6 hours ago, hemingway said:

Fair enough, everyone's opinion is  worthy. I understand your comments. I was trying to paint a broader picture of why he is what he is. Not defend his attitudes. He is what he is. 

Fair enough Ernie I always enjoy your posts.

16 hours ago, It's Time said:

Could not disagree with a point more than this one. Are you kidding. You think it would be better to have Eddie Everywhere running the competition along with a bunch of other people who's prime job is to further the interests of their own Club not the overall competitions.  Eddie Everywhere has been able to do massive damage to the Northern Clubs already. He's given the best draw in the Comp but does everything he can to stop equalisation. Give me a break. The Comp wouldn't exist now if it was run by Club Presidents.

I'm not saying I'm happy with a lot of what the Commission's been doing lately but it's still a hell of a lot better than the alternative. Eg anything and everything to do with their past and ongoing handling of the Essendrug saga. 

Yes well you make my point for me I don't believe there should be any northern clubs. Very few people in the northern states give a cat's doodle about AFL football and putting fake franchises up there wont work in a real sense. How many people live in Sydney ( around 5 million ) and what percentage go to a swans or even worse a giants game or are even slightly interested in Australian football ? Not many if they're honest about it. 

5 minutes ago, camillo said:

Yes well you make my point for me I don't believe there should be any northern clubs. Very few people in the northern states give a cat's doodle about AFL football and putting fake franchises up there wont work in a real sense. How many people live in Sydney ( around 5 million ) and what percentage go to a swans or even worse a giants game or are even slightly interested in Australian football ? Not many if they're honest about it. 

Do kids running around in the playground know about "franchises" and the difference between a "fake" club and a "real" one?

Or do they just run around booting the oddly-shaped ball for the sheer fun of it and some of them want to play it all the time, and some of those want to make a career of it.

The AFL are putting up goalposts in rugby heartland. Literally. They are getting kids in to Auskick. They are getting families in to the Giants because they love the spectacle.

It's an uphill struggle and it might work or it might not. It will take decades to know.

Think of the rich history of the game in Victoria, WA, SA, Tassie. The great clubs and the great players and the great coaches.

Now imagine if NSW and Qld were "Aussie Rules" states, adding to the pageantry. It could happen ...

Or, we can sit back and not have any northern clubs and forget about growing the game, and wake up in 25 years wondering why kids don't play Aussie rules any more, and wondering why there are 2 rugby league clubs in Victoria, 1 each in SA and WA, 4 soccer clubs in Melb, etc.

21 minutes ago, camillo said:

Yes well you make my point for me I don't believe there should be any northern clubs. Very few people in the northern states give a cat's doodle about AFL football and putting fake franchises up there wont work in a real sense. How many people live in Sydney ( around 5 million ) and what percentage go to a swans or even worse a giants game or are even slightly interested in Australian football ? Not many if they're honest about it. 

You obviously don't know the history of the VFL. The Commission was formed to save the VFL clubs from themselves. Your beloved Melbourne would have been in the firing line to merge (does that sound familar) or become extinct like Fitzroy.

If you didn't have clubs in the northern states, the revenue from media rights would be a mere pittance to what it is now. Do you think that clubs survive on memberships and gate revenue? Major sponsorships for Victorian clubs are contingent on having national exposure, not just the traditional football states which is you want. 

Jacko's views, as are yours, are narrow minded.

Jacko looks like the type of guy who if he perceives persons as a threat for whatever reason he can be real nasty to them. If no threat he can be very nice. No inbetween with him. He would be tough work for a shrink to sort out.

Jacko gave me a few laughs in his playing days but all in all, a very ordinary human being.

27 minutes ago, america de cali said:

Jacko looks like the type of guy who if he perceives persons as threat for whatever reason he can be real nasty to them. If no threat he can be very nice. No inbetween with him. He would be tough work for a shrink to sort out.

Reckon a shrink would have worked out in a few mins. He's a raving nutter !!

Just watched this (huge Saturday morning at my place).

He's playing a character. He almost breaks it a couple of times and laughs. No doubt he's a lunatic, but he's also aware of it and plays it up to get attention. 

I found it oddly compelling, BUT...

He knocked out Robbie Flower which is quite literally like punching all that is good and wholesome about my childhood. So if I never see or hear from him again it'll be too soon.

1 hour ago, camillo said:

Yes well you make my point for me I don't believe there should be any northern clubs. Very few people in the northern states give a cat's doodle about AFL football and putting fake franchises up there wont work in a real sense. How many people live in Sydney ( around 5 million ) and what percentage go to a swans or even worse a giants game or are even slightly interested in Australian football ? Not many if they're honest about it. 

 

I can never understand this kind of view. It's as though north of Canberra is a barren rock for Australian Rules and the code has no right to exist there. That any aspiration to make ours a truly national game is only because the so-called 'suits that run the AFL' are on a power trip and they are wasting 'our' money paid by 'real' supporters.

As mo64 and others have pointed out, without the northern states and the extra games,  he media deals would be far lower and the game would lack the resources necessary to remain healthy.

Two specific points I want to make:

1. In the era of professional sport, young people often choose to play sports for the opportunity to make a career, (and one as lucrative a possible). Australian Rules only has the AFL, the other football codes, cricket, basketball etc have the whole world where players can aspire to earn a living. The money offered in the AFL has to be competitive. To do  that the game has to have as big an audience as possible.

2. When the AFL signed the first big Rights deal back in 2006, it had a huge unexpected windfall and it had to make a choice:

Blow it on the present and short term, (mainly on  even greater salary increases to players), or invest it in the future of the game.

