The State of the AFL

[beelzebub 23,313]

Where do you sit Bob with the AFL paying scant regard towards drugs in this code ? about the AFL's relative thumbing its nose at WADA.  Lop sided fixtures ? The pandering to certain power clubs at the expense of others.

Above all the AFL driven by the dollar...not ethics

I'm interested

[Slartibartfast 17,202]

31 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Where do you sit Bob with the AFL paying scant regard towards drugs in this code ? about the AFL's relative thumbing its nose at WADA.  Lop sided fixtures ? The pandering to certain power clubs at the expense of others.

Above all the AFL driven by the dollar...not ethics

I'm interested

Are you really interested?

The AFL are signatories to WADA most probably because the Government wanted them to be.  It's not a part of football that interests me so I know little of it beyond that.  But at the end of the day Essendon have suffered the most damaging disruption for years now and face a complete rebuild subject to what the 12 banned players do.  Can they both sue and play for the club at the same time?  All I know is if I was an Essendon supporter who had no say in the supplements saga I'd be shattered.  Drugs is an issue within the AFL and depending where you stand "scant regard" and "thumbing its nose at WADA" is a view.  It's certainly not an issue that defines the AFL's success or otherwise as trustees of the game.

"Pandering to certain power clubs" is also a view.  But the competition is not even and never will be.  18 teams and a 22 game season sees to that.  There will be winners and losers. The question to me is whether all clubs have a reasonable opportunity.  I think they do but there will always be inequities.  WCE play 12 "home" games at a ground that favours them heavily.  Collingwood don't get that advantage. We got Viney and Stretch as FS's well after their true draft position. The capitalist in me says the power clubs deserve benefits as they are the ones who have been well managed and should benefit from that. Why should the well run Hawks who gave games in Melbourne away to develop their supporter base in Tassie give money to those that didn't make that sacrifice? If you don't give the clubs a reward for good management where is the incentive?

There are a group of posters here who always seem to be outraged about the AFL and any decision they make.  Your statement above about the AFL being driven by the dollar and not ethics is interesting.  Firstly if the AFL wasn't run as a business (driven by the dollar) many clubs wouldn't exist and perhaps the AFL itself would have failed as a result.  But secondly what is ironic is that those that bemoan the ethics of the AFL still support it so passionately through the support of the MFC.  Don't kid yourself that support of the MFC isn't support of the AFL.

It's hard to think of an institution that is not compromised in terms of ethics.  Charities, churches, governments, sporting codes (Olympics and soccer) and business all have ethical questions hanging over their heads.  Why should the AFL be different?  The AFL is a business in the entertainment sector and it competes in that market.  They are doing pretty well and don't look like going away soon. 

We exist because they are a very well run business who have a socialist agenda.  Thank heavens because I really enjoy supporting MFC.

[old dee 23,782]

28 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Are you really interested?

The AFL are signatories to WADA most probably because the Government wanted them to be.  It's not a part of football that interests me so I know little of it beyond that.  But at the end of the day Essendon have suffered the most damaging disruption for years now and face a complete rebuild subject to what the 12 banned players do.  Can they both sue and play for the club at the same time?  All I know is if I was an Essendon supporter who had no say in the supplements saga I'd be shattered.  Drugs is an issue within the AFL and depending where you stand "scant regard" and "thumbing its nose at WADA" is a view.  It's certainly not an issue that defines the AFL's success or otherwise as trustees of the game.

"Pandering to certain power clubs" is also a view.  But the competition is not even and never will be.  18 teams and a 22 game season sees to that.  There will be winners and losers. The question to me is whether all clubs have a reasonable opportunity.  I think they do but there will always be inequities.  WCE play 12 "home" games at a ground that favours them heavily.  Collingwood don't get that advantage. We got Viney and Stretch as FS's well after their true draft position. The capitalist in me says the power clubs deserve benefits as they are the ones who have been well managed and should benefit from that. Why should the well run Hawks who gave games in Melbourne away to develop their supporter base in Tassie give money to those that didn't make that sacrifice? If you don't give the clubs a reward for good management where is the incentive?

