Peter Jackson on SEN 24/10/17

[hemingway 7,627]

12 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Ernest, I have never read your 1937 novel To Have and Have Not  - was that a premonition  about Jack Watts?

No Mono, I don't think Jack has ever been influenced by Marxist ideology or ever had to do it tough. 

There were many layers to this novel, but not one that could be a reference to Jack, unless he wanted to market his men's jocks in Cuba or Florida. They might be budgie snugglers but not smugglers.

Wattsy and "For whom the bell tolls", I don't think so. I can't see Wattsy as a fighter in a civil war or someone fighting for the communists, let alone blowing up Princes St Bridge

Perhaps Jack's footy life could be seen as a metaphor in Farewell to Arms. The love story, the ambulance driver not the fighter, the end of the love affair with the death of Catherine. Now that resonates.

However, I never really knew what my novels were about. Critics used to talk about my iceberg novels. There was more meaning to the reader below the waves than in the tip of the iceberg. Well I let that view persist but personally it is all [censored] to me. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,787]

13 minutes ago, hemingway said:

No Mono, I don't think Jack has ever been influenced by Marxist ideology or ever had to do it tough. 

There were many layers to this novel, but not one that could be a reference to Jack, unless he wanted to market his men's jocks in Cuba or Florida. They might be budgie snugglers but not smugglers.

Wattsy and "For whom the bell tolls", I don't think so. I can't see Wattsy as a fighter in a civil war or someone fighting for the communists, let alone blowing up Princes St Bridge

Perhaps Jack's footy life could be seen as a metaphor in Farewell to Arms. The love story, the ambulance driver not the fighter, the end of the love affair with the death of Catherine. Now that resonates.

However, I never really knew what my novels were about. Critics used to talk about my iceberg novels. There was more meaning to the reader below the waves than in the tip of the iceberg. Well I let that view persist but personally it is all [censored] to me. 

That makes me feel better. I had to read The Old Man and the Sea for year 12 English. I didn't understand it, either. The only redeeming feature was that it was a shorter book than most others I had to read that year. Or maybe it wasn't and I just didn't finish it so it seemed shorter.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

9 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That makes me feel better. I had to read The Old Man and the Sea for year 12 English. I didn't understand it, either. The only redeeming feature was that it was a shorter book than most others I had to read that year. Or maybe it wasn't and I just didn't finish it so it seemed shorter.

The old man is the MFC. Living on past glories and not taken seriously by the rest of the fishing (footy) community.

His last trip out to sea is the MFC stocking up on high draft picks, hoping against hope for the big one that will redeem all.

The marlin is Jack Watts. A magnificent specimen, but can the MFC get him back to shore (land a flag) and reap the glory?

As you may recall, the marlin is gradually eaten away by sharks until it is but a skeleton.

In a little-known and rarely read final chapter, the skeleton goes on to work in another fishing port and catches the winning after-the-siren tuna to mark the old man's final humiliation.

[daisycutter 29,616]

52 minutes ago, hemingway said:

However, I never really knew what my novels were about. Critics used to talk about my iceberg novels. There was more meaning to the reader below the waves than in the tip of the iceberg. Well I let that view persist but personally it is all [censored] to me. 

be honest, ernie, you were just pi$$ed and drugged when you wrote them......

[jnrmac 20,090]

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

That's the key ... we will always be on the drip feed unless we change our method of operation.

Hawthorn had 30 plus years of success to get up to some level of financial stability and it is not exactly swimming in cash.

The MCG is not an MFC discriminator as it is also used by another five Victorian based clubs as their home ground.

Anyway let's see what 2018 brings ... if we do not see finals talk of the future (next 5 years) is almost academic.

Hawthorn played in 8 GFs in the 80s and nearly merged with Melbourne in 1996 because they were skint. They were saved by a huge cash injection from ian Dicker.....

[Adam The God 30,261]

On 10/26/2017 at 10:02 AM, Diamond_Jim said:

I suppose the point I was trying to make is that given the annual turnover of the big clubs a premiership is nice from a cash viewpoint but not a panacea. Rather you need sustained success and several premierships such as Hawthorn have delivered.

Will be interested to see how Geelong's stadium deal goes from a financial viewpoint. They have a "clean" stadium so they get all the ground advertising but of course they have only about 8 games at the stadium.

