7 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

The draft is not a equalisation tool - all evidence points towards the opposite. 

The salary cap only is an equalisation tool when you take a long-term approach pay 100% every year

They are both very effective equalisation tools 'Davey', but like all tools they have have to be used correctly...

43 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Rubbish... let's start with Carlton and we'll work from there

Ask the 2016 premiers how their fixture looks for 2018.

Tell me why we play home games in NT before crowds of little more than 10,000

In the above thread people keep saying that it's all about TV rights and that attendances and success are secondary. In that case please explain why Melbourne as an up and coming team with a bunch of exciting youngsters gets such abysmal FTA coverage.

I know all the reasons why the above occur but I get a little tired of AFL apologists saying it will all get better. The fact is we along with three other Melbourne based teams are simply in the comp to make up the numbers. Luckily the draft and salary cap give us a chance of on field success because the cards are well and truly stacked against us when it comes to financial success.

Which is entirely our own fault

We were the Power Club and we have totally blown it. 

 

4 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Which is entirely our own fault

We were the Power Club and we have totally blown it. 

 

we certainly did.........

Hard to say where it happened but the loss of MCG exclusivity was the real killer. What pains me is that we did not see this coming and failed to bank any degree of success from those golden years for the future.

10 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

we certainly did.........

Hard to say where it happened but the loss of MCG exclusivity was the real killer. What pains me is that we did not see this coming and failed to bank any degree of success from those golden years for the future.

We totally blew the TV ? age Jim

Richmond and Carlscum took over

1965 was when TV began using Videotape (quick Turnarounds)

Barassi leaving was the knife ? 

4 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

 

Edited February 7, 20187 yr by Cards13

Just now, Cards13 said:

Bulltish, look at Carlton this year.... 6 Friday night games. 

Yep..[censored] prim and proper

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Yep..[censored] prim and proper

When will bulltish be banned on here you think?

2 hours ago, rjay said:

They are both very effective equalisation tools 'Davey', but like all tools they have have to be used correctly...

Not a problem you are more than entitled to your opinion. 

I hold the opinion you trade your way to a premiership you dont draft your way to a premiership - each to their own.  

 

 

18 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

Not a problem you are more than entitled to your opinion. 

I hold the opinion you trade your way to a premiership you dont draft your way to a premiership - each to their own.  

 

 

That's a different story...equalisation doesn't necessarily mean premiership and the equalisation measures, the draft, salary cap and FD spend cap are proving to have done their job if the 2017 season is anything to go by. In an 18 team competition it was more even than I can remember even the 12 team comps being.

As for trading your way to a premiership, I don't think that stands up to scrutiny. It's certainly part of the mix but in the current AFL climate the core of all premiership teams has been built on the draft. You certainly trade to sort problem areas and I think we have done that well the last couple of years but when we win a flag it will be on the back of Viney, Oliver, Petracca, Hunt, Gawn, Hogan, Salem, Jetta and co with some smart trading to top us up.

Take Reiwoldt, Martin, Cotchin and Rance all drafted players out of the Tiger team and what have you got? a wooden spooner.

Take out Mitchell, Hodge, Roughy, Cyril, Lewis, Smith from the Hawks and you have a middle rung team who the likes of Lake and Burgoyne wouldn't see as a destination club.

Trade certainly hasn't helped the Swans recently, so far their 2 big trades (Franklin, Tippett) have been a bust as far as Premiership success goes.

The successful Cats teams under Bomber where built on the draft with Ottens being the only key player they brought into the club.

No, you draft your core and fill needs with trade.

This may all change down the track as we further attempt to emulate the land of Trump but currently this is how it works.

10 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

 

The salary cap only is an equalisation tool when you take a long-term approach pay 100% every year - think Jake Lever. 

Spending inside your football department is the only effective equalisation tool - player welfare and giving them the opportunity to reach their maximum potential is our primary road to equalisation. 

  

Your view on the salary cap just doesn't hold up. Take away the cap and you have an EPL like environment and we would have no chance of surviving in that climate.

The salary cap is the key to equalisation.

8 minutes ago, rjay said:

That's a different story...equalisation doesn't necessarily mean premiership and the equalisation measures, the draft, salary cap and FD spend cap are proving to have done their job if the 2017 season is anything to go by. In an 18 team competition it was more even than I can remember even the 12 team comps being.

