5 hours ago, Big Col said:

Wow! A lot of hate towards ideas trying to fix our scheduling system - and misdirected IMHO at Gil. Allow me to talk people through this:

 

 

Your username is suspiciously close to an anagram of Gil-Bot . . .

In addition, you joined Demonland at the exact time of the commencement of the tanking investigation. A sensible thing for someone associated with the chief investigator to do in exploring potential leads. 

And, one of your only other three posts here was extolling the virtues of us playing an additional game in Darwin, as it would be 'good for the NT Tourism as well as for the MFC.'

Lastly, another slip-up in the same fashion as the recent 'Rangie HSE' troll who never responded to my accusations of not being an actual Melbourne fan before finally thankfully disappearing: 'As Melbourne supporters you'd well know how it feels in August when all hope is shot'. Supporters of teams don't generally refer to their own team in a fully collective sense as 'they' and other supporters as 'you', but use the pronouns 'us' and 'we'. 

Confess now, or I will scour the other supporter-boards for a match in prose-style to unmask you as a social-media infiltrator in the employ of Gillon.   

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

Your username is suspiciously close to an anagram of Gil-Bot . . .

In addition, you joined Demonland at the exact time of the commencement of the tanking investigation. A sensible thing for someone associated with the chief investigator to do in exploring potential leads. 

And, one of your only other three posts here was extolling the virtues of us playing an additional game in Darwin, as it would be 'good for the NT Tourism as well as for the MFC.'

Confess now, or I will scour the other supporter boards for a match in prose-style to unmask you as a social-media infiltrator in the employ of Gillon.   

Hamish told to defend his big brother!!!

27 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Hamish told to defend his big brother!!!

I'm afraid the sinister tentacles run much deeper SWL. Gil undertook the Senior Executive Program at Stanford U at around the same time Rebekah Mercer was in attendance. Rebekah is the director of the Mercer Foundation (and was on the Trump transitional team) and daughter of Robert, the man credited with actively achieving the Brexit vote and having Trump elected to the White-House by way of the secret psych-based data-analysis system he developed, a notable feature of which deploys 'bots' and operatives to sway public opinion on social-networking sites . . .  

The Americanization of our great game continues.

F%^ off, McLachlan.

 

7 hours ago, biggestred said:

Here's an idea.

Actually equalise the competition. 

Same number of prime time slots etc etc.

Centralise gate takings and divide $

Draft in order of wins over last 3 years 

Literally draw last 5 opponents out of a hat 

Facilitate an actual [censored] competition and not produce a [censored] tv show.

If you make the top 8 well done sunshine youre in.

I must say, at risk of being accused of communism, splitting centralized gate receipts (after deducting true running costs perhaps) is the only way towards equality of opportunity.  The "home team" concept is even more farcical when so many teams share "home grounds".

The current system of gifting prime time games to the power clubs, often regardless of recent performance, and relegating those less favorably regarded by HQ to Sunday twilight games etc, only perpetuates the inequity.     

 

6 hours ago, Skuit said:

I'm afraid the sinister tentacles run much deeper SWL. Gil undertook the Senior Executive Program at Stanford U at around the same time Rebekah Mercer was in attendance. Rebekah is the director of the Mercer Foundation (and was on the Trump transitional team) and daughter of Robert, the man credited with actively achieving the Brexit vote and having Trump elected to the White-House by way of the secret psych-based data-analysis system he developed, a notable feature of which deploys 'bots' and operatives to sway public opinion on social-networking sites . . .  

It's worse than that. The AFL media unit filmed the moon landings. It was supposed to be only for promotional purposes but got out because Alan Aylett was blackmailing J. Edgar Hoover.

Also the World Trade Centre collapsed because it was made from second hand steel left over from when Waverley was demolished. Steel that the AFL knew was weakened from years of exposure to chip grease and tomato sauce!

I warned Gill that the Demonlanders would be a hard nut to crack ... not like that lot over at 'Ology.