There are a group of posters here who always seem to be outraged about the AFL and any decision they make.  Your statement above about the AFL being driven by the dollar and not ethics is interesting.  Firstly if the AFL wasn't run as a business (driven by the dollar) many clubs wouldn't exist and perhaps the AFL itself would have failed as a result.  But secondly what is ironic is that those that bemoan the ethics of the AFL still support it so passionately through the support of the MFC.  Don't kid yourself that support of the MFC isn't support of the AFL.

It's hard to think of an institution that is not compromised in terms of ethics.  Charities, churches, governments, sporting codes (Olympics and soccer) and business all have ethical questions hanging over their heads.  Why should the AFL be different?  The AFL is a business in the entertainment sector and it competes in that market.  They are doing pretty well and don't look like going away soon. 

We exist because they are a very well run business who have a socialist agenda.  Thank heavens because I really enjoy supporting MFC.

My major complaint about the AFL is that it is an old boys club.

it needs a new CEO from outside the club and a number of the commissioners should retire because they have not covered themselves in glory over the last decade.

If the AFL disappeared tomorrow ( yes I know there is no chance )

I would enjoy watching the MFC in the Amos just as much as I do currently BB

[Chris 2,892]

1 hour ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Are you really interested?

The AFL are signatories to WADA most probably because the Government wanted them to be.  It's not a part of football that interests me so I know little of it beyond that.  But at the end of the day Essendon have suffered the most damaging disruption for years now and face a complete rebuild subject to what the 12 banned players do.  Can they both sue and play for the club at the same time?  All I know is if I was an Essendon supporter who had no say in the supplements saga I'd be shattered.  Drugs is an issue within the AFL and depending where you stand "scant regard" and "thumbing its nose at WADA" is a view.  It's certainly not an issue that defines the AFL's success or otherwise as trustees of the game.

"Pandering to certain power clubs" is also a view.  But the competition is not even and never will be.  18 teams and a 22 game season sees to that.  There will be winners and losers. The question to me is whether all clubs have a reasonable opportunity.  I think they do but there will always be inequities.  WCE play 12 "home" games at a ground that favours them heavily.  Collingwood don't get that advantage. We got Viney and Stretch as FS's well after their true draft position. The capitalist in me says the power clubs deserve benefits as they are the ones who have been well managed and should benefit from that. Why should the well run Hawks who gave games in Melbourne away to develop their supporter base in Tassie give money to those that didn't make that sacrifice? If you don't give the clubs a reward for good management where is the incentive?

There are a group of posters here who always seem to be outraged about the AFL and any decision they make.  Your statement above about the AFL being driven by the dollar and not ethics is interesting.  Firstly if the AFL wasn't run as a business (driven by the dollar) many clubs wouldn't exist and perhaps the AFL itself would have failed as a result.  But secondly what is ironic is that those that bemoan the ethics of the AFL still support it so passionately through the support of the MFC.  Don't kid yourself that support of the MFC isn't support of the AFL.

It's hard to think of an institution that is not compromised in terms of ethics.  Charities, churches, governments, sporting codes (Olympics and soccer) and business all have ethical questions hanging over their heads.  Why should the AFL be different?  The AFL is a business in the entertainment sector and it competes in that market.  They are doing pretty well and don't look like going away soon. 

We exist because they are a very well run business who have a socialist agenda.  Thank heavens because I really enjoy supporting MFC.

A couple of things. The AFL thumbing their nose at WADA is not an opinion, it is exactly what they are doing. Not being part of WADA would remove any chance of credibility for the code with regards to PED use and they have very little now as it is. Take that from someone who is interested in it. 

Secondly you saay the comp is even and each club has a reletively opportunity.  That is bull. If you look at the commercial aspects of the draw and when certain teams can make money the disparity in opportunity is right there to be seen. That is why the big clubs give money to the little ones, not due to management but due to opportunity, PJ said just that at last years AGM.