As for trading your way to a premiership, I don't think that stands up to scrutiny. It's certainly part of the mix but in the current AFL climate the core of all premiership teams has been built on the draft. You certainly trade to sort problem areas and I think we have done that well the last couple of years but when we win a flag it will be on the back of Viney, Oliver, Petracca, Hunt, Gawn, Hogan, Salem, Jetta and co with some smart trading to top us up.

Take Reiwoldt, Martin, Cotchin and Rance all drafted players out of the Tiger team and what have you got? a wooden spooner.

Take out Mitchell, Hodge, Roughy, Cyril, Lewis, Smith from the Hawks and you have a middle rung team who the likes of Lake and Burgoyne wouldn't see as a destination club.

Trade certainly hasn't helped the Swans recently, so far their 2 big trades (Franklin, Tippett) have been a bust as far as Premiership success goes.

The successful Cats teams under Bomber where built on the draft with Ottens being the only key player they brought into the club.

No, you draft your core and fill needs with trade.

This may all change down the track as we further attempt to emulate the land of Trump but currently this is how it works.

Your view on the salary cap just doesn't hold up. Take away the cap and you have an EPL like environment and we would have no chance of surviving in that climate.

The salary cap is the key to equalisation.

Cheers thanks for clarifiy your points. 

Just lets clear up one point - the salary cap is only an equalisation tool if you pay 100% - think I've been clear about that. I have no problems with a salary cap. 

All the best

 

10 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

Cheers thanks for clarifiy your points. 

Just lets clear up one point - the salary cap is only an equalisation tool if you pay 100% - think I've been clear about that. I have no problems with a salary cap. 

All the best

 

I disagree. The problem with the cap is you must pay a minimum of 92%.

Which means if youre a dud team you pay your underperforming players far too much and cant use the money you should have to land big fish.

9 minutes ago, biggestred said:

I disagree. The problem with the cap is you must pay a minimum of 92%.

Which means if youre a dud team you pay your underperforming players far too much and cant use the money you should have to land big fish.

95%

as i said earlier up thread, saints got a massive hand out too - as much as gw$ and the bears: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/st-kilda-saints/saints-got-same-cash-from-afl-as-gws-giants-and-brisbane-lions-20180207-p4yzmd.html

helps to have the afl ceo as a supporter, i guess...

11 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

If I told you the answer to that you might not like it - far be it from me to say why we play home games in NT against SA clubs. 

We no longer care who we play, where we play them & what we wear - the past history has no influence on our current playing group. Yes, you read right our history is meaningless. We have an AFL approved CEO & AFL approved board - no elections needed - we enjoy the full support of the AFL and that is 100% reciprocal. 

 

The Doctor of Who must be pulling a wage from the AFL teet....

exceptional ranting here

12 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

we certainly did.........

Hard to say where it happened but the loss of MCG exclusivity was the real killer. What pains me is that we did not see this coming and failed to bank any degree of success from those golden years for the future.

Actually, not that hard. During the late-1960s and through the 1970s while the rest of the competition recognised that the game was becoming more professional (although not as professional as today), the MFC was still being run by the MCC with people in charge who thought cricket was more important. Their decision making was centred on what was good for the cricket club, with football just an afterthought. We have never fully recovered from that damage.

While it is a fair question to ask why after all this time has the damage not been fully rectified, part of the answer is the "lost generation" of supporters. That is, Melbourne FC supporters who were ignored by the MCC and passively discouraged from attending. As an example, when I was a boy (60s and 70s) I used to attend games on what was then called a Ladies Ticket (now called a guest pass). That allowed me in until I was 15. Even though I was added to the MCC waiting list the week I was born, I didn't receive any form of membership until I was 20. So, from the age of 15 to 20, I was ignored by the club and in return, I found other things to do with my Saturdays. 

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The Doctor of Who must be pulling a wage from the AFL teet....

exceptional ranting here

ranting or trolling?

20 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

Not sure you are correct here. 

The MFC supports the AFL' s right to maximise revenues thru its use of a fixture. Small clubs do get compensated on a yearly basis.  

The draft is not a equalisation tool - all evidence points towards the opposite. 

The salary cap only is an equalisation tool when you take a long-term approach pay 100% every year - think Jake Lever. 

Spending inside your football department is the only effective equalisation tool - player welfare and giving them the opportunity to reach their maximum potential is our primary road to equalisation. 

