The 2015 fixture thread

[rjay 24,851]

As far as I can see there are only TWO Friday night games that don't involve Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond or Essendon - Geelong v Port and Hawthorn v Port. I'm not suggesting Melbourne should be getting any of these games but if I were a Port, Freo or North supporter I would be furious. What happened to "deserving" the big games? How did Carlton, Richmond or Collingwood "deserve" all their Friday night games? By having mediocre to poor 2014 seasons? The Absolute Farce League strikes again.

Yep, I'm not talking Melbourne either. I just want to watch a good game on Friday night, the only one I can see is the Hawthorn/Port game and maybe the Geelong/Port one depending on how Geelong come up.

I will be looking to work a lot more on Friday night rather than watching the footy, I think a lot of other football people if they are not following these so called major clubs will turn off. None of these clubs deserve the games they have been given and none of them will make the 8 in 2015.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

Its school yard stuff to accuse people who don't agree with you of falling for propaganda and being brainwashed, as if you don't fall for propaganda nor are brainwashed. i.e. Melbourne problems are not our fault, but a result of an AFL's unfair policies ...

It's not "schoolyard stuff" it's the truth - the AFL and big clubs like Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Hawthorn, West Coast have been running a PR (or "propaganda") campaign against equalisation for the last couple of decades so as to direct the conversation around equalisation measures towards their preferred form of equalisation. Any Melbourne supporter who accepts the fixture should be used as a tool to "reward" or "punish" clubs based on the AFL's whim or policies rather than as an instrument for the basis of a fair sports competition has fallen for their rubbish hook, line and sinker. It's crazy that people will so easily accept or fall for arguments and policies which are completely antithetical to their interests.

[hardtack 10,514]

Your just assuming that based on nothing when the evidence points in the complete opposite direction. Where is North and Ports reward for performing well? Where is Carlton and Collingwoods punishment for performing poorly? Why do Richmond get a dream fixture when at the best they've been mediocre for two seasons and a rabble for the decade before that?

Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond are three of the top four sides in terms of membership.North and Port are much further down the list at 10th and 12th respectively... this entirely supports what I have been saying. The fixtures improve (in terms of home vs away games) for the teams who attract the biggest crowds, and the only way to attract big crowds is by performing on the field.

Edited October 31, 2014 by hardtack

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

Round 23 - Melbourne v GWS - Etihad Stadium, Sunday.

Anyone like to take a guess of the crowd number for this one? 8,000?

Could be the win one of the clubs needs to make the 8..

[rjay 24,851]

Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond are three of the top four sides in terms of membership.North and Port are much further down the list at 10th and 12th respectively... this entirely supports what I have been saying. The fixtures improve for the teams who attract the biggest crowds, and the only way to attract big crowds is by performing on the field.

No 'Hardtack' this is rubbish. I would say Friday night football is the one game of the week that supporters from all clubs like to watch on TV, it should be the premier game of the week not the game that brings the most supporters of clubs involved to the ground, but the game that gets most unbiased footy supporters watching.

You talked about business sense before, well here's some. The game hangs more on the TV $'s than ever in it's history. I guarantee one of the big stories of next year will be the drop in Friday night ratings. Let's see how much business sense that makes.

As for your comment about fixtures, crowds and onfield performance it is a nonsense by the way. North & Port have both performed well, Carlton, Richmond & Collingwood have been disappointments. Hardwick will be lucky to hold his job in 2015, Malthouse and Buckley not far behind I would think.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,018]

There have been two schools of thought on how equalisation should work in the AFL. One side is that the draw should be even, with good and bad timeslots and big drawcard games being evenly split between all clubs so that they have equal opportunity to profit from the gate takings. In general the smaller clubs have subscribed to this model.

The other is that the draw should focus on making the most overall profit by enabling the bigger clubs to have more prime timeslots and marquee games to bring more money into the overall pool which can then be handed out to the smaller clubs in the form of their yearly AFL handout. This stance has been strongly championed by Eddie and is generally subscribed to by the stronger clubs with large fanbases.

Guess which on Gill is a fan of?