I agree when you said the AFL is socialist, although i only agree that it should be, not that it is. The way it should be run is both as a capitalist competetive business (as a code competing against the others) but it should be absolutely even between the teams in terms of opportunity (as far as possible anyway). The NFL are closer on this where every team gets the same number of high profile games no matter where on the ladder, this gives the commercial opportunity and it is up to the team to make the most of it. TV stations wont like it so you would get less money in the short term, in the long term you get a healthier comp with viable teams and that brings more money. The AFL are far too short sighted in this regard. You can also get around what we had with the blow outs with Carlton by players like with like. Dont put the wooden spoon team against the premier in prime time, put games like us V stkilda. Skills may be down but a close game is usually a good game. That brings in veiwers and therfore more money.

You say thanks for the socialist aagenda of the AFL as it has helped our club by giving us money, wouldnt you prefer we got the opportunity to make money so we didnt need the handout?

[Sir Why You Little 36,989]

Interesting comments above

some i agree with and some not so much

bottom line is The MFC has to adapt itself to get better. 

We are the name of the Goddam City and until last year I have never seen the club use it to our advantage. 

PJ gets it. Finally. 

There are a lot of things about the AFL i hate. The Fixture being Top of the pile

But We have a Home Ground that seats 100,000 backsides so there really is no excuse. 

Yes there will be weak clubs but the MFC should not be one of them

reality doesn't lie. 

Decades of incompetance are being repaired. But without victories it will amount to nothing 

[dee-luded 2,959]

12 hours ago, Django said:

I like most of your points Theo, but how do you go about preventing tanking when that draft pick system is in place.

The FA idea is great, but it would never run. The AFLPA would kick up a stink, as players wouldn't be able to float off to another club and win a flag if they wanted to.

bring back a  'Form 4'  type thing,  for signing Free & Restricted Free Agents. 

 

......  let the teams outside the top 8 can get ( 5  Form 4's ) valid over following 3 consecutive trade draft periods....  teams finishing 5th to 8th spot can get  ( 3  Form 4's )  valid for the 3 following trade periods...

 

2nd placed finishing team to 4th placed team can only have  ( 2 Form 4's only ) over the following 3 season period.

1st placed team can only have  ( 1 form 4 only ) over the following 3 season period.

.

[dee-luded 2,959]

11 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Clubs being stuck at or around the bottom of the ladder isn't a new phenomenon. And to the AFL's credit they've tried to do something about it (eg, salary cap, drafting), although arguably not enough. Having said that, clubs perenially at or around the bottom of the ladder are generally poorly run, which suggests its not all AFL HQ's fault.

The best evidence for this are the comparative positions of Carlton and Hawthorn. Carlton was a powerhouse in the days when you could "buy" premierships by raiding SA and WA for the best talent by paying the highest prices. Conversely, Hawthorn was a basket case for most of its first 50 years in the competition. Carlton is now a struggler as it hasn't adapted to the changes required; whereas Hawthorn has worked out how to operate best in the new world.

 

 

they try but in the end they don't have the balls to stand up to power clubs who biitch & moan in the papers.

 

and the political will isn't strong enough because of short term thinking,  around the almighty $$$$ ....   very short term thinking indeed,  & cheap moral thinking.

Edited February 25, 2016 by dee-luded

[Sir Why You Little 36,989]

7 minutes ago, dee-luded said:

bring back a  'Form 4'  type thing,  for signing Free & Restricted Free Agents. 

 

......  let the teams outside the top 8 can get ( 5  Form 4's ) valid over following 3 consecutive trade draft periods....  teams finishing 5th to 8th spot can get  ( 3  Form 4's )  valid for the 3 following trade periods...

 

2nd placed finishing team to 4th placed team can only have  ( 2 Form 4's only ) over the following 3 season period.

1st placed team can only have  ( 1 form 4 only ) over the following 3 season period.

.

Stop penalizing the Top Sides for doing things right

idiot decisions should not be rewarded. 

[dee-luded 2,959]

2 hours ago, old dee said:

My major complaint about the AFL is that it is an old boys club.

it needs a new CEO from outside the club and a number of the commissioners should retire because they have not covered themselves in glory over the last decade.