 

 

12 hours ago, Big Col said:

Wow! A lot of hate towards ideas trying to fix our scheduling system - and misdirected IMHO at Gil. Allow me to talk people through this:

Why is there a proposal to change the draw? What are the current problems?

1/ 18 teams don't fit into 22 rounds, so there's an inherent fairness problem surrounding who plays who twice. Despite the weighting that occurs to determine the next year's fixture, certain clubs always play each other twice  (interstate clubs, ess v coll etc) purely for financial reasons

2/ Towards the end of a season, large numbers of supporters of those clubs that can't make the finals stop attending and watching their teams. As melbourne supporters you'd well know how it feels in August when all hope is shot (actually we usually feel that in May LOL)

So Gil proposed this back in 2015:

1/ Every team plays each other once in the first 17 rounds. Over as two year period, each team would play once at home and once away

2/ After 17 rounds, the AFL splits into 3 groups. 1-6 plays for top 6 positions, 7-12 for the last two spots in the 8 and 13-18 for draft picks (unspecified)

What's good about this?

1/ It's a fairer draw

2/ It makes the late season far more interesting, especially for teams in the 7-12 space. 

3/ It has the added benefit of placing the bye round at the end of Rd17 (the extra bye that the PA want) rather than the week before the Finals. Given that the last week will almost certainly be important, the incentive to rest players (like Freo and Nth did in 2015) is diminished.

4/ Scheduling for prime time spots (ie Friday night) can be more accurately presented in the last 65 rounds as top clubs all play eachother

5/ Teams can be clearly rewarded for their performance in H&A, not only with guaranteed finals spots or chances for a spot, but with top 3 of each group of 6 playing 3 home games (bottom 3 play only 2).

But the clubs (not Gill) didn't like the 17-5 model.

Why?

1/ Interstate clubs want to play each other twice (ie money reasons, and travel) as do Vic clubs like Coll, Ess and Car

2/ Clubs wanted a guaranteed 11 home games (under the 17-5 model, some clubs would play 12 home games, some 11 and some 10) - ie money

3/ No-one could agree on what the proper incentive for the bottom 6 should be (IMHO -  a legit concern)

And so the clubs (not Gil) suggested working on an 18-4 model:

This is much harder.  Trying to fit 4 rounds into 3 groups of 6 will be hard to be both fair and practical, although you can make each team have 2 home and two away games.

The wildcard idea that has been floated is designed to provide some incentive for the teams finishing in the bottom 6 (rather than provide (unspecified) draft concessions)

Issues With All These Models:

1/ What to do with the bottom 6? You could offer the team that won the bottom 6 comp, pick no1, but then give the bottom team 2, 2nd bottom 3 and so on. The 13th based team with pick no1 and a string of late season wins would enter the next season busting with hope. OR you could give them a 'wildcard' entry (as proposed in the post-Gil model). A wildcard entry vs team 7 at team 7's home, would not win very often.

2/ Do you re-start the ladder or start again ie is the final 4-5 rounds considered a new competition or do wins and percentage carry on? (I personally favour re-starting the table, and using original ladder position or maybe total wins instead of percentage to split teams)

I'm a supporter, generally of Gil's proposal. I'm looking for some reason to remain interested once finals places are shot.

Unfortunately money looks like it will kill Gil's proposal - not the other way round.

 

 

17-5 is terrible, resetting the draw/ladder midway through a season is unworkable.

Just have a rolling fixture or have teams play twice based on last year's ladder (1/4/7/10/13/16 play twice etc) alternating home and away every time you play. Simple.

17-5, 18-4, wildcards all ridiculous concepts that will hurt the competition in the long run 

8 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Hamish told to defend his big brother!!!

Hamish is easy to spot goes by the name rompingwins

Will do the bloody cruit if it happens.

Gil seems like an overly coiffed, insincere wheeler dealer with no connection to the man on the street. This was confirmed by Bails' account of their meeting in 'Breakfast With Bails' where he tried to play the matey matey card, was called on his crap and then was exposed as what I stated before.