[hardtack 10,514]

As for your comment about fixtures, crowds and onfield performance it is a nonsense by the way. North & Port have both performed well, Carlton, Richmond & Collingwood have been disappointments. Hardwick will be lucky to hold his job in 2015, Malthouse and Buckley not far behind I would think.

Take a look at membership numbers for those 3 clubs. As long as the crowds are turning up to follow those teams, they will be rewarded in terms of fixtures.

[beelzebub 23,313]

Could be the win one of the clubs needs to make the 8..

was my exact same thought.......not overly lucid...but same !!

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond are three of the top four sides in terms of membership.North and Port are much further down the list at 10th and 12th respectively... this entirely supports what I have been saying. The fixtures improve (in terms of home vs away games) for the teams who attract the biggest crowds, and the only way to attract big crowds is by performing on the field.

No, the AFL have consistently been saying that the teams that perform on field will get rewarded with lucrative fixtures. Now you are changing the goalposts and saying you will only get lucrative fixtures if you draw big crowds. But how will smaller clubs draw big crowds if they never get the lucrative fixtures to enable them to do so?

[beelzebub 23,313]

No, the AFL have consistently been saying that the teams that perform on field will get rewarded with lucrative fixtures. Now you are changing the goalposts and saying you will only get lucrative fixtures if you draw big crowds. But how will smaller clubs draw big crowds if they never get the lucrative fixtures to enable them to do so?

I have difficulty marrying that with Carlton...or even Collingwood.

AFL...says one thing...does another

[hardtack 10,514]

No, the AFL have consistently been saying that the teams that perform on field will get rewarded with lucrative fixtures. Now you are changing the goalposts and saying you will only get lucrative fixtures if you draw big crowds. But how will smaller clubs draw big crowds if they never get the lucrative fixtures to enable them to do so?

I haven't changed anything... this is what I have been saying all along and it is my opinion (last time I checked, I have no association with the AFL). As the MFC improves its onfield performances (as it should with the coaching panel it has put together), then memberships should start to increase. As we climb up the ladder, more members come on board and more bandwagon jumpers come along for the ride, attending games. The AFL then sees that there is a quid in it for them and they give us more home games against better opposition because we are getting the crowds in.

Edited October 31, 2014 by hardtack

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

I haven't changed anything... this is what I have been saying all along and it is my opinion (last time I checked, I have no association with the AFL). As the MFC improves its onfield performances (as it should with the coaching panel it has put together), then memberships should start to increase. As we climb up the ladder, more members come on board and more bandwagon jumpers come along for the ride, attending games. The AFL then sees that there is a quid in it for them and they give us more home games against better opposition because we are getting the crowds in.

Ok saying "you've" changed the goalposts was a poor turn of phrase however what I meant was the AFL are continually changing the goalposts. Your opinions on these things are nice but unfortunately they don't impact or align with the AFL's thinking at all. If we do well and have a great season or two we "may" get a half decent fixture however again I have my doubts and this just reinforces it is one rule for some and another rule for others.

To reiterate the fixture should not be used as a tool to reward or punish - and I'm not talking about scheduling times but rather opponents. The VERY LEAST the AFL could do is rotate the home/away fixtures do if you play a team home the next time you play them its away whether it's later in the year or the year after. Then even if we have the exact same schedule of teams we can still get some decent home games to make money off against clubs like Essendon and Carlton instead of one home match a decade against them.

[Macca 16,902]

I went and checked all the years after the years when we played finals ('99, '01, '03, '05, '06 & '07) and discovered that on each occasion we were "drawn" to play 5 of the 6 interstate teams at home in every year except 2001 (when we played 4 of the 6 interstate teams at home) Now of course we've slotted in to that 7/8 bracket (we've been drawn to play 27 home games against interstate opposition in the last 4 years - including next year)

Prime time TV games were of interest too ... did a comparison with Collingwood because of their "popularity" It was difficult to figure out which of the Saturday night games were on free-to-air so I counted both Saturday night games. In each of the years there were approximately 132 spots available.