They'd be making what we make with a QBD clash every game down there, wouldn't they? Once you've added advertising and gate receipts, they'd be well ahead each match. Doing it 8 or so times a season is a massive, massive advantage (our tax dollars at work). Imagine if we had 8 prized fixtures like that each season.

Given their advantage down there, I sometimes wonder whether there's a bit of "it runs itself". And almost the only times they aren't playing down there, they're playing a big drawing Melbourne-based club at the G. They'd never lose out on a gate receipt, ever.

Unfortunately, we'll never have this luxury, but the more we build a successful brand and team, the more chance we've got to reinstate ourselves as a power club again.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

8 minutes ago, A F said:

They'd be making what we make with a QBD clash every game down there, wouldn't they? Once you've added advertising and gate receipts, they'd be well ahead each match. Doing it 8 or so times a season is a massive, massive advantage (our tax dollars at work). Imagine if we had 8 prized fixtures like that each season.

Given their advantage down there, I sometimes wonder whether there's a bit of "it runs itself". And almost the only times they aren't playing down there, they're playing a big drawing Melbourne-based club at the G. They'd never lose out on a gate receipt, ever.

Unfortunately, we'll never have this luxury, but the more we build a successful brand and team, the more chance we've got to reinstate ourselves as a power club again.

Jeelong are in a one team town, the swim in $$$’s every home game. 

They owe everything to Cook. 

Pity they didn’t fold before he came along. There management was worse than ours pre 2000

[DaveyDee 421]

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Hawthorn played in 8 GFs in the 80s and nearly merged with Melbourne in 1996 because they were skint. They were saved by a huge cash injection from ian Dicker.....

Money makes the world go round in AFL today. Without it you have no chance, with it you are at least in with a fighting chance.  

[Diamond_Jim 12,590]

2 hours ago, A F said:

They'd be making what we make with a QBD clash every game down there, wouldn't they? Once you've added advertising and gate receipts, they'd be well ahead each match. Doing it 8 or so times a season is a massive, massive advantage (our tax dollars at work). Imagine if we had 8 prized fixtures like that each season.

Given their advantage down there, I sometimes wonder whether there's a bit of "it runs itself". And almost the only times they aren't playing down there, they're playing a big drawing Melbourne-based club at the G. They'd never lose out on a gate receipt, ever.

Unfortunately, we'll never have this luxury, but the more we build a successful brand and team, the more chance we've got to reinstate ourselves as a power club again.

Good points AF.

Not sure who has the ground maintenance obligations at Geelong. Is it the club, the Council or someone else?

Seems that it is run by a Trust:

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/news/geelong/new-kardinia-park-advisory-committee-named-to-run-cats-home-ground-simonds-stadium/news-story/069f24f463b90fe7d075aed1f7dc793d

Not cheap to keep a stadium of that size in good condition especially if it is based on an 8 game useage model.

Corporate would be useful but realistically Geelong corporate dollars would not be the same as Melbourne.

That being said it is a great model for maintaining a successful balance sheet.

 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,221]

10 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

 

AFL also massively assisted us via crowd redistribution/equalisation funds. 

 

Compensation, not assistance. You shouldn't have to "earn" your draw each team should be given equal access to timeslots, opponents etc

[DaveyDee 421]

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Compensation, not assistance. You shouldn't have to "earn" your draw each team should be given equal access to timeslots, opponents etc

You would need to have a chat to PJ about that - he would not agree with you. Very egalitarian concept but very costly in financial terms you would need to convince PJ you could derive large amounts of income from elsewhere - good luck with that. 

 

[old dee 23,792]

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Compensation, not assistance. You shouldn't have to "earn" your draw each team should be given equal access to timeslots, opponents etc

Wakey wakey Dr. It is morning now!

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

51 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

You would need to have a chat to PJ about that - he would not agree with you. Very egalitarian concept but very costly in financial terms you would need to convince PJ you could derive large amounts of income from elsewhere - good luck with that. 

 

I have no problem with the MFC earning it’s position within the hierachy of clubs. 

What i have long objected to is the weak management we have had administering the club for decades before Jackson. 

Bartlett is right in one important aspect. 

The MFC should be sitting alongside The City of Melbourne as do The Yankees to New York. 

Good management would have seen that when TV kicked in post 1965

We totally missed that. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,787]

38 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I have no problem with the MFC earning it’s position within the hierachy of clubs. 

What i have long objected to is the weak management we have had administering the club for decades before Jackson. 