If the AFL disappeared tomorrow ( yes I know there is no chance )

I would enjoy watching the MFC in the Amos just as much as I do currently BB

Supporter groups need 1/3 of the spots on the board/commission, & its decisions need to be transparent.  1/3 spots representing players past & present,  & the other 1/3 representing the clubs interests, plus the CEO,  & President of the AFL

[praha 11,236]

Melbourne's current situation is due far more to its own ineptness than it is anything conjured up or brought in by the AFL. The club has merely been pushed down harder. But it was in that position anyway through no fault but its own.

The club had an opportunity to become great. Fremantle, West Coast, Port, Bulldogs have all been up, down and back up again in the period Melbourne has been down. 

How have Port and the Bulldogs managed to get back up? Aren't they "bottom feeder" clubs? Isn't Carlton a top 4 club? Richmond? Essendon ain't doing too flash. 

Melbourne will either thrive in the current system, or it will crumble.

And by "thrive", I mean *stability*. Money going out, more money coming in. Winning games. Getting people to matches. Getting on the tele. Which comes first: the chicken or the egg? I know, I know. But really, in the league these days you need to create a business and brand first, and worry about premierships after. Melbourne has had to right the ship, which I think it has.

Now onto signing Jesse for 10 year.

IMO the club's biggest test for decades.

And it will get it done this time.

Edited February 25, 2016 by praha

[Chris 2,892]

7 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Stop penalizing the Top Sides for doing things right

idiot decisions should not be rewarded. 

Good decisions help but so does luck at the recruiting table, and much of it is luck. If you look at Hawthorn and Geelong as the two most successful clubs recently one's success was based on some outstanding father son picks up and a couple of good drafts, the others is based on a couple if good drafts, a few priority picks in good drafts and then some very good trading, which itself was easier due to the draft success. 

The management of both clubs has also been very good, it is easier to be a better manager with better tools and greater opportunities though. Our management has been very very poor until PJ came along and we havent had any luck at the draft, we also sucked at developibg players which compounded the issues. 

[dee-luded 2,959]

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Stop penalizing the Top Sides for doing things right

idiot decisions should not be rewarded. 

they are not doing things right SWYL,  they have the power at the decision making times,  & some were lucky enough to get the decisions right over long periods of time, 30 years ago,,,   so they have a strong club culture & following to fall back on,  from back in those times.

 

......  lets not put concrete boots on clubs for poor management & cultures from 30 years back,  that couldn't get things right for varying reasons,  also due to some supporter groups causing bad management decisions which have hurt those few clubs.

 

 

its time for the Governor's to put things right & get back to a balanced competition.  & ignore the media requests.

[Chris 2,892]

2 minutes ago, praha said:

Melbourne's current situation is due far more to its own ineptness than it is anything conjured up or brought in by the AFL. The club has merely been pushed down harder. But it was in that position anyway through no fault but its own.

The club had an opportunity to become great. Fremantle, West Coast, Port, Bulldogs have all been up, down and back up again in the period Melbourne has been down. 

How have Port and the Bulldogs managed to get back up? Aren't they "bottom feeder" clubs? Isn't Carlton a top 4 club? Richmond? Essendon ain't doing too flash. 

Melbourne will either thrive in the current system, or it will crumble.

And by "thrive", I mean *stability*. Money going out, more money coming in. Winning games. Getting people to matches. Getting on the tele. Which comes first: the chicken or the egg? I know, I know. But really, in the league these days you need to create a business and brand first, and worry about premierships after. Melbourne has had to right the ship, which I think it has.

Now onto signing Jesse for 10 year.

IMO the club's biggest test for decades.

And it will get it done this time.

The whole win games and you get a good fixture and get on the telly is a fallacy. 

[Lucifers Hero 39,612]

This will test the AFL's mettle:  http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/clubs-take-steps-to-guard-against-possible-players-strike-20160225-gn3v8s.html

The AFLPA thru Paul Marsh, looks set to play hardball on the new CBA and sharing the spoils of the new TV deal.  The outcome of the CBA will be a major factor setting the AFL landscape and who knows the state of the game after the new CBA has been in place for a few years.

It is uncharted territory for Gill having to negotiate with an adversarial foe.  Suspect some sparks will fly!

[titan_uranus 24,979]

I'd have thought, of all the people in the AFL community, Melbourne supporters would understand how important it is for a club to be well run from within.