Melbourne ...... 1999 - 7 "spots" (Prelim finalists in 1998)

Collingwood ... 1999 - 6 (14th in 1998)

Melbourne ...... 2001 - 6 (Grand Finalists in 2000)

Collingwood ... 2001 - 9 (15th in 2000)

Melbourne ...... 2003 - 6 (2 finals in 2002)

Collingwood ... 2003 - 14 (Grand finalists in 2002)

Melbourne ...... 2005 - 8 (finished 5th in 2004)

Collingwood ... 2005 - 9 (finished 13th in 2004)

Melbourne ...... 2006 - 4 (played 1 final in 2005)

Collingwood ... 2006 - 10 (finished 15th in 2005)

Melbourne ...... 2007 - 7 (played 2 finals in 2006)

Collingwood ... 2007 - 11 (played 1 final in 2006)

The Pies seem to get plenty of prime time games regardless of where they finish on the ladder - we did "ok" although 2006 stands out as a year when we weren't "rewarded."

Edited October 31, 2014 by Macca

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

I went and checked all the years after the years when we played finals ('99, '01, '03, '05, '06 & '07) and discovered that on each occasion we were "drawn" to play 5 of the 6 interstate teams at home in every year except 2001 (when we played 4 of the 6 interstate teams at home) Now of course we've slotted in to that 7/8 bracket (we've been drawn to play 27 home games against interstate opposition in the last 4 years - including next year)

Prime time TV games were of interest too ... did a comparison with Collingwood because of their "popularity" It was difficult to figure out which of the Saturday night games were on free-to-air so I counted both Saturday night games. In each of the years there were approximately 132 spots available.

Melbourne ...... 1999 - 7 "spots" (Prelim finalists in 1998)

Collingwood ... 1999 - 6 (14th in 1998)

Melbourne ...... 2001 - 6 (Grand Finalists in 2000)

Collingwood ... 2001 - 9 (15th in 2000)

Melbourne ...... 2003 - 6 (2 finals in 2002)

Collingwood ... 2003 - 14 (Grand finalists in 2002)

Melbourne ...... 2005 - 8 (finished 5th in 2004)

Collingwood ... 2005 - 9 (finished 13th in 2004)

Melbourne ...... 2006 - 4 (played 1 final in 2005)

Collingwood ... 2006 - 10 (finished 15th in 2005)

Melbourne ...... 2007 - 7 (played 2 finals in 2006)

Collingwood ... 2007 - 11 (played 1 final in 2006)

The Pies seem to get plenty of prime time games regardless of where they finish on the ladder - we did "ok" although 2006 stands out as a year when we weren't "rewarded."

Good job - would be even worse if you compared us to Carlton during that period considering how much of a rabble thry were for a decade following the salary cap sanctions. Even Essendon for that matter who haven't won a final since they beat us in the 04 Elimination Final.

Basically what it shows is that clubs like us, Dogs, Saints, North even Port and Freo are lucky to be given the same fixtures after having successful seasons as the favoured clubs get after having terrible seasons and when the favoured clubs have decent seasons they get pushed to the moon (to use wrestling parlance)

Edited October 31, 2014 by Dr. Gonzo

[rjay 24,851]

Take a look at membership numbers for those 3 clubs. As long as the crowds are turning up to follow those teams, they will be rewarded in terms of fixtures.

...but this is not what you said. It's either membership numbers or onfield success which you said would turn our fortunes. As 'Macca' has pointed out, even if we are successful it won't make much difference to our draw, ask North & Port.

It would take another 50 years before on ground success would translate into Hawthorn like membership numbers, remember these are coming from 70' & 80's premiership success.

I understand full well that the AFL is looking to crowds but they will get a rude surprise when the ratings start to drop for Friday night games, they are playing this all wrong.

By the way Carlton's membership numbers are not all that great and I wouldn't consider them a big club any longer, they have suffered from lack of premiership success which has seen clubs like Hawthorn leap over the top of them. Hawthorn a club they treated like peasants in the past are having the last laugh.

[Macca 16,902]

Good job - would be even worse if you compared us to Carlton during that period considering how much of a rabble thry were for a decade following the salary cap sanctions. Even Essendon for that matter who haven't won a final since they beat us in the 04 Elimination Final.

Popularity reigns supreme when it comes to the fixture.