Bartlett is right in one important aspect. 

The MFC should be sitting alongside The City of Melbourne as do The Yankees to New York. 

Good management would have seen that when TV kicked in post 1965

We totally missed that. 

We did. But I still think it's not too late. Not that it can happen in the short term. And without quibbling over what "short term" or even "medium term" means, the club should have a long term strategy that aims to embed Melbourne (the city) and Melbourne (the football club) so that when a neutral, non-aligned supporter thinks of one they naturally will think of the other. It won't be easy and it needs an understanding that such an alignment doesn't just "happen" because we want it to.

An example of something that the club could pursue (and a concept I've mentioned previously) is to create a "Capitals Cup" starting with games between Melbourne and Sydney. We can't replicate Rugby's State of Origin but we should be maximising the Melbourne-Sydney rivalry (meaning the rivalry between the two cities). Get the respective Lord Mayors involved and the "big end" of each town. Make it a meaningful event. Make it so that the residents of greater Melbourne care and want Melbourne (the team) to win.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,787]

I like that the first person to comment on my previous post goes by the name of CBDees.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

38 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

We did. But I still think it's not too late. Not that it can happen in the short term. And without quibbling over what "short term" or even "medium term" means, the club should have a long term strategy that aims to embed Melbourne (the city) and Melbourne (the football club) so that when a neutral, non-aligned supporter thinks of one they naturally will think of the other. It won't be easy and it needs an understanding that such an alignment doesn't just "happen" because we want it to.

An example of something that the club could pursue (and a concept I've mentioned previously) is to create a "Capitals Cup" starting with games between Melbourne and Sydney. We can't replicate Rugby's State of Origin but we should be maximising the Melbourne-Sydney rivalry (meaning the rivalry between the two cities). Get the respective Lord Mayors involved and the "big end" of each town. Make it a meaningful event. Make it so that the residents of greater Melbourne care and want Melbourne (the team) to win.

Absolutely correct

as it stands now Melbourne playing Sydney means nothing more than 4 points. 

Should be far more than that!

[jnrmac 20,090]

21 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

I dont think that 20K break even is correct, plus you are not taking into account MCC subsides via rent assistance and straight our donations. 

Geelong get massive help from the local, State & Federal Governments as do Richmond they have had massive assistance from State & Federal governments. 

AFL also massively assisted us via crowd redistribution/equalisation funds. 

The bottom line in AFL football is you earn your own draw, our supporters control the financial success of  our team in their own hands - on this front we have had an appalling record for decades now due to poor onfield performance. 

Start winning and all our problems will go away - a drovers dog could run an AFL team if its winning premierships. Alternatively, the best minds in the world cant run an AFL team if it does not have the money to generate on-field success. 

Be real about what this means. This is not a handout to weak clubs. Its about the uneveness of the ground rules set by the AFL and trying to fix that monetarily.

1. Stadium deals. If you are going to make people play at 'clean' vs 'unclean' venues then this is massively unequal. Geelong, WCE, Adelaide in particular have huge revenue from corporate boxes, advertising, food and beverage, parking  etc. We don't because we rent the MCG as it is. The MCC get the revenue from the extraneous stuff. 

What does this mean? WCE spend more than $300k a week more than Melbourne on the footy dept. That is huge in the context of providing elite training facilities, medical rehab, marketing etc

2. Fixturing. The blockbuster/derby/showdown games. Twice a year huge revenue. The myriad of BS fixturing such as gifting Essendon 11-12 Friday night, Saturday night games. Or two games against the big crowd pulling clubs generate massive reveue in gate recepits and advertising. If you are a sponsor are you going to back Collingwood with all of their TV exposure or Melbourne that has had about 2 friday night games in 5 years? Carlton haven't played at Geelong since 1998 I am told. Why not? We haven't hosted Essendon at the MCG since around 2006. Why not? We don't play the big melbourne teams twice most seasons. Why not? These all add up to ridiculous amounts of revenue and TV exposure. It also measn we have to sell home games to the NT.

The playing field is far from level and like everything in the AFL it is compromised by the fixture and money.

The AFL is not 'assisiting' Melbourne it is giving back a fraction of the revenue that Melbourne would otherwise earn if the fixture and TV wasn't such a basket case. 

[DaveyDee 421]

4 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Be real about what this means. This is not a handout to weak clubs. Its about the uneveness of the ground rules set by the AFL and trying to fix that monetarily.

