4 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Be fair, Dockett, Collingwood did not have that many to go to war relative to some other clubs and their representation in the ANZAC tradition is punching above their weight; their numbers may have been down in terms of airmen, seamen and soldiers, but that is only because of their two historical disadvantages:

1. They are too stupid to follow and apply tactics, strategies and to make effective decisions in a crisis, let alone exercise common sense in all other arenas of harmonious life and community, war and peace, local or national crises; and

2. They cannot take instructions from others, linked closely to their inability sustain constant thought processes for over 5 minutes. There is little in O Group briefings that they can understand (namely orders) or interpret and the use of innovation and self-evaluation are beyond them. Their subsequent inability to read and write is of limited value to the dissemination of grouped ideas and intentions.

In a revision of your fairness, Dockett, you must give Collingwood credit for their contribution to the war effort overall. Someone had to stay behind to clean the dunnies, make bullets in factories, sweep the streets and sew buttons on uniforms. 

Oh and here was I thinking it may have something to do with Archbishop Mannix his apparent  dislike for the British and his relationship with Wren, but then again I’ve never been clear on this.

Thanks for enlightening me.

2 minutes ago, Dockett 32 said:

Oh and here was I thinking it may have something to do with Archbishop Mannix his apparent  dislike for the British and his relationship with Wren, but then again I’ve never been clear on this.

Thanks for enlightening me.

Don't you mean John West and Archbishop Malone?

6 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Sorry, I must have wrongly read the article. I wasn’t aware the 1958 record setting game was on a QB. I thought we commenced the QB clashes against Pies in 2001.

No worries. I think it is fair to say it fell into disuse for a while and was then revived.

1 minute ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Don't you mean John West and Archbishop Malone?

 

1 minute ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Don't you mean John West and Archbishop Malone?

Bingo

Collingwood deserves QB home games.

Peter Jackson pointed out that as the Tigers have Anzac Eve as their home game next year, if we lost QB in 2019 we'd have no blockbuster. That might hint that we'd be willing to begin alternating home games for QB from 2020 so that we have at last one blockbuster each year.

On the matter of clubs that lost players to the services which Dockett raised, I think it was the book Fallen Heroes that recorded that Melbourne and St Kilda were the two clubs that lost the greatest number.

barlett wants pies in round 1 friday night, queen's birthday, and anzac eve to be our blockbusters in 2019: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/demons-demand-another-blockbuster-with-collingwood/news-story/a5d223adf2f8778a0e20ea39f918c6d4

Playing Collingwood in Round 1 especially on a Friday night would be a wonderful outcome.

What footy fan is not excited by the first game of the season. It would almost guarantee a 75K crowd year in year out.

9 hours ago, Macca said:

It is only fair that if the home status does change to a rotation basis we should be entitled to an area of the grounds seating for our supporters & members when or if they host the game.

The equivalent size of the Western stand should suffice.

The whole Northern stand and behind the Punt Road end goals.

At risk of being accused of being a communist or a socialist, which I can assure you all I am anything but, it is time to recognise

- two teams are required to have a match

- multiple teams (currently IMO too many at 18) make up a competition 

- no team actually owns their “home ground” ...... they are all heavily subsidized by the taxpayer 

So 

- after deducting any actual outgoing from staging a match by the “home team”, split the gate, or even;

- maybe too radical a thought but pool the lot and share the loot, maybe on a pro rate manner related to the membership numbers of the clubs.

As it stands, there is a perpetual cycle of the rich getting richer and the poor making up the numbers.

@monoccular - it’s not so crazy, they do similar gate sharing in the US sports.

Land of the free, home of the comrades...

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

At risk of being accused of being a communist or a socialist, which I can assure you all I am anything but, it is time to recognise

- two teams are required to have a match

- multiple teams (currently IMO too many at 18) make up a competition 

- no team actually owns their “home ground” ...... they are all heavily subsidized by the taxpayer 

So 

- after deducting any actual outgoing from staging a match by the “home team”, split the gate, or even;

- maybe too radical a thought but pool the lot and share the loot, maybe on a pro rate manner related to the membership numbers of the clubs.

As it stands, there is a perpetual cycle of the rich getting richer and the poor making up the numbers.

Many years ago the AFL (it might even have been that long ago it was the VFL) considered gate sharing for all games and concluded that the hard working clubs would end up subsidising the unprofessional ones. They changed to the model that the home team should be the beneficiary of the proceeds to encourage them to work to get people to attend. I don't know what the arrangement is today, but for every argument that favours pooling and equal sharing there is another one which discourages it.