I've long felt that the league first of all makes sure that they have enough blockbuster games involving the Victorian teams - by the time they get through with all of those games (of which we more recently receive the grand total of 1 - the QB clash) they're then left with the task of working out the rest of the fixture. Then there's all the derbies to consider and all the other marquee games involving various clubs.

That has the effect of certain clubs being left with the "leftovers"

People here need to realise that we've been disadvantaged over a long period of time ... any given year may not hurt us too badly but it's the cumulative effect over a number of years that can really hurt.

It would be nice if we could throw a bit of money towards Casey but I doubt whether we're in any position to do so ... teams like the Pies can afford to spend 3 weeks in Arizona whilst right now, we'd have no chance of being able to do something like that.

How long do we go to Darwin for - 3/4 days? Before that we used to spend a few days up in the highlands

Edited October 31, 2014 by Macca

[titan_uranus 24,966]

Interstate home game splits:

• 2015 - 4-7 (WB, NM, St Kilda, Collingwood)
• 2014 - 4-7 (WB, NM, Geelong, Collingwood)
• 2013 - 4-7 (WB, NM, Hawthorn, Collingwood)
• 2012 - 5-6 (WB, Hawthorn, Richmond, St Kilda, Collingwood)
• 2011 - 4-7 (Carlton, Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood)
• 2010 - 6-5 (WB, NM, Essendon, Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood)
• 2009 - 6-5 (WB, NM, St Kilda, Geelong, Richmond, Collingwood)
• 2008 - 7-4 (WB, NM, Hawthorn, Geelong, Richmond, Carlton, Collingwood)
• 2007 - 6-5 (WB, NM, Carlton, Geelong, St Kilda, Collingwood)

So in that period (9 seasons), home games tally against the Victorian clubs:

• Collingwood - 9
• WB - 8
• NM - 7
• Hawthorn - 5
• Richmond - 5
• Geelong - 4
• Carlton - 3
• St Kilda - 3
• Essendon - 1

So we're essentially not getting Essendon home games, we're running at 1 home game every 3 years for St Kilda (who over this period was a generally successful club) and Carlton, whilst the 5 home games against Richmond were all 2008-2012, during which time Richmond did not play finals once.

We've been given some home games against Hawthorn to placate us, as well as QB of course, but otherwise we're being fed a diet of WB and NM.

In 2011 we hosted every single interstate club, and six other times in these 9 years we have hosted all but one.

Edited November 1, 2014 by titan_uranus

[Lucifers Hero 39,501]

Good job - would be even worse if you compared us to Carlton during that period considering how much of a rabble thry were for a decade following the salary cap sanctions. Even Essendon for that matter who haven't won a final since they beat us in the 04 Elimination Final.

By the way Carlton's membership numbers are not all that great and I wouldn't consider them a big club any longer, they have suffered from lack of premiership success which has seen clubs like Hawthorn leap over the top of them. Hawthorn a club they treated like peasants in the past are having the last laugh.

...it pays to have a past champion captain, rhode scholar, influential man about town, as the AFL Commission Chairman...

[Sir Why You Little 36,954]

From a footy point of view the draw aint bad.

If Peter Jackson can make a profit next and grow the club he seriously is a genius.

Why can we not play Victorian clubs as Home games?

FGS Dill At least give the club a chance to get off the floor.

Ass holes

[rjay 24,851]

...it pays to have a past champion captain, rhode scholar, influential man about town, as the AFL Commission Chairman...

Not the conflicted one??? surely he leaves the room when they discuss anything to do with Carlton like he does with the stadium deal in Sydney.

[Macca 16,902]

Basically what it shows is that clubs like us, Dogs, Saints, North even Port and Freo are lucky to be given the same fixtures after having successful seasons as the favoured clubs get after having terrible seasons and when the favoured clubs have decent seasons they get pushed to the moon (to use wrestling parlance)

Popularity first and ... then performance is how the fixture is arranged, Dr. G.

However, a fixture should never be built on either criteria.

It should be as fair as possible as it is with any other sport. If someone can come up with another league that practices the same hairbrain way of doings things as the AFL does, I'd be very surprised.

The "deserving" part has grown legs over the years - for the life of me, I don't know why people fall for that rot. The league would know full well that our fixture won't be giving us much of a financial return.