He really should go back to polo and leave the footy to us

 

5 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

17-5 is terrible, resetting the draw/ladder midway through a season is unworkable.

Just have a rolling fixture or have teams play twice based on last year's ladder (1/4/7/10/13/16 play twice etc) alternating home and away every time you play. Simple.

17-5, 18-4, wildcards all ridiculous concepts that will hurt the competition in the long run 

Oh, you and your fair "sporting" competition.

It all sounds so unutterably dull, and unprofitable.

How about ...

Each match, the club sponsors can choose a player from the opposition who has to play with a handicap, chosen by kiddies who've entered a (sponsored) competition during the week. Handicap: wearing (Bolle) sunglasses, bricks (Boral) strapped to their feet, carrying a Faberge egg in one hand, etc.

Each match, at half time a fan vote is taken. Winning player is awarded a car. Player can drive the car, in play, for the rest of the match.

At each ground there is a secret Pokemon somewhere on the ground. Any player who can catch it (with their sponsored smart phone) gets a free shot on goal.

During each match there will appear on the AFL web site, for a few seconds, a picture of a skull and crossbones. If a fan can click on it, they nominate a player who must sit out the rest of the match. The player is notified by the Tribunal Chairman, dressed up as the Grim Reaper, who walks out on to the ground and taps the player with his scythe. (Although hard to see how this can be monetised. Maybe sponsor the scythe.)

Club captains can challenge each other to "double or nothing" on any shot on goal. Once per match.

Power plays. Captains nominate a ten minute period where they get all 22 on the ground. Once per match.

This is the future. Get with it or miss out (on the $$$$).

44 minutes ago, Big Col said:

I warned Gill that the Demonlanders would be a hard nut to crack ... not like that lot over at 'Ology.

There are a "lot" over at ology?

1 hour ago, Ted Fidge said:

Oh, you and your fair "sporting" competition.

It all sounds so unutterably dull, and unprofitable.

How about ...

Each match, the club sponsors can choose a player from the opposition who has to play with a handicap, chosen by kiddies who've entered a (sponsored) competition during the week. Handicap: wearing (Bolle) sunglasses, bricks (Boral) strapped to their feet, carrying a Faberge egg in one hand, etc.

Each match, at half time a fan vote is taken. Winning player is awarded a car. Player can drive the car, in play, for the rest of the match.

At each ground there is a secret Pokemon somewhere on the ground. Any player who can catch it (with their sponsored smart phone) gets a free shot on goal.

During each match there will appear on the AFL web site, for a few seconds, a picture of a skull and crossbones. If a fan can click on it, they nominate a player who must sit out the rest of the match. The player is notified by the Tribunal Chairman, dressed up as the Grim Reaper, who walks out on to the ground and taps the player with his scythe. (Although hard to see how this can be monetised. Maybe sponsor the scythe.)

Club captains can challenge each other to "double or nothing" on any shot on goal. Once per match.

Power plays. Captains nominate a ten minute period where they get all 22 on the ground. Once per match.

This is the future. Get with it or miss out (on the $$$$).

Please delete your post lest Big Col gets wind of it and feeds these ideas up to his superiors as his own 

4 hours ago, monoccular said:

I must say, at risk of being accused of communism, splitting centralized gate receipts (after deducting true running costs perhaps) is the only way towards equality of opportunity.  The "home team" concept is even more farcical when so many teams share "home grounds".

The current system of gifting prime time games to the power clubs, often regardless of recent performance, and relegating those less favorably regarded by HQ to Sunday twilight games etc, only perpetuates the inequity.     

 

This. IMHO much of the rest is splitting straws. The notion of home and away games might make sense for some clubs, but for those in Melbourne it has long lost any sense of reality. Centralising gate receipts means that every club has an incentive to get more people to every game, not just their home ones.

I hate this idea for one reason. It does not improve the game at all.

The AFL really need to think before making changes, 'does this improve the sport'?

If not, then leave it alone.

