19 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If our clubs each got $260 million every year, they'd have NFI what to do with it.

Well all of the broadcast money goes straight to the teams not to the NFL, all of the broadcast money should go straight to the teams evenly

Edited October 19, 20204 yr by don't make me angry

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/seven-and-cricket-australia-fight-over-broadcast-rights-expert-20201016-p565sl.html

The Channel 7 v Cricket Australia arguments continue

Next could be Nine v Tennis Australia

Increasingly I am seeing reports of the magical vaccines not being available to health workers until mid 2021 which makes mass vaccination prior to September 2021 unlikely. It seems that while the trials are almost finished for the initial candidates the trial evaluation process will take around 6 months ?

6 hours ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

If it's whiskey Grr-owl that would make it irish. In Scotland it's whisky. Just a subtle difference. 

?‍♂️Oh, God. Not subtle at all to a Scot. I thank you for your delicacy in the matter. It's the ultimate faux-pas....

4 hours ago, don't make me angry said:

In the NFl every club get 260 million each every season from broadcast deal

Because of the private ownership model. The franchises are privately owned "for profit" organisations and the NFL commissioner (Goodell) is there to serve their interests.

The AFL is unique in that they play a dual role - governors of the competition (the AFL) as well as governors of the code (Australian Football or Australian Rules), the latter role which was usurped from the ANFC in the early 90s.

6 hours ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

If it's whiskey Grr-owl that would make it irish. In Scotland it's whisky. Just a subtle difference. 

The other big difference of course is Irish whiskey is much better ☘️

14 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Exactly. Their trying to get into the schools and getting kids playing footy instead of league. They give out free tickets so the kids get their parents to bring them along to games. It's a bold long term strategy and one I agree with. Sydney and Brisbane are the two major markets for advertiser's next to Melbourne, they don't care about Perth, Adelaide, Tassie or Darwin. Its the best way of ensuring the long term viability of the code financially as well as opening up development opportunities for talent in those areas which will ultimately increase the player pool and benefit everyone.

That's not to say it should be at the expense of Tassie, I'd love to see a Tassie side in the AFL. But there's no reason both things can't happen.

A lot of migrants from footy states, plus the inherent physicality of league, plus the exaggerated masculinity of the league 'mentality,' mean there's a lot of parents who don't want their kids playing rugby. J Brown can sometimes be heard to comment that 'they think we're soft.' Well, we are, up to a point, and that's a good thing. There's an obvious gap there between rugby and soccer that footy fits nicