Yeah, but we are not a really good team, so avoiding bad fixtures would seem to be good at this point, i would have thought. In a few years when we are braining everybody, then...

10 minutes ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Yeah, but we are not a really good team, so avoiding bad fixtures would seem to be good at this point, i would have thought. In a few years when we are braining everybody, then...

So avoiding fixtures that supposedly could have an adverse effect on the teams performance and not giving them the experience of recovering from those fixtures and backing up again is a good thing for team development?

Yes point taken, but we just don't seem to be able to do that. Guess we will see next week huh?

I've never had a problem with these games played interstate ... the whole recovery issue is massively overstated as well.  We've been a poor team for the better part of 10 years and that's why we've lost games anywhere & everywhere as a result.  It's all about the levels of talent.

The players will be recovered well by Wednesday and if we lose to St Kilda next week, it will be because they've played better on the day.  The members receive 2 replacement games as compensation for these games played interstate and also, the club needs the extra dollars anyway so it's a win/win/win as far as I'm concerned. 

It's been stated that we receive up to 500k-600k for each of these games and let's face it it, we'd probably only pull about 23-25 thousand to the MCG for this fixture (which only converts to about 100k - 150k to the coffers)  Same goes for the Port game in the Alice. 

Last season we lost this fixture to the Eagles because they were the superior team ... the following week the Eagles dispatched Freo whilst we blew a game against the Bombers because of poor conversion in front of goal.

In the end, the games played up there and the games played immediately afterwards are decided on talent. 

 

 

If we are going to play two home games there I hope that there will be some support for us at the ground, because there wasn't a lot there yesterday from what I could see on watching the game on television. Seemed to be more support for Freo.

14 minutes ago, willmoy said:

If we are going to play two home games there I hope that there will be some support for us at the ground, because there wasn't a lot there yesterday from what I could see on watching the game on television. Seemed to be more support for Freo.

It's a Cash Grab Will, all that it has ever been and will be. 

 

playing in darwin is like going to cash converters. you get ripped off when you pawn your goods then you get ripped off a week later when you try and redeem your goods

Dear god you guys can kill a topic. 

My biggest gripe is what I perceive lack of support from crowds in the NT. Perhaps no coincidence we play sides like Freo, Port and WC over there. They seem to have some solid support going from crowd reactions. It was clear listening to the radio last night that the crowd got very loud when Freo did something good compared to mostly silence when we did. And it's been the same with the other two clubs also. It's like we are prostituting ourselves.

Edited July 10, 20169 yr by america de cali

7 hours ago, Macca said:

I've never had a problem with these games played interstate ... the whole recovery issue is massively overstated as well.  We've been a poor team for the better part of 10 years and that's why we've lost games anywhere & everywhere as a result.  It's all about the levels of talent.

The players will be recovered well by Wednesday and if we lose to St Kilda next week, it will be because they've played better on the day.  The members receive 2 replacement games as compensation for these games played interstate and also, the club needs the extra dollars anyway so it's a win/win/win as far as I'm concerned. 

It's been stated that we receive up to 500k-600k for each of these games and let's face it it, we'd probably only pull about 23-25 thousand to the MCG for this fixture (which only converts to about 100k - 150k to the coffers)  Same goes for the Port game in the Alice. 

Agree with your first paragraph Macca. It's so utterly obvious that our poor performances up there are completely related to our shizen performance as a club in that period.

As for the finances, I just heard that it's worth $3.2m over the next two years. 

As well as that it gives us an inside running with our NT Academy.

I would hope that out FD have learnt enough about how to train for and play in the Darwin conditions to turn it into a 'fortress' for us. 

As an aside, we struggle much more to win at Geelong, and we've never lost by 186 points in either Darwin or Alice. 

 

It's true what many are saying that it's impossible to determine how much of an impact playing in Darwin has on the abilities the following week because fact is we have been worse than rubbish for so long. 

We broke another hoodoo this year and I pointed it out to my dad, he just said well it's hard to call teams and locations hoodoos when we lost just about every week anyway. 

All our "hoodoos" and stats of "we haven't done X in Y years" is more of a reflection on how bad we were and how we need to break those walls down. 

Kind of gone off topic there....

Edited July 10, 20169 yr by Pates

If the procees of selling games keeps the club I love afloat financially then I would support them playing on the moon.

18 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Including all sold home games interstate, but not including games in Geelong:

• Carlton - 6
• Collingwood - 5
• Essendon - 6
• Geelong - 5
• Hawthorn - 9 (4 in Tasmania, 5 elsewhere)
• Melbourne* - 7 (2 in NT, 5 elsewhere)
• NM - 8 (3 in Tasmania, 5 elsewhere)
• Richmond - 6
• St Kilda - 5
• WB* - 5 (1 in Cairns, 4 elsewhere)

*WB and Melbourne are the only two to play down in Geelong, though. 

Last year was different I think we only had 3 interstate + the 2 NT games.

8 hours ago, xarronn said:

Agree with your first paragraph Macca. It's so utterly obvious that our poor performances up there are completely related to our shizen performance as a club in that period.

As for the finances, I just heard that it's worth $3.2m over the next two years. 

As well as that it gives us an inside running with our NT Academy.

Where did you hear that? That is an immense amount of cash for 2 games. Good on the club if they've managed that. And you're right with our Academy due to be setup there (as much as I think the academies are a crock) it will help with that too.

I used to be totally against the NT games taking an swyl position. Now I actually think it would be good if we could get 3 or 4 games there similar to the Tassie deals. If we could get $6.4m over 2 years instead of $3.2m it would go a hell of a long way to sorting us out for the long term both on and off field 

16 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

So avoiding fixtures that supposedly could have an adverse effect on the teams performance and not giving them the experience of recovering from those fixtures and backing up again is a good thing for team development?

