture in terms of revenue if we become successful on the field are ignoring history.

Right through the Daniher years when we played finals in 6 different years, we continued to get rubbish fixtures, year in, year out. For proof, go back and have a look at our homes games in those years.

We've constantly been locked in as a team to play our home games against the "interstate" teams whilst the bigger drawing clubs like Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, Geelong, Hawthorn and Essendon have been constantly "drawn" to play each other "home & away", year in, year out. The advantages that these teams have had over a prolonged period of time is enormous.

2007 was a classic example (remembering that we'd played in the finals in the 3 preceding years and had played finals in 6 of the 9 preceding years)

1) Our home games in 2007 were against 5 interstate teams as well as home games against North, the Dogs and St.Kilda. That's 8 home games where it's hard to turn a dollar.

2) This season, on the back of 7 fruitless years, we received 7 home games against interstate teams as well as home games against North & the Dogs. That's 9 home games where it's hard to turn a dollar.

Not much difference hey?

Macca good post and I am sure someone should develop an equation to measure the $ loss we are actually taking each year in the interests of maximising the TV income from the compromised FIXture for the AFL family. And we should be demanding that sort of compo for the Shyte scheduling we get instead of the few dollars of equalisation we get at the moment.

[monoccular 17,679]

Peter Jackson always gives me the impression that we are actually a seriously professional football club (which is not the image I always have of the club).

This is going to make no sense to anyone who hasn't heard it (and possibly not even to those that have), but, every time I see or hear of Peter Jackson I can't help but think of that jingle for Peter Jackson menswear that use to be around. It just automatically announces itself in my head whenever I see him. "Peeeeeeeta Jackson!". It has a slightly suave, slightly heroic, man-of-the-moment, business-like sophistication to it which kind of suits him. If I were him I would arrange for it to play on loud speakers every time I entered a room unless of course everyone else hears it in their head the same way I do - then he wouldn't need to (but I doubt that).

At least he isn't the pedlar of death, the Peter Jackson of tobacco fame infamy.

And doesn't he also run the VFL ? :-)

[Macca 17,120]

Macca good post and I am sure someone should develop an equation to measure the $ loss we are actually taking each year in the interests of maximising the TV income from the compromised FIXture for the AFL family. And we should be demanding that sort of compo for the Shyte scheduling we get instead of the few dollars of equalisation we get at the moment.

A team like Collingwood usually only travels interstate 4 times a year ... this occurs mainly because of all the home and away fixtures they're involved in against the other big drawing Victorian clubs ... meanwhile, we're seemingly traveling interstate about 6 times per year (on average?)

The Pies would make good money from their "away" fixtures at the MCG because of that Western stand deal, so whilst they're drawn to play "away" games at the MCG as against playing more games interstate, they get another advantage in terms of revenue.

If you multiply those significant advantages over a prolonged period of 20+ years, it's any wonder that we're miles behind (in terms of total revenues)

The EPL, for all it's quirks, has a fair fixture. Even clubs like Crystal Palace get to play home games against Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool, Aston Villa, Tottenham, Newcastle, Everton, Chelsea & Arsenal. All those clubs have big travelling groups of supporters and clubs like Palace can make good money from ticket sales and reserved seating sales because of those big home fixtures.

Every. Single. Year.

The way the AFL fixture is organised is not right and it's not fair but unfortunately, that's the way the AFL does things. The fixture should never be based on supporter numbers or a teams success. However, I'm not holding my breath on anything changing with regards to the way the fixture is currently organised

[Demon Disciple 12,465]

At least he isn't the pedlar of death, the Peter Jackson of tobacco fame infamy.

And doesn't he also run the VFL ? :-)

Not too sure, but in his spare time he has whipped up a couple of movies, namely 'the lord of the rings' and 'the hobbit' trilogies.

[rpfc 28,950]

'You will give us a good draw when we start winning games?'

AFL: Yeah, sure, whatever...