1. Stadium deals. If you are going to make people play at 'clean' vs 'unclean' venues then this is massively unequal. Geelong, WCE, Adelaide in particular have huge revenue from corporate boxes, advertising, food and beverage, parking  etc. We don't because we rent the MCG as it is. The MCC get the revenue from the extraneous stuff. 

What does this mean? WCE spend more than $300k a week more than Melbourne on the footy dept. That is huge in the context of providing elite training facilities, medical rehab, marketing etc

2. Fixturing. The blockbuster/derby/showdown games. Twice a year huge revenue. The myriad of BS fixturing such as gifting Essendon 11-12 Friday night, Saturday night games. Or two games against the big crowd pulling clubs generate massive reveue in gate recepits and advertising. If you are a sponsor are you going to back Collingwood with all of their TV exposure or Melbourne that has had about 2 friday night games in 5 years? Carlton haven't played at Geelong since 1998 I am told. Why not? We haven't hosted Essendon at the MCG since around 2006. Why not? We don't play the big melbourne teams twice most seasons. Why not? These all add up to ridiculous amounts of revenue and TV exposure. It also measn we have to sell home games to the NT.

The playing field is far from level and like everything in the AFL it is compromised by the fixture and money.

The AFL is not 'assisiting' Melbourne it is giving back a fraction of the revenue that Melbourne would otherwise earn if the fixture and TV wasn't such a basket case. 

As a Demon I agree with your sentiments. Good luck with getting it changed - go for it I will support you 100%. 

[Diamond_Jim 12,590]

16 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

As a Demon I agree with your sentiments. Good luck with getting it changed - go for it I will support you 100%. 

Just remove the compromised draw for a start. Financially the present draw massively favours the existing power houses both from a crowd and sponsorship aspect.

This could be achieved with the stroke of a pen and is something that many fans have called on for years.

[CBDees 3,167]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I like that the first person to comment on my previous post goes by the name of CBDees.

There is a history to the name LDC: it was the name of a coterie group established by fanatical Demon supporters who belonged to the four gentlemen’s clubs situated in the Melbourne CBD. We had regular lunches featuring past players, coaches, administrators as lunchtime speakers. A lot of fun whilst it lasted.?

[DaveyDee 421]

21 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Just remove the compromised draw for a start. Financially the present draw massively favours the existing power houses both from a crowd and sponsorship aspect.

This could be achieved with the stroke of a pen and is something that many fans have called on for years.

Again I'm with you all the way ... but think you are talking to the wrong audience.

Try selling this proposal to PJ, the AFL and 17 other clubs. What guaranteed alternatives do you have for replacing revenues after you remove the compromised fixture?

Its easy to say the system is not fair/ not equal but you also must detail the alternatives. 

[Adam The God 30,261]

22 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Jeelong are in a one team town, the swim in $$$’s every home game. 

They owe everything to Cook. 

Pity they didn’t fold before he came along. There management was worse than ours pre 2000

I guess my point was that it wasn't all down to Cook. Yes, he turned the ship a bit, but the gold was right there in front of them. He just needed to pick up the pan. Maybe even your favourite Cammy boy would have managed it too?

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

47 minutes ago, A F said:

I guess my point was that it wasn't all down to Cook. Yes, he turned the ship a bit, but the gold was right there in front of them. He just needed to pick up the pan. Maybe even your favourite Cammy boy would have managed it too?

Yes Jeelong are in a prime position. 

But don’t kid yourself that Cook is an ordinary CEO. Kardinia Park was falling down when he came in. 

We have lacked an A1 Business plan for years and it’s only now it is beginning to be addressed. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Sir Why You Little

[DaveyDee 421]

On 10/31/2017 at 5:43 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes Jeelong are in a prime position. 

But don’t kid yourself that Cook is an ordinary CEO. Kardinia Park was falling down when he came in. 

We have lacked an A1 Business plan for years and it’s only now it is beginning to be addressed. 

Bulldust - If anything we lacked focus on football. Not that you may have noticed we are a football club first and foremost. 

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

1 hour ago, DaveyDee said:

Bulldust - If anything we lacked focus on football. Not that you may have noticed we are a football club first and foremost. 

Bulldust my ass mate. 

Did you work for CS. It was a complete shammbles when he walked

on & off field. 

We lacked more than focus...