Whilst I see the move of having 2 more finalists to be unnecessary in one sense I'm not sure it's much of a big deal in the whole scheme of things.  They were probably more concerned about the bye weekend before the finals so to have 2 extra finals fills the void. 

To not have footy played at all for one whole weekend at the business end of the season does not make business sense.  And make no mistake, footy is big business these days.  Last season many/most were aghast at the thought of not having footy played in the weekend before the finals.  Those complaints died off but the AFL have decided to fill the void anyway.

So I see the move as a business decision rather than a football decision.  As a consequence, 2 more teams get to play finals and that will ultimately appease 2 more groups of supporters and the clubs themselves.  And that's why the club presidents are in favour of the change - that stands to reason. 

We all know that the premier team predominately comes from the top 4 anyway ... the Bulldogs win from 7th should be seen as an aberration so in all reality, positions 5th through to 10th are more often than not just making up the numbers  .... and the 'numbers' suits the business model and gives real hope to 6 sets of supporters. 

Ultimately, we all support the corporation otherwise known as the AFL.  They are going to do what suits their business model like any other business would do.  I'm looking at this from a practical point of view. 

37 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

The AFL really need to think before making changes, 'does this improve the sport'?

 

Here's the AFL contemplating that very question.

 

6 hours ago, monoccular said:

I must say, at risk of being accused of communism, splitting centralized gate receipts (after deducting true running costs perhaps) is the only way towards equality of opportunity.  The "home team" concept is even more farcical when so many teams share "home grounds".

The current system of gifting prime time games to the power clubs, often regardless of recent performance, and relegating those less favorably regarded by HQ to Sunday twilight games etc, only perpetuates the inequity.     

 

Before I was a lunatic I didn't concern myself much with the financial ins and outs of the club other than red/black. Can someone briefly outline the for/against arguments for why the attendance receipts are divvied up the way they are? So I don't have to use my brain. The big clubs already have a pretty decent leg-up, and much of that is at the expense of other clubs rather than based on marketing investment etc.

10 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

 

Here's the AFL contemplating that very question.

 

Gold

35 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

 

Here's the AFL contemplating that very question.

 

Useless South Australian enjoying his yearly bonus....

4 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

It's worse than that. The AFL media unit filmed the moon landings. It was supposed to be only for promotional purposes but got out because Alan Aylett was blackmailing J. Edgar Hoover.

Also the World Trade Centre collapsed because it was made from second hand steel left over from when Waverley was demolished. Steel that the AFL knew was weakened from years of exposure to chip grease and tomato sauce!

Your ad lapidem horse-chuckle let's me know they've got to you too. What did they pay you Ted Fidge - or should I say, 'Gift Deed'?

On 2017-5-19 at 11:08 AM, rjay said:

Name them...

The draft and Salary Cap, as suggested above. They were brought in because they saw the success in other sporting leagues. I like the free agency thing, though I expect again I'll be in the minority. And I'll explain why. Every NFL season that comes along, you're always one maybe two offseasons away from being competitive again, due to how coaches and players can distribute themselves evenly, and are often playing one season contracts. Most AFL fans hate it cos they want to draft a kid and see him be a one team player, so on this one I realise while I like it, most won't. But being an avid NFL follower, I always watch on each season and wish it could be the same at the demons. We had ten years there where we were at the start of a five year plan. That rarely happens in the NFL.

Draft and Salary Cap alone are massive inclusions. And while the NFL didn't come up with it, the success, interest and intrigue of the NFL draft is attractive to so many codes.

On 2017-5-19 at 0:42 PM, rjay said:

Sorry 'Gonzo', not wanting to be difficult but I asked 'Dappa' this one on the back of his gushing acceptance of things USA.

I don't think it follows that all things USA are going to be for the betterment of the game but am interested in what these "so many things" are.

My "gushing" acceptance, as I suggested in my first post, is just one person's view. I'm not expecting others to agree. In fact if we did one of those polls above, I feel like I'd be in the barely 10% that say they love it. my point though, is that with every change in the rules, every punter in the AFL, commentators included, whines moans and [censored] like their opinion matters, and without doing their homework. Lots fo changes have come in to the AFL, and most have been great.