Pretty effing naive about why we have a shite draw, guys.

While the AFL value the number of arses on seats and eyes on the TV - we are not going to get valued.

Fighting for equalisation isn't some "'welfare play' that will bite us when we are good" like some of you (for some reason) think - it's just a desire for fairness in a league that looks to be anything but.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,457]

its got a lot to do with it.

At present no one turns up because we are awful to watch.

Really? There was a decent crowd when we played Richmond earlier in the year. We have to play everyone once so why should it be that we have to play most of the big Vic clubs away every year? The same amount of people will turn up regardless of whether it's a home or away game.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,457]

'You will give us a good draw when we start winning games?'

AFL: Yeah, sure, whatever...

Pretty effing naive about why we have a shite draw, guys.

While the AFL value the number of arses on seats and eyes on the TV - we are not going to get valued.

Fighting for equalisation isn't some "'welfare play' that will bite us when we are good" like some of you (for some reason) think - it's just a desire for fairness in a league that looks to be anything but.

Exactly - Port did alright last year look at their fixture this year. Essendon and Carlton have done nothing for over a decade yet they constantly get great fixtures year in year out. In 2005 Carlton and Collingwood were down the bottom did they get poor fixtures the following year? Same with Carlton and Essendon in 2006.

North got a decent fixture this year (4 Friday night games from memory) based on their competitiveness over the last couple.of years and the AFL acted like it was some piece of generous charity on their behalf.

The fixture should not be based on revenue/attendance it should be based on equity and parity. Those who claim we'll get a good fixture when we're better are delusional, we might get a "better" fixture but it certainly won't be "good". I know why the AFL rig it the way they do what I'm saying is that Jackson as our CEO should be pushing the case for parity in all things, including the fixture, and I don't understand why we don't form a bloc with the likes of North, Saints, Dogs, Geelong and Port for instance to lean on the AFL to push our agenda. Collingwood, Hawthorn and WCE do it to push their agendas we should be doing it too.

[beelzebub 23,390]

the fixture is based on TV thats all

[rjay 25,314]

The way the AFL fixture is organised is not right and it's not fair but unfortunately, that's the way the AFL does things. The fixture should never be based on supporter numbers or a teams success. However, I'm not holding my breath on anything changing with regards to the way the fixture is currently organised

Won't change when the boss has a salary based on revenue in some part. In a game that is supposed to be not for profit the salary structure should not have a revenue component. For the good of the game they need to be smarter than that.

[Sir Why You Little 37,330]

Really? There was a decent crowd when we played Richmond earlier in the year. We have to play everyone once so why should it be that we have to play most of the big Vic clubs away every year? The same amount of people will turn up regardless of whether it's a home or away game.

that was a Richmond home game.

More supporters of a club turn up for a home game.

[Macca 17,120]

Putting aside "prime time games" which is a largely commercial decision made by ch7 in conjunction with the AFL, the fixture is often designed around maximising crowds. Especially so when it comes to games being played in Victoria.

By the time the AFL has matched-up up a lot of the good drawing teams with each other, often the only match-up's leftover are the one's where the less drawing teams are involved. If the "good drawing" teams are also successful on the field, all the better for the AFL.

The obsession with maximising crowds is at the forefront of the AFL's thinking but, that obsession extends to the general footy public as well. ... to a point where some people are accepting of the fact that a club like ours needs to win more games to get a better fixture. It's the wrong way of thinking and that way of thinking has no level of fairness attached to it.

Even if the mooted system changes to the fixture next year get through, I can still see a situation where we again receive 8 or 9 home games against low drawing teams. We might even have to think about selling another home game off to help balance the books.

Meanwhile, the Pies get to play 17/18 games in Melbourne every year ... in 2011, Collingwood played 13 of their first 14 games at either the MCG or at Docklands (mainly the MCG) Last year they made a profit of over 16 million dollars and are currently over 31 million in the black.

The fixture suits them just fine.