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Many years ago the AFL (it might even have been that long ago it was the VFL) considered gate sharing for all games and concluded that the hard working clubs would end up subsidising the unprofessional ones. They changed to the model that the home team should be the beneficiary of the proceeds to encourage them to work to get people to attend. I don't know what the arrangement is today, but for every argument that favours pooling and equal sharing there is another one which discourages it.

and I can well imagine which club presidents pushed that idea through!  Amazing that this idea of  "hard working" persists for those who are in fact critically favoured by the system they are involved with. In my experience the smaller clubs like us or  more marginilised people often have to work far harder...and even then that is  just to slow the rate they are falling behind. At least with the dees APPARANTLY knocking on the door of a few years of good times...and more friday night/ big game  exposure we will start to win a few younger supporters and further  turn around this membership situation.

I have long favored that socialist model of gate sharing as being the only fair and equitable solution 

Sadly, there is simply no way that the ‘big clubs’ (I.e those that consistently draw 50k plus like Collingwood, Richmond) or those with incredible homeground advantage (Adelaide, Freo, Geelong, Port, meth coke) would go for it

Fair enough Edd you can have it in 2 years we will alternate after that .

But we want one of your friday night games against a Melbourne team at the g 

 

13 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

barlett wants pies in round 1 friday night, queen's birthday, and anzac eve to be our blockbusters in 2019: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/demons-demand-another-blockbuster-with-collingwood/news-story/a5d223adf2f8778a0e20ea39f918c6d4

We asked for this this year too and it didn't happen.

7 hours ago, monoccular said:

At risk of being accused of being a communist or a socialist, which I can assure you all I am anything but, it is time to recognise

- two teams are required to have a match

- multiple teams (currently IMO too many at 18) make up a competition 

- no team actually owns their “home ground” ...... they are all heavily subsidized by the taxpayer 

So 

- after deducting any actual outgoing from staging a match by the “home team”, split the gate, or even;

- maybe too radical a thought but pool the lot and share the loot, maybe on a pro rate manner related to the membership numbers of the clubs.

As it stands, there is a perpetual cycle of the rich getting richer and the poor making up the numbers.

Gate receipts were pooled and shared up until the 50s I think (may have even been as late as the 70s?)

3 hours ago, Wells 11 said:

and I can well imagine which club presidents pushed that idea through!  Amazing that this idea of  "hard working" persists for those who are in fact critically favoured by the system they are involved with. In my experience the smaller clubs like us or  more marginilised people often have to work far harder...and even then that is  just to slow the rate they are falling behind. At least with the dees APPARANTLY knocking on the door of a few years of good times...and more friday night/ big game  exposure we will start to win a few younger supporters and further  turn around this membership situation.

We need to rig the fixture to maximise attendances/revenue so we have money to prop up poor clubs. But the poor clubs don't work hard enough so why should we give them any money?

AFLs version of trickle down economics

15 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

We need to rig the fixture to maximise attendances/revenue so we have money to prop up poor clubs. But the poor clubs don't work hard enough so why should we give them any money?

AFLs version of trickle down economics

A man after my own heart.

 

When the MFC is run properly (Like now) and is given a competitive Fixture we can be a power club. 

I still believe we have an enormous dormant supporter base that just lays low. 

45,000 Members is the tip of the iceberg i believe

Does anyway know if any part of the MCG super box revenue goes to the club...same with the catering receipts and ground advertising.

With electronic banners around the ground I expect to see clubs demand some degree of display time for their own sponsors;

Wait till Adelaide and Port play hard with Adelaide Oval on these extras assuming their agreement to move from Footy Park didn't win them that battle anyway.

I don't mind the notion of alternating home games for the QB match.  We're not the basket case we were, so it's not as vital to the clubs finances as it once was.  The only rider is that it would need to alternate with the Anzac eve game, so we got one of them each year as a home game.  That's one big marquee pay-day each year.  Obviously, we'd need the AFL to get their act together and give us a home Friday fixture or two as well, but every side should have one of those each season, so no big deal. 

21 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

barlett wants pies in round 1 friday night, queen's birthday, and anzac eve to be our blockbusters in 2019: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/demons-demand-another-blockbuster-with-collingwood/news-story/a5d223adf2f8778a0e20ea39f918c6d4

Get that locked in annually and 2 things happen

1. Corporates get on board long term

2. Destination club

10 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Get that locked in annually and 2 things happen

1. Corporates get on board long term

2. Destination club

i personally would like to always have round 1 as a home game against the cats at the mcg at 2.10pm start

two oldest clubs in the competition playing against each other at a traditional time

6 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

i personally would like to always have round 1 as a home game against the cats at the mcg at 2.10pm start

two oldest clubs in the competition playing against each other at a traditional time

Exactly! Collingwood doesn’t need to be part of the occasion for a third marquee game! ?