On 01/11/2015 at 08:46, Sir Why You Little said:

For the long term future of the clubs in question yes

$200 mill up front pay it now and make it a clean stadium every week for whoever plays there.

In 10 years that would make a lot more $$$ than the savings you are quoting

But the AFL want weak clubs as well as strong

Keeps them in charge

This is absolutely ridiculous. Do you even understand what you're saying?

The AFL can pay $200 million for Etihad now, or they can buy it for $30 in 10 years. Surely even you can understand that even in the worst case scenario, the AFL would not be handing out anywhere near $200 million to help the Etihad clubs survive?

And why would the AFL want the weak teams to stay weak? They give money to these clubs to keep them alive. Don't you think 18 clubs making money = more money for the AFL? You're not even being logical now.

Your numbers simply don't add up. But as usual you are dealing in conspiracy theories rather than fact.

  On 01/11/2015 at 08:54, stuie said:

This is absolutely ridiculous. Do you even understand what you're saying?

The AFL can pay $200 million for Etihad now, or they can buy it for $30 in 10 years. Surely even you can understand that even in the worst case scenario, the AFL would not be handing out anywhere near $200 million to help the Etihad clubs survive?

And why would the AFL want the weak teams to stay weak? They give money to these clubs to keep them alive. Don't you think 18 clubs making money = more money for the AFL? You're not even being logical now.

Your numbers simply don't add up. But as usual you are dealing in conspiracy theories rather than fact.

you are not looking at THE BIG PICTURE

In 10 years time the Etihad Tennants apart from Essendrug will be so far behind the 8 ball

Geelong make at least $600,000 per home game

WC and Fremantle have waiting lists for memberships

Meanwhile Etihad Tennants have to send a cheque to the shareholders for the use of the ground

They won't last 10 years doing that

Spend the money now and be wise. Save the clubs

  On 01/11/2015 at 08:59, Sir Why You Little said:

you are not looking at THE BIG PICTURE

In 10 years time the Etihad Tennants apart from Essendrug will be so far behind the 8 ball

Geelong make at least $600,000 per home game

WC and Fremantle have waiting lists for memberships

Meanwhile Etihad Tennants have to send a cheque to the shareholders for the use of the ground

They won't last 10 years doing that

Spend the money now and be wise. Save the clubs

Here's the big picture.

Do the numbers...

Do you think the AFL will spend more than $200 million helping out the Etihad teams over the next 9 seasons?

The AFL is a business whether you like it or not, and spending $200 million on something that would soon cost you $30 is unbelievably bad business no matter what conspiracies you want to convince yourself of.

  On 01/11/2015 at 09:10, stuie said:

Here's the big picture.

Do the numbers...

Do you think the AFL will spend more than $200 million helping out the Etihad teams over the next 9 seasons?

The AFL is a business whether you like it or not, and spending $200 million on something that would soon cost you $30 is unbelievably bad business no matter what conspiracies you want to convince yourself of.

who do you follow

The AFL or the clubs who play within The AFL.

I want clubs to survive if they are viable.

The Etihad deals are not viable.

The AFL just made close to $2 BILLION on the next TV deal and a payment of $200 mill to free at least 4 clubs from Ball and chain deals for the next 10 years could be made from almost the interest rates alone.

Do your really think these clubs will survive for 10 years in their current state?

  On 01/11/2015 at 09:19, Sir Why You Little said:

who do you follow

The AFL or the clubs who play within The AFL.

I want clubs to survive if they are viable.

The Etihad deals are not viable.

The AFL just made close to $2 BILLION on the next TV deal and a payment of $200 mill to free at least 4 clubs from Ball and chain deals for the next 10 years could be made from almost the interest rates alone.

Do your really think these clubs will survive for 10 years in their current state?

Again, I ask you, do you think the AFL will be paying out more than $200 million over the next 9 seasons to help out the Etihad clubs?

That's nearly $3 million per team per year for those clubs.

Do. The. Math.

  On 01/11/2015 at 09:23, stuie said:

Again, I ask you, do you think the AFL will be paying out more than $200 million over the next 9 seasons to help out the Etihad clubs?

That's nearly $3 million per team per year for those clubs.

Do. The. Math.