There are some things about the AFL I hate (the focus on "match day experiences", scheduling of prime time games, the fixture in general, home/away jumpers, etc.), but by and large the AFL is a well-run competition which is growing stronger and has an eye on the future (the moves into GWS and GC will, in the long run, be good for the game, if they aren't already).

My major gripe with the last 10 years of football rests with this club, not with the AFL.

[daisycutter 29,605]

i thought this thread was the "state of the afl" not the "state of the mfc" which is quite a different thing

start another thread if posters want to talk about that but combining the two topics will achieve nothing but confusion

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The AFLPA thru Paul Marsh, looks set to play hardball on the new CBA and sharing the spoils of the new TV deal.  ...

It is uncharted territory for Gill having to negotiate with an adversarial foe.  Suspect some sparks will fly!

Scene: AFL house, Gil's office

A knock on the door.

Gil (not looking up): Come.

Enter Paul Marsh.

PM: Mr McLaughlin?

GM (still not looking up): Hmm?

PM: Mr McLaughlin?

GM (still not looking up): Yes. What is it? (Looks up) What? What are you doing here? My office was cleaned last night and you're not supposed to come in business hours.

PM: It's Paul Marsh, Mr McLaughlin.

GM: Oh yes. I remember you. Players' man. Well?

PM: I've, er ... I've, I'm, that is ...

GM: Yes? Out with it, man.

PM: ......I'vecometonegotiatethecompetitivebalanceagreementMrMcLaughlin!

(pause)

GM (leans back in chair): You have, have you?

PM: Yes Mr McLaughlin. Don't get angry please Mr McLaughlin, the player managers made me come. You know how they can get.

GM: Now Peter.

PM: Paul.

GM: Paul. Do you enjoy being head of the players' association?

PM: Yes Mr McLaughlin. Very much Mr McLaughlin.

GM: Have you ever considered being head of say ... the Siberian soccer players' association?

PM: No ...... ?

GM: Because that can be arranged.

PM: (gulps)

GM (goes back to his work. Thrusts a sheet of paper at Marsh.) Here's the outcome of our negotiation. Take it back to your people and I expect it to be signed by noon Friday.

PM: Yes Mr McLaughlin. Thank you Mr McLaughlin. (leaves backwards, bowing)

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,693]

10 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i thought this thread was the "state of the afl" not the "state of the mfc" which is quite a different thing

start another thread if posters want to talk about that but combining the two topics will achieve nothing but confusion

While the issues might be mutually exclusive, not everyone sees it that way. There are many on here who seem to believe the majority of the MFC's problems exist because of mismanagement of (or by) the AFL. I disagree with that view - I think the AFL is, overall, a well run organisation. If the MFC had been run that well over the last 50 years (or even just the last decade) we might be a powerhouse club, too.

[rjay 24,889]

3 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While the issues might be mutually exclusive, not everyone sees it that way. There are many on here who seem to believe the majority of the MFC's problems exist because of mismanagement of (or by) the AFL. I disagree with that view - I think the AFL is, overall, a well run organisation. If the MFC had been run that well over the last 50 years (or even just the last decade) we might be a powerhouse club, too.

I agree with you that our problems were caused by mismanagement at the club. The previous board and leadership of the club was appalling and it followed other not so glorious administrations.

I also think that without the help of AD pumping in some cash and convincing PJ to get involved at the MFC we would be struggling to exist. Like it or not.

I also, also think "Dill the likeable" has been a poor appointment to follow AD. The AFL no longer leads and I'm not convinced it's a well run organisation. There needs to be a clean out of the commission starting with Mike "I leave the room" Fitzpatrick.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,693]

10 minutes ago, rjay said:

I agree with you that our problems were caused by mismanagement at the club. The previous board and leadership of the club was appalling and it followed other not so glorious administrations.

I also think that without the help of AD pumping in some cash and convincing PJ to get involved at the MFC we would be struggling to exist. Like it or not.

I also, also think "Dill the likeable" has been a poor appointment to follow AD. The AFL no longer leads and I'm not convinced it's a well run organisation. There needs to be a clean out of the commission starting with Mike "I leave the room" Fitzpatrick.