Of course it doesn't follow that all things USA are great. I didn't say ALL things USA are great. I think they go too far at times with the business side. The sexism is rampant. The homophobia terrible, but improving. The concussion stuff has been a blight, and they've been lazy. The spousal abuse is extraordinary that it still is allowed to happen (google Mixon and prepare to have your mind blown). On the flipside as well, the AFL has the father son rule which I'd never want to see removed.

Some things they do that we should do is the draft age being way later, allowing for a College competition. If we brought that in, as usual the GP would whine like mules, but the comp would be improved. If we add more teams to the comp over the next 20 years I'd love to see them work in a division system. It's great. loved by 100% of NFL followers. And I'm certain AFL punters would burn their memberships one year, thgen 3 years later say they loved the format.

51 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Your ad lapidem horse-chuckle let's me know they've got to you too. What did they pay you Ted Fidge - or should I say, 'Gift Deed'?

Yes, it does sound absurd but understand I am paid to spread these fake rumours as the true ones that they deflect from are even more outrageous.

I can't say too much about them but they involve a Swiss Jewish Muslim bank magnate posing as a drunken incoherent sports journalist who controls the World Government from a safe house funded by Rupert Murdoch.

"They" have not got to me     yet     but I am hoping the Russians will try to recruit me as I hear they pay better.

Presently I am hiding from both justice and vengeance in the UK embassy in Ecuador.

I am hoping the "other" chick from Baywatch shows up as it does get quite lonely here. (Plus the wifi is nearly intolerable!) I can only assume "they" got to her too as she has not responded to any of my tweets. You'd think she would have seen at least one of the thousands I have twitted to her? If anyone knows can they drop a line to my (mostly) secure website Teddileaks.

 

On 2017-5-19 at 2:51 PM, Chris said:

I get what you say about looking elsewhere for what has worked but the wildcard idea is a joke. What the AFL should bring in that the NFL do is sharing of high rating timeslots on telly. If we followed their model it would be something like every team gets 2 Friday night spots every year, one home and one away (and getting 3 in a year is rotated), then each team can also get 2 Saturday night spots and so on. This would help massively in evening out the revenue of each club and quite possibly take clubs like us of the feed from the AFL (which is only given to us in compensation for not getting these timeslots anyway!)

Unfortunately in Gill's mind it is more important to continue down the road of limiting market exposure to clubs based on the wants of a TV organisations, who have no interest in the long term health of the comp, while not actually setting up 18 sustainable clubs that will build the AFL and not be a drain!

F that bloke is a Dill.

Nice post. I have to ask though, why is the Wild Card thing a joke? Allowing for more finals (that's what Wild Card week is, essentially)... Who does it hurt in the end? I always liked the fact that the top half of the ladder play finals. With GC and GWS being in, now it's 8/18... And I think we're missing a trick there. There's no hard and fast rule saying it HAS to be half. It could conceivably be 12/18. I realise of course it won't be. A team that loses far more games than it wins shouldn't be able to play finals. I have no idea why everyone seems so attached to the top 8. Especially as there's now more teams in the comp than there was when the final 8 was brought in. The history of the finals 8 system is very short. You have to put in the finals system that's appropriate for the amount of teams in the comp.

Absolutely agree with the scheduling thing. Eddie Everywhere I think still stamps his feet and acts like a petulant child and everyone in the league lets him have his way. That's the big area the comp needs to improve. Every person running a club should be expected to act like an adult, and part of a collective. Eddie's been a blight on the game for years, and teams like us have paid the price.

I'm not anti-Gill. I have time for anyone doing what's essentially an impossible job. I think in truth he does as much or more than can be expected for a guy who's role isn't as powerful as people think. He's not the most powerful person in the AFL. The broadcasters and club bosses have way more clout.

Good stuff tho Chris.