I have done the Maths mate

Clubs will die and the Fat Commissioners will still pull grotesque wages.

The Home Ground advantage has been killed in Victoria

In 10 years time your are prepared to witness the death of multiple clubs just so The AFL can get their bargain?

Fcuk that. The AFL has called itself a "non profit organization" but it is lying.

No club should have to write a cheque to faceless shareholders for putting on a game.

But you will wait 10 years..

I blame the AFLPA.

  On 01/11/2015 at 09:29, Sir Why You Little said:

I have done the Maths mate

Clubs will die and the Fat Commissioners will still pull grotesque wages.

The Home Ground advantage has been killed in Victoria

In 10 years time your are prepared to witness the death of multiple clubs just so The AFL can get their bargain?

Fcuk that. The AFL has called itself a "non profit organization" but it is lying.

No club should have to write a cheque to faceless shareholders for putting on a game.

But you will wait 10 years..

Ok, seriously, how are you still not getting this?

The AFL supports the teams that are struggling financially.

For them to best do this, they need to make money too.

The amount they will save by waiting to buy Etihad will be FAR MORE than what they will need to pay the clubs to keep them afloat.

That's called good business.

You clearly aren't looking at this from a factual or numbers point of view and are more concerned with still sooking over it not being called the VFL anymore. Grow up.

  On 01/11/2015 at 10:26, stuie said:

Ok, seriously, how are you still not getting this?

The AFL supports the teams that are struggling financially.

For them to best do this, they need to make money too.

The amount they will save by waiting to buy Etihad will be FAR MORE than what they will need to pay the clubs to keep them afloat.

That's called good business.

You clearly aren't looking at this from a factual or numbers point of view and are more concerned with still sooking over it not being called the VFL anymore. Grow up.

1 - how many teams struggling financially are tenants of Etihad? All of the struggling Melbourne teams bar the MFC? Taking ownership of the stadium and re-working their deals to become more profitable would reduce the need to hand them cash.

2 - If he was to do that he would need to know how much revenue/ profit Etihad Stadium makes per year and how much potential there is for that to improve over the next 10 years under AFL ownership (while the price tag may be $200m, they could easily make that back in profit over the period). A detailed understanding of all cash flows and intangible items such as good will would need to be had before you could truly assess the value of the deal.

200m to the AfL is peanuts. Why wouldn't you do it to bring control of the venue...its revenue streams and to say nothing of releaving the league of its contraryness.

  On 01/11/2015 at 10:26, stuie said:

Ok, seriously, how are you still not getting this?

The AFL supports the teams that are struggling financially.

For them to best do this, they need to make money too.

The amount they will save by waiting to buy Etihad will be FAR MORE than what they will need to pay the clubs to keep them afloat.

That's called good business.

You clearly aren't looking at this from a factual or numbers point of view and are more concerned with still sooking over it not being called the VFL anymore. Grow up.

Grow Up says Stuie..

Read this slowly and carefully

There is no point giving oxygen to matter that is already dead..

The AFL are not bailing clubs out at all?

The collective debt is now close to $100 mill for all clubs in the red. Are you aware of that?

Brisbane at least $13 mill in the red whilst Gold Coast and GW$ have gold credit cards. Fitzroy could have been saved but were never a chance

Yes the AFL make shitloads but it is certainly not being pumped back where it is needed

The Etihad Stadium deal is purely revolting and the AFL will do nothing about it

The AFL props up who the want.

Having clubs on a drip feed means you always have compliance. Fact.

  On 01/11/2015 at 11:04, Sir Why You Little said:

Grow Up says Stuie..

Read this slowly and carefully

There is no point giving oxygen to matter that is already dead..

The AFL are not bailing clubs out at all?

The collective debt is now close to $100 mill for all clubs in the red. Are you aware of that?

Brisbane at least $13 mill in the red whilst Gold Coast and GW$ have gold credit cards. Fitzroy could have been saved but were never a chance

Yes the AFL make shitloads but it is certainly not being pumped back where it is needed

The Etihad Stadium deal is purely revolting and the AFL will do nothing about it

The AFL props up who the want.

Having clubs on a drip feed means you always have compliance. Fact.