Haven't I read somewhere that Fitzpatrick is preparing to leave and will do so as soon as an appropriate replacement is identified?

As to McLachlan, I think it's still too early to tell whether he's good, bad or indifferent.

[sue 9,099]

33 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While the issues might be mutually exclusive, not everyone sees it that way. There are many on here who seem to believe the majority of the MFC's problems exist because of mismanagement of (or by) the AFL. I disagree with that view - I think the AFL is, overall, a well run organisation. If the MFC had been run that well over the last 50 years (or even just the last decade) we might be a powerhouse club, too.

I don't think anyone has blamed the AFL for all of our woes in recent years.  The early posts in this thread identified many things some of us don't like about the way the AFL is run. Some of them affect clubs like the MFC directly, but just because we have been badly run it does not mean that those points can just be ignored on that ground alone. 

And then there are many grumbles that have nothing to do with the state of the MFC, unless you think that the awful 'entertainment' (non-footy entertainment for the pedants amongst us) is selectively putting our players off.

[daisycutter 29,605]

47 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While the issues might be mutually exclusive, not everyone sees it that way. There are many on here who seem to believe the majority of the MFC's problems exist because of mismanagement of (or by) the AFL. I disagree with that view - I think the AFL is, overall, a well run organisation. If the MFC had been run that well over the last 50 years (or even just the last decade) we might be a powerhouse club, too.

i agree that some (many) here like to argue that the problems with the mfc are related to problems with the afl and that is a legitimate pov, but it should be a different thread,

there is a very good argument that the state of the afl regardless of the mfc is worthy of closer scrutiny and debate. and that is what i thought this thread is about.

by mixing the two issues it ends up not doing either discussion justice and heads off into diametric directions 

[beelzebub 23,313]

15 hours ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Are you really interested?

To understand where the AFL sits on many things you only have to look at what are their priorities. Currently #1 with a bullet is Betting. How ironic that a sport having ties its coat-tails to money derived from such a pastime now finds it its' Albatross.. It's worried about off shore betting ( it has no control over, nor does the gov ) . It's worried about  nefarious contacts between such monied interests and 'susceptible" players etc. Is worried about criminal elements, organised crime and such.  I find it quite amazing that this is what is uppermost in the minds of the current administration of our beloved game, not because they might indeed need attention  but that they are sufficiently prominent to be ahead of what I would have thought more definitive aspects of this sport .

Worldwide the greatest concern in the world of sporting governance is drugs. Not so much the recreational varieties as the attention of those is more the preserve of local authorites and such , but more the ability to rout a system of rules and gain unfair advantage. This is #1 on the IOC list  #1 on WADAS watch and who knows where on the AFL's.  Unlike the American and European Greed Games aka Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, NFL , Hockey etc  the AFL does indeed come under the regulations as set out by the WADA Code.

The AFL may well be an unwilling bride to this arrangement but it shouldnt be. The AFL unlike the Premier Codes  of many overseas  sports is also the Overseeing body of its code's development. Much good work is does at a local , regional and State level to promote and nurture the game. For this iit does indeed need a hefty bank.  The Government of the Land is also interested in sports. It is after all a National  passion and is as much part of our National DNA as  beaches, bush and bandicoots and because it is the Government extends vast truckloads of money to Sport. The AFL has its own fleet of transport for just such conveyance of funds.  As a participant in Major sporting pastimes the AFL ought to have the interest of its participants very much at the front of its list, but does it ?  The AFL should have been seeking out to join the WADA train not be shotgunned into boarding  it. But a signatory it is. And with that comes many responsibilities. Like any good governance it should not only do it, but be seen to be doing it. It shoud be proactive not defensive towards it. It ought embrace, not shirk.

The AFL very much displayed its true colours  by its actions in the Essendon Affair, from the early tip-off , the attempted derailing of the investigations through clandestine ( and sometimes obvious ) support of providing the Players an easy avenue of remonstration, through to the pandering to the EFC and falling over backwards to maintain that clubs ultra competitiveness. Not ability to play, but to compete with an almost advantage. The Job of the AFL is not to PLAY the game, just run it. At all possible opportunities the AFL has endeavoured  to smooth the path for those it ought to be punishing. The AFL sees this as brand protection. It is  nothing of the sort really. It has both eyes firmly on the 'credit' column of its accounts.