Saying all that, I think your response is tad one-eyed ( now hush, hush which I personally think is good )

But dont forget at times we will have to support the wider AFL community and support the AFL in their agenda. We might not agree, but their is a bigger picture the club has to consider. Classic example - ANZAC eve blockbuster - for some reason our mates at Richmond love playing us long may it continue. 

 

 

  

I’m happy to be a one eyed Dees supporter and fully understand AFL’s remit to maximise revenue, but disagree with small clubs get fairly compensated. 

As a potential sponsor who would you take this year Carlton with 6 Friday night games, no Geelong trip or Melb with Anzac Eve & Easter Monday? But of course, Friday night games are given on performance, cough cough!

The draft and salary cap combined, provide a way to get access to best young players and stop top clubs paying over the odds every time. Salary cap gets rorted with outside 3rd party deals, but it would be much worse without it, just think Man City - EPL, Barcelona, PSG, & Bayern to see what happens with no draft or cap.

Who has the money to pump into FDs, the wealthiest clubs. 

 

Which area of the AFL do you work in?

20 minutes ago, D4Life said:

I’m happy to be a one eyed Dees supporter and fully understand AFL’s remit to maximise revenue, but disagree with small clubs get fairly compensated. 

As a potential sponsor who would you take this year Carlton with 6 Friday night games, no Geelong trip or Melb with Anzac Eve & Easter Monday? But of course, Friday night games are given on performance, cough cough!

The draft and salary cap combined, provide a way to get access to best young players and stop top clubs paying over the odds every time. Salary cap gets rorted with outside 3rd party deals, but it would be much worse without it, just think Man City - EPL, Barcelona, PSG, & Bayern to see what happens with no draft or cap.

Who has the money to pump into FDs, the wealthiest clubs. 

 

Which area of the AFL do you work in?

Not a problem then we agree to disagree. I'm can live with the current arrangement with the AFL - no whinging, no whining, no comments regarding fairness/unfairness. 

Think I need to clarify my points. I have no problem with a draft I have no problem with a salary cap. 

I support the theory that the path to equalisation is thru large investments inside your football department to maximise the players opportunity to reach for their best irrespective of how they arrived at the MFC. I support the theory that the MFC needs to become a career option not just a playing option. 

Sorry, I dont work for the AFL - but are more than happy to support them and appreciate the support they have given us. Happy to take the good with the bad - we live in a 18 team national competition. 

5 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

Not a problem then we agree to disagree. I'm can live with the current arrangement with the AFL - no whinging, no whining, no comments regarding fairness/unfairness. 

Think I need to clarify my points. I have no problem with a draft I have no problem with a salary cap. 

I support the theory that the path to equalisation is thru large investments inside your football department to maximise the players opportunity to reach for their best irrespective of how they arrived at the MFC. I support the theory that the MFC needs to become a career option not just a playing option. 

Sorry, I dont work for the AFL - but are more than happy to support them and appreciate the support they have given us. Happy to take the good with the bad - we live in a 18 team national competition. 

That is a very balanced response, are you sure your on the right site!

46 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

ranting or trolling?

Both, he is getting more irksome though...

Having a new afl team at the Gold Coast was always going to be risky.The Brisbane Bears failed in the G.C. People living in the area are more interested in other things.  It seems that when the going get tough G.Ablett jnr  wants be closer to his father. Interesting is'nt funny how he is playing for Geelong when his father lives in Drouin some 160 klms away. I was always dead against a Tassie side as I didn't think anyone would follow them and the fact that young footballers would go "ape sh.t" from the lack of amusements outside footy. However since the Kangas and Hawks play footy there because of t.v rights  gets tax payer money from the Tassie state government. I now believe that the G.C should relocate to Tasmania, those Kiddies who come from Victoria  can visit their mummy's at lot more easier than if they were living in the G.C. Note-  The G.C - Melbourne is 1709 klms, Launceston -Melbourne is 541 klms. Personally I think that the Dees need to win a flag before relocating the suns and giving them u-beaut picks.

On 2/9/2018 at 4:46 PM, ENYAW said:

 I now believe that the G.C should relocate to Tasmania

Wont happen a Victorian club is far more likely to be relocated and I doubt it will be Hawks or North both have rejected it previously. There are a few big projects being discussed behind the scenes & you have to wait till they get resolved prior to forcing a team to Tasmania.