Whether the current commission or AFL executive intends to or not, the ball has begun rolling and in a few years the combined club debt will have reached a point where the discussion of "trimming" club numbers will begin. there will be so much debt that supporters for the trimming will point to that as why it is "necessary" to downsize the melbourne club numbers.

the writing is on the wall - some can't see the end game yet but to me its pretty bloody obvious.

in the meantime MFC needs to get its [censored] together fast.

At the moment it can point to a supporter base in its twilight years with a sprinkling of younger generation supporters and a 'closet' in AAMI stadium as its base of operations.

I would say that those for decreasing team numbers , could make a fair case for MFCs demise in the medium term should the status quo not change

200mil opposed to say 3-5 mil per Etihad team that requires it, so north, Saints.

Bombers wouldn't, blues wouldn't and if they did it would be 1 mil or less. So say at most it's 12mil for the four clubs per year. 120mil over 10 years. Saving 80mil...

  On 01/11/2015 at 19:20, Gorgoroth said:

200mil opposed to say 3-5 mil per Etihad team that requires it, so north, Saints.

Bombers wouldn't, blues wouldn't and if they did it would be 1 mil or less. So say at most it's 12mil for the four clubs per year. 120mil over 10 years. Saving 80mil...

I just don't understand how the tinfoil hat conspiracy theory gang don't understand this.

  On 01/11/2015 at 10:55, Beats said:

1 - how many teams struggling financially are tenants of Etihad? All of the struggling Melbourne teams bar the MFC? Taking ownership of the stadium and re-working their deals to become more profitable would reduce the need to hand them cash.

2 - If he was to do that he would need to know how much revenue/ profit Etihad Stadium makes per year and how much potential there is for that to improve over the next 10 years under AFL ownership (while the price tag may be $200m, they could easily make that back in profit over the period). A detailed understanding of all cash flows and intangible items such as good will would need to be had before you could truly assess the value of the deal.

1 - The AFL would have done the maths, and if the amount of cash they would need to hand out is less than what they save, then any sane person would realize you go with that.

2 - Again, do the numbers. Seriously. $200 million now, $30 in 2025. It's not that hard to understand.

  On 01/11/2015 at 11:04, Sir Why You Little said:

Grow Up says Stuie..

Read this slowly and carefully

There is no point giving oxygen to matter that is already dead..

The AFL are not bailing clubs out at all?

The collective debt is now close to $100 mill for all clubs in the red. Are you aware of that?

Brisbane at least $13 mill in the red whilst Gold Coast and GW$ have gold credit cards. Fitzroy could have been saved but were never a chance

Yes the AFL make shitloads but it is certainly not being pumped back where it is needed

The Etihad Stadium deal is purely revolting and the AFL will do nothing about it

The AFL props up who the want.

Having clubs on a drip feed means you always have compliance. Fact.

Didn't realize Brisbane, Gold Coast and GWS had deals with Etihad....

Getting back on topic, I thought further over the weekend about he player managers' role when players get themselves into trouble as happened with Carlisle. There appears to be three schools of thought being (1) the manager had a responsibility to tell St Kilda that he was aware of Carlisle's misdemeanour prior to the trade being finalised, (2) the manager was under no obligation to tell St Kilda but, if asked a direct question, would have had to answer honestly or (3) the manager was under no obligation to tell St Kilda but, if asked a direct question could answer dishonestly.

I have not changed my view and still support option 2. Others have argued that the manager has a responsibility for the player's welfare and I fully agree. If we want player managers to look after their clients we have to provide an environment that encourages players to share their dark secrets with their managers. If managers have to disclose their clients' problems to the clubs, players will cease to advise their managers of their problems. So, I believe McConville was absolutely in the right for not disclosing Carlisle's bad behaviour to St Kilda.

http://mobile.news.com.au/sport/afl/jake-carlisle-row-eddie-mcguire-blasts-aflpa-for-nondisclosure-to-st-kilda/story-fnelctok-1227587756763

Im on my mobile, so i can't be bothered with quoting. But at the bottom of the article is a gill statement. The player manager only had a grainy photo at the time and jake was denying it was him. So, if thats fact, i would point the finger squarely at Carlisle.

