10 minutes ago, sue said:

While I like the idea, it does assume that players have no life outside footy.  Would they all want to be away for 6 months from their small babies and toddlers and partners.  (hmm, don't answer that)

Not six months. Agree that would not work> Six weeks is what DJ proposed. You could stretch it to say 8 weeks at a pinch.

Not ideal but with zoom and facetime etc etc families could cope with that i reckon. Particularly if the alternative is very little income. Plenty of jobs have such requirements (eg touring musicians, actors, mining etc).F

Families could perhaps even come and stay for the period - or part of it? No one comes in without a clear test. Like a gated small city 

In six weeks you could probably have each team play 8 games, in 8 weeks maybe ten.

ll your TV infrastructure is kept set up and ready to roll. Commentators and crew come in for 2 weeks blocks. Film the whole thing (eg training etc etc) and provide it on pay per view. Little flight costs. All games played in perfect conditions. Systems all controlled. 

It could work

25 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

Does the emergency fund still exist if they have to pay back the broadcasters for not showing games?

(And do they have to pay them back? Surely if they're not providing the product as agreed...)

If senior players don't want to play then get the ringers in. Jay Lockhart for the Brownlow.

I believe that’s a monthly instalment, so what they’ve got they’ve got. 

I hope the leagues big bucks players take a lead from the AFL top brass with pay cuts. Think about how many workers at the clubs will lose their jobs to cut running costs. 

6 minutes ago, binman said:

Not six months. Agree that would not work> Six weeks is what DJ proposed. You could stretch it to say 8 weeks at a pinch.

Not ideal but with zoom and facetime etc etc families could cope with that i reckon. Particularly if the alternative is very little income. Plenty of jobs have such requirements (eg touring musicians, actors, mining etc).F

Families could perhaps even come and stay for the period - or part of it? No one comes in without a clear test. Like a gated small city 

In six weeks you could probably have each team play 8 games, in 8 weeks maybe ten.

ll your TV infrastructure is kept set up and ready to roll. Commentators and crew come in for 2 weeks blocks. Film the whole thing (eg training etc etc) and provide it on pay per view. Little flight costs. All games played in perfect conditions. Systems all controlled. 

It could work

Much of the TV broadcast crew is now remotely controlled and packaged in Melbourne. Wouldn’t even be a lot of TV crew up there. 

7 minutes ago, binman said:

touring musicians

Gone...it's all pretty much shut up shop for now.

PS...I know it's not your point 'bin', but a lot of people struggling.

The big stars in all fields will be ok but the support players will struggle.

Players from at least one AFL club were told in a meeting on Monday morning that the AFL had flagged the prospect of a 17-game season, plus finals, if an interruption to the season occurred due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Players told 17-game season possible if coronavirus causes disruption

Did we dodged a double tap?

AFL clubs involved in the gaming industry already reeling from the #coronavirus fallout can expect a "double hit" with a loss of income from their poker machines.

AFL clubs to face 'double hit' with pokies downturn

11 minutes ago, rjay said:

Gone...it's all pretty much shut up shop for now.

PS...I know it's not your point 'bin', but a lot of people struggling.

The big stars in all fields will be ok but the support players will struggle.

Musicians, roadies, tour managers, booking agents, venues etc will decimated by all of this

2 hours ago, Jaded said:

While I feel for the players, spare a thought to those of us running small businesses with employees and small children to look after. The stress is real. 

A 20 year old making $100k a season is not going to go hungry. 

Yep, that was my point. I don’t mean to be insensitive to players but the vast majority should be concerned about health more than wealth. Small businesses and casual employees are in much tougher position. 

Surely playing in front of no crowds is better than not playing at all, when you are looking at players who have trained for months and who are after match payments. 

The risk is minimal so long as players are forced into social isolation during the week (contact with immediate family only such as spouse, kids). And as long as we continue to test players and quarantine those who are unwell. 

I just don't see the point of cancelling the season. 

looks like harley will get another 12 months to get those calves fit and firing

 

16 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Surely playing in front of no crowds is better than not playing at all, when you are looking at players who have trained for months and who are after match payments. 

The risk is minimal so long as players are forced into social isolation during the week (contact with immediate family only such as spouse, kids). And as long as we continue to test players and quarantine those who are unwell. 

I just don't see the point of cancelling the season. 

You’re not taking in to account the health and well being of the players, coaching staff and venue/broadcast staff. 

 Perhaps they don’t want to be exposed. 

i expect opinions within that circle are varied. Some players will want out, some won’t. What happens then?

 

 

First 5 rounds in 21 days I’m hearing 

Edited March 16, 20206 yr by Demons11

 

41 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Surely playing in front of no crowds is better than not playing at all, when you are looking at players who have trained for months and who are after match payments. 

The risk is minimal so long as players are forced into social isolation during the week (contact with immediate family only such as spouse, kids). And as long as we continue to test players and quarantine those who are unwell. 

I just don't see the point of cancelling the season. 

My baseline is that if everyone else is allowed to work then the players should too.

But the travel is problematic. Even in chartered flights and sealed off hotel rooms that's a minimum of 40 (cut down assistant coaches and support staff) spending a lot of time together.

And then the games as at least 47 (including umps) to breath on each other for 2 hours, plus the coaches and staff. It ends up mixing about 80 people together and that's if you keep commentators, media, ground staff well clear.

Now in many ways that's less dangerous than just catching the train! But people need to catch trains. Do footballers need to work at all?

Season will be reduced to 17 games this season with every team playing eachother once.

No decision on whether footy will be played this week.

 

 

If the season goes ahead (or even if it's suspended for a short period) the first four rounds will be played as fixtured (perhaps on a different day/date).

The rest of the rounds will be restructured to accommodate a 17 game/play each other once season.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

In short: we would still suck

first four games:

rd 1 @ west coast
rd 2 vs gw3
rd 3 vs freo
rd 4 at aints

after that...who knows