I asked earlier but you may have missed it - how many members do we convert from these NT games? I can't imagine it's too much but am genuinely interested.

17 hours ago, Macca said:

I've never had a problem with these games played interstate ... the whole recovery issue is massively overstated as well.  We've been a poor team for the better part of 10 years and that's why we've lost games anywhere & everywhere as a result.  It's all about the levels of talent.

The players will be recovered well by Wednesday and if we lose to St Kilda next week, it will be because they've played better on the day.  The members receive 2 replacement games as compensation for these games played interstate and also, the club needs the extra dollars anyway so it's a win/win/win as far as I'm concerned. 

It's been stated that we receive up to 500k-600k for each of these games and let's face it it, we'd probably only pull about 23-25 thousand to the MCG for this fixture (which only converts to about 100k - 150k to the coffers)  Same goes for the Port game in the Alice. 

Last season we lost this fixture to the Eagles because they were the superior team ... the following week the Eagles dispatched Freo whilst we blew a game against the Bombers because of poor conversion in front of goal.

In the end, the games played up there and the games played immediately afterwards are decided on talent. 

 

 

Finally someone who makes some sense.Thanks Macca.

There is a hell of a lot of drivel talked about on this subject.

Get over it guys we are in a national competition for better or worse.

It makes fiscal sense for the moment, but it was awkward having the Freo support vastly outnumbering the Melbourne support. Pretty sure the crowd balance in the Port game was similar. They are are home games in name only. Winning will help in attracting some younger fans though.

1 hour ago, old dee said:

Finally someone who makes some sense.Thanks Macca.

There is a hell of a lot of drivel talked about on this subject.

Get over it guys we are in a national competition for better or worse.

of course it is a national competition...

but the 2 nt games are HOME games where we lose any home ground advantage we might have at the mcg

the national competition is reflected in the other 5 interstate AWAY games

the bottom line is we lose the mcg home advantage twice against interstate sides. it could be the difference between top 8 or even in the future top 4, both of which are critical objectives for any team. it is often said the difference between winning and losing can often be everything going right making just a few % points difference. we probably give away a 5 goal advantage playing in the nt.  and that is even not factoring in the post darwin recovery consequences.

28 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

of course it is a national competition...

but the 2 nt games are HOME games where we lose any home ground advantage we might have at the mcg

the national competition is reflected in the other 5 interstate AWAY games

the bottom line is we lose the mcg home advantage twice against interstate sides. it could be the difference between top 8 or even in the future top 4, both of which are critical objectives for any team. it is often said the difference between winning and losing can often be everything going right making just a few % points difference. we probably give away a 5 goal advantage playing in the nt.  and that is even not factoring in the post darwin recovery consequences.

dc good sides win anywhere and the recovery problem is mainly myth.

 

Just now, old dee said:

dc good sides win anywhere and the recovery problem is mainly myth.

 

od, that cliche about good sides is as meaningless as other cliches like the grass is always greener on the other side

really top sides (not just good) might win almost anywhere, but we are a loooong way from being a good side let alone a top side. until we are we need to maximise every possible opportunity.

now, in concession, WHEN we are a TOP side i will be less objectionable to playing home games in the nt.......but not at the moment 

Just now, daisycutter said:

od, that cliche about good sides is as meaningless as other cliches like the grass is always greener on the other side

really top sides (not just good) might win almost anywhere, but we are a loooong way from being a good side let alone a top side. until we are we need to maximise every possible opportunity.

now, in concession, WHEN we are a TOP side i will be less objectionable to playing home games in the nt.......but not at the moment 

Over riding all this is we need the money. Without the Money nothing else will be achieved.

3 minutes ago, old dee said:

Over riding all this is we need the money. Without the Money nothing else will be achieved.

c'mon, od. first it was the "national competition", then it was "good sides" and now it's "the money".

if nothing else you are good at moving goal posts.... but on your last point i can't argue. seems everything sadly boils down to the evil money  

I just hope that as part of the deal we've managed to insert a clause saying "All remaining Melbourne home games for the season will be played at the MCG, by which we mean, not Etihad, Docklands, Telstra Dome, or any such similar stadium. Please sign in blood here."

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

c'mon, od. first it was the "national competition", then it was "good sides" and now it's "the money".

if nothing else you are good at moving goal posts.... but on your last point i can't argue. seems everything sadly boils down to the evil money  

A cash grab is all it ever has been

I think everyone should get over it. It's signed and delivered for the next two years, and I think we're as much a willing part of the deal as the AFL and NT Government.

Peter Jackson has stated the amount of money we get from the NT deal is the equivalent of having four crowds of more than 60,000 at the MCG. You are never going to get that against Fremantle or Port, even if we were on top of the ladder.

This year we've got an 8-day break before meeting St Kilda. The players are professional athletes and the club is a professional organisation, so they can manage recovery. You can't tell me that sitting relatively still on a plane for 4 hours isn't manageable. Are the players prima donnas? As for 'weight loss', rehydration is important and I'm sure the club is managing it as part of the deal.

The quality of the Darwin game has never been great, due to the humid conditions, and often due to either the quality of our opposition or our own poor past quality. So don't expect high level skills and exciting scores, especially in the second half of the game. However, I've been to a Darwin game, and it's a great expereince, one that is well worth making the effort to get to. I'd actually rather go there than soul-less Etihad.

As we get better, we can make Darwin our own fortress, one that opposition teams don't like travelling to.