The Commission decided to invest in the future and it got the unanimous agreement of the clubs to do so, (including the draft concessions). That investment in the expansion clubs is just 7 to 8 years old, - the commission expected that it would take a generation at least and it budgeted for it using those funds.  It also knew that there was a need for second clubs in NSW and Qld to create a critical mass of opportunities to achieve the goal of Northern growth.

Interestingly there was more change in the first 70 years of Australian Rules after the rules were written - the VFA formed in 1870, the VFL broke away from the VFA in 1897, Richmond joined, University withdrew and then the 1925 expansion with 3 new teams joining.  Then it stayed like that for 57 years and some people think  that's how it always was and  so should never change.

On 7/30/2016 at 10:23 AM, xarronn said:

 

I can never understand this kind of view. It's as though north of Canberra is a barren rock for Australian Rules and the code has no right to exist there. That any aspiration to make ours a truly national game is only because the so-called 'suits that run the AFL' are on a power trip and they are wasting 'our' money paid by 'real' supporters.

As mo64 and others have pointed out, without the northern states and the extra games,  he media deals would be far lower and the game would lack the resources necessary to remain healthy.

Two specific points I want to make:

1. In the era of professional sport, young people often choose to play sports for the opportunity to make a career, (and one as lucrative a possible). Australian Rules only has the AFL, the other football codes, cricket, basketball etc have the whole world where players can aspire to earn a living. The money offered in the AFL has to be competitive. To do  that the game has to have as big an audience as possible.

2. When the AFL signed the first big Rights deal back in 2006, it had a huge unexpected windfall and it had to make a choice:

Blow it on the present and short term, (mainly on  even greater salary increases to players), or invest it in the future of the game.

The Commission decided to invest in the future and it got the unanimous agreement of the clubs to do so, (including the draft concessions). That investment in the expansion clubs is just 7 to 8 years old, - the commission expected that it would take a generation at least and it budgeted for it using those funds.  It also knew that there was a need for second clubs in NSW and Qld to create a critical mass of opportunities to achieve the goal of Northern growth.

Interestingly there was more change in the first 70 years of Australian Rules after the rules were written - the VFA formed in 1870, the VFL broke away from the VFA in 1897, Richmond joined, University withdrew and then the 1925 expansion with 3 new teams joining.  Then it stayed like that for 57 years and some people think  that's how it always was and  so should never change.

i am a supporter of a national competition but not of gws, wce or gc suns.if it is a national competition, where is the tasmanian team, where is the act team?  greater western sydney may well win the premiership this year or next, but they are likely to end up like brisbane bears with + 10 mill debt,  because the rugby community just doesn't like aerial ping pong. the tv rights bonanza is like kuwaiti oil or naura bird dung, it will be gone tomorrow with 18 hungry clubs trying to sell their premiership plans to their three game membership members. wacko jacko - like his kicking - was accurate with his comments about the selling off of waverley - a travesty, and how our local competition has been undermined. ditto the domestic comps of s.a and w.a.

4 hours ago, bush demon said:

i am a supporter of a national competition but not of gws, wce or gc suns.if it is a national competition, where is the tasmanian team, where is the act team?  greater western sydney may well win the premiership this year or next, but they are likely to end up like brisbane bears with + 10 mill debt,  because the rugby community just doesn't like aerial ping pong. the tv rights bonanza is like kuwaiti oil or naura bird dung, it will be gone tomorrow with 18 hungry clubs trying to sell their premiership plans to their three game membership members. wacko jacko - like his kicking - was accurate with his comments about the selling off of waverley - a travesty, and how our local competition has been undermined. ditto the domestic comps of s.a and w.a.

I'm not surprised, you mentioned GWS and GC, but this is the first time I've ever seen WCE included as a club that shouldn't be part of the National competition. It's a club with over 50,000 members and essentially represents the city of Perth.

A generational plan is not essentially about converting supporters of other codes, its mainly about offering an option to younger generations. The Swans went to Sydney 34 years ago, Kieran Jack and his brother were born after that into a League family.

56 minutes ago, xarronn said:

I'm not surprised, you mentioned GWS and GC, but this is the first time I've ever seen WCE included as a club that shouldn't be part of the National competition. It's a club with over 50,000 members and essentially represents the city of Perth.

A generational plan is not essentially about converting supporters of other codes, its mainly about offering an option to younger generations. The Swans went to Sydney 34 years ago, Kieran Jack and his brother were born after that into a League family.

i'm not against "Perth Football Club" for example, but not some mega-organisation/concept that sucks the life out of lower tiers of the W.A competition

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Fork 'em said:

Jacko wouldn't be the 1st bloke that wanted to smash the snivelling Mike Sheahan.

 

Na,sorry from my view only from media reading/viewing he is unrivaled.

There are other journos who do their job part right then u  have the Caro types who ask the hard questions because its her job even if it means being ostracized for life for asking the hard questions but Sheahan is the complete package although im not sure if people have noticed but aftet stepping down from "On The Couch" and i think heraldsun he is a fully patched up 1% Boys Club. Old Mike has gone, anyone else notice the change ?

 

15 minutes ago, bush demon said:

i'm not against "Perth Football Club" for example, but not some mega-organisation/concept that sucks the life out of lower tiers of the W.A competition

All AFL clubs are now multi million dollar companies that employ many dozens of people and do massive sponsorship and marketing deals, if that's what you were referring to when you wrote "mega-organisation/concept". Many would claim that lower tiers in all states are struggling.

Thinking that WCE should have chosen the name Perth to legitimise them sounds like an old VFL/WAFL/SANFL tribal mindset that AFL clubs find limiting. It's one of the main reasons Footscray became WB, to broaden their appeal.

WCE have 50,000 members and are a very successful club on and off the field. I personally do not think them any lesser a club for not having a place name in their name. At least they have a real animal as their mascot!