People are concerned about the league becoming about 'the haves" vs "the have nots" should look no further than the fixture - it's an absolute joke.

Jackson's reaction was similar to last year (being diplomatic?) however, about a month or so after the fixture came out last year, he sounded off about how our fixture was really going to hurt us in a financial sense (can't find a link unfortunately)

I don't necessarily want hand-outs to equal things up either ... it gives those with an agenda a chance to point the finger at our club. Equalisation should be practised as a matter of course by the league not as a measure of squaring things up after disadvantaging certain clubs.

We just need a fair crack at things.

Give us that and we have no reason to complain.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Macca

[Lucifers Hero 39,501]

Not the conflicted one??? surely he leaves the room when they discuss anything to do with Carlton like he does with the stadium deal in Sydney.

I'm referring to the decisions made by the AFL admin that don't need to go to the Commission and seem to favour Carlton...

Edited November 1, 2014 by Lucifer's Hero

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

Popularity first and ... then performance is how the fixture is arranged, Dr. G.

However, a fixture should never be built on either criteria.

It should be as fair as possible as it is with any other sport. If someone can come up with another league that practices the same hairbrain way of doings things as the AFL does, I'd be very surprised.

The "deserving" part has grown legs over the years - for the life of me, I don't know why people fall for that rot. The league would know full well that our fixture won't be giving us much of a financial return.

People are concerned about the league becoming about 'the haves" vs "the have nots" should look no further than the fixture - it's an absolute joke.

Jackson's reaction was similar to last year (being diplomatic?) however, about a month or so after the fixture came out last year, he sounded off about how our fixture was really going to hurt us in a financial sense (can't find a link unfortunately)

I don't necessarily want hand-outs to equal things up either ... it gives those with an agenda to point the finger at our club. Equalisation should be practised as a matter of course by the league not as a measure of squaring things up after disadvantaging certain clubs.

We just need a fair crack at things.

Give us that and we have no reason to complain.

You would think the AFL would want to build the league as a whole rather than building certain clubs to the detriment of others as it would be in the long term interests of the league - but then they'd have Eddie and co mouthing off in their ears about how unfair it all was and blah blah blah. It really is such short term thinking especially when you compare to the NFL which the AFL attempts to mimic I'm a lot of things.

[Macca 16,902]

You would think the AFL would want to build the league as a whole rather than building certain clubs to the detriment of others as it would be in the long term interests of the league - but then they'd have Eddie and co mouthing off in their ears about how unfair it all was and blah blah blah. It really is such short term thinking especially when you compare to the NFL which the AFL attempts to mimic I'm a lot of things.

The AFL are interested in making money - they're not great custodians. Maximising crowds has always been high on the agenda for the league and because of that thinking, the footy public often end up thinking the same way.

'hardtack' mentioned in an earlier post that the AFL will/might get on board with us if there's a quid in it for them ... that about sums things up. hardtack is on the money (so to speak)

Unfortunately I don't see things changing in a hurry but ... the now annual game against Richmond on Anzac eve is a step in the right direction.

We need to be the proactive ones here and I'm sure the club and indeed many people here could come up with some good ideas about annual games against the better supported clubs ... at least if we had those games written in stone we'd be assured of a good return for those particular games on a biennial basis.

And if we're going to be drawn to play home games against North & the Doggies every year we should try and maximise our returns in those games. Some sort of theme or those games being played on certain days shouldn't be too hard to think up.

It just needs some creative thinking.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Macca

[Jarka 767]

That is a terrible fixture for us in terms of income.

We have a home game against Collingwood.

We don't have a home game against Carlton, Richmond, Essendon, Hawthorn or Geelong.

I [censored] hate the AFL, and everything about it. I hate their transparent and unfair agenda to help certain clubs become successful at the expense of others. Once again we have the worst draw by a country mile, the dogs have home games against Carlton & Collingwood, saints get Carlton, Essendon, Hawthorn, Richmond and Geelong FFS, they [censored] finished last. How the [censored] are we meant to build for the future.

If it wasn't for my emotional ties to the MFC I would have walked away from the sport years ago. The AFL can gagf, they are corrupt and continually influence the results to achieve their own agendas.