To Suggest that Teams like Collingwood have no advantage is either comical or naive. How often do they travel...and when. How well they have been allowed to retain the integrity of their own brand by not having to often bow to ridiculous jumper requirements. Amazing how often the Pies feature at premium game times and events, all the whiles helping their coffers and placating their fans. I dont begrudge them that but it needs to be shared. There are other clubs with outrageous advantages , Geelong for example  but this writing wouldnt end if I dont restict it.

The whole comparison to Socialism, Democracy  or Charity etc is plainly rubbish. These are straw elements .  The AFL is in fact a cooperative designed organisation. Yes it runs a Business but whilst the aim/motive of business is purely to provide a return on investment to its shareholders the AFL is entrusted to run the game on behalf of its' member clubs  ( I often think it's forgotten this )  As suggested many forms of institiutons may well deal with ethical problems but invariably they are of their own creation. If they stucl to their original purpose and creed there would be far far less instances of scandal and wrong doing. Why should the AFL be any different ? I would argue vehemently why should the AFL have ANY if it just stuck to its task. It only has ethics issue because of the time honoured devil and root of all undoings, the seeking of money for its own sake, or in the AFL's case a corporate ego mentality. I dont see Gil or any of his wonderboy brigade suffering too much. They sit as Caesars upon their Stadia, Kings over their Kingdom. They have made THEMSELVES the primary focus instead of the Welfare of the Games and the Clubs who put them there.

There are indeed business and entertainment elements to the game of footy but they ought to be subservient to the spectacle not the reason itself.

Footy belongs to the people, not a selected few. The mums and dads participating  and bringing kids to the game either as spectators or  players should feel the game as safe as can be made. Again drugs are the scourge of mondern life. If the AFL cant be seen to be caring about it let alone on top of all that can be done to monitor its insurgence then it is failing. The AFL had a perfect opportunity to stamp its disapproval  with the Essendon fiasco and it chose to do the exact opposite. What message does this really send to its public.

The only Agenda the AFL runs to is what's in it for me. Everything else it does is sheer bribery to calm the objectors or quieten the ones with abnormal hold.

To judge this Sporting's Governing Body  by the trappings of its wealth is indeed to worship a false god. The AFL is a sick and corrupt organisation. There ought to be a Royal Commisison into the pre-eminent Codes in this country. There ought to be but given the incestuous nature of politics and sport, it won't happen. We are a much poorer nation as a result.

 

 

[Chris 2,892]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While the issues might be mutually exclusive, not everyone sees it that way. There are many on here who seem to believe the majority of the MFC's problems exist because of mismanagement of (or by) the AFL. I disagree with that view - I think the AFL is, overall, a well run organisation. If the MFC had been run that well over the last 50 years (or even just the last decade) we might be a powerhouse club, too.

I think the two are linked by I don't blame the AFL for our mis-management, my issue is with their mentality of hand outs in stead of hand ups.

[dee-luded 2,959]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I agree with you that our problems were caused by mismanagement at the club. The previous board and leadership of the club was appalling and it followed other not so glorious administrations.

I also think that without the help of AD pumping in some cash and convincing PJ to get involved at the MFC we would be struggling to exist. Like it or not.

I also, also think "Dill the likeable" has been a poor appointment to follow AD. The AFL no longer leads and I'm not convinced it's a well run organisation. There needs to be a clean out of the commission starting with Mike "I leave the room" Fitzpatrick.

If you look at our whole history you will see that our success periods were born directly from imports from Richmond, in Percy Page & Checker Hughes, who then taught the club to be winners...  & Smithy grew & learnt from 'Checker',  then Barass inturn learnt from smithy.

 

Isolate the years of Checker Hughes influence (including Smiths years) from our other years,,,, then look study the results compared to other clubs...

 

....   our problems have always been off-field in administration,  & therefore bad decisions making. 

 

.