  On 01/11/2015 at 22:01, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Getting back on topic, I thought further over the weekend about he player managers' role when players get themselves into trouble as happened with Carlisle. There appears to be three schools of thought being (1) the manager had a responsibility to tell St Kilda that he was aware of Carlisle's misdemeanour prior to the trade being finalised, (2) the manager was under no obligation to tell St Kilda but, if asked a direct question, would have had to answer honestly or (3) the manager was under no obligation to tell St Kilda but, if asked a direct question could answer dishonestly.

I have not changed my view and still support option 2. Others have argued that the manager has a responsibility for the player's welfare and I fully agree. If we want player managers to look after their clients we have to provide an environment that encourages players to share their dark secrets with their managers. If managers have to disclose their clients' problems to the clubs, players will cease to advise their managers of their problems. So, I believe McConville was absolutely in the right for not disclosing Carlisle's bad behaviour to St Kilda.

this wasn't just a case of disclosing a clients problem(s)

this was a situation where the manager knew this "problem" was going to go public in the short term and would have to be addressed shortly after the trade signed

this was clearly playing for time and deceptive. it was made worse by the aflpa condoning the silence before the trade

aints have said that if they knew the trade would have been off. a lot of people and good will has been burnt by this poor behaviour

  On 01/11/2015 at 22:10, Jack Jack said:

http://mobile.news.com.au/sport/afl/jake-carlisle-row-eddie-mcguire-blasts-aflpa-for-nondisclosure-to-st-kilda/story-fnelctok-1227587756763

Im on my mobile, so i can't be bothered with quoting. But at the bottom of the article is a gill statement. The player manager only had a grainy photo at the time and jake was denying it was him. So, if thats fact, i would point the finger squarely at Carlisle.

  On 01/11/2015 at 22:11, daisycutter said:

this wasn't just a case of disclosing a clients problem(s)

this was a situation where the manager knew this "problem" was going to go public in the short term and would have to be addressed shortly after the trade signed

this was clearly playing for time and deceptive. it was made worse by the aflpa condoning the silence before the trade

aints have said that if they knew the trade would have been off. a lot of people and good will has been burnt by this poor behaviour

Perhaps the agent didn't know it was Carlise...or maybe he did. I wouldn't know this player agent from a bar of soap but I do know that I wouldn't trust him or any other agent whatever they said about their clients. Partly it's because I expect them to represent their clients to the best of their ability. It's also because I suspect clubs are equally guilty when "hiding" their own internal problems from players who they wish to draft in. And also clubs likely do not disclose what they know of their own players' failings when they try to move them on. In summary, I suspect the dishonesty on both sides makes it a fair exchange of information.

  On 01/11/2015 at 22:25, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Perhaps the agent didn't know it was Carlise...or maybe he did. I wouldn't know this player agent from a bar of soap but I do know that I wouldn't trust him or any other agent whatever they said about their clients. Partly it's because I expect them to represent their clients to the best of their ability. It's also because I suspect clubs are equally guilty when "hiding" their own internal problems from players who they wish to draft in. And also clubs likely do not disclose what they know of their own players' failings when they try to move them on. In summary, I suspect the dishonesty on both sides makes it a fair exchange of information.

so now you are describing the behaviour as dishonest but calling it "fair" because everyone is behaving dishonestly.

you obviously prefer to draw the line on the low side

additionally his manager had been informed that the issue was going to air on a current affair. he may not have been in possession of all the facts but he was concerned enough to go to the aflpa who decided to keep it in-house.

unsurprisingly the afl doesn't want to have anything to do with it (at least publicly)

but as i said before we all have our own standards of probity

Not so much on the "low side" but on the "equal side". I shouldn't have used the word "dishonesty". It would have been better if I had written " I suspect the withholding of information on both sides makes it a fair exchange of information."

My primary point still stands - if we want players to be helped by their managers, the players need to have confidence that their managers can keep a secret.

  On 01/11/2015 at 21:49, stuie said:

Didn't realize Brisbane, Gold Coast and GWS had deals with Etihad....

your just so clever....

  On 02/11/2015 at 01:37, Sir Why You Little said:

your just so clever....

*You're

  On 02/11/2015 at 01:41, stuie said:

*You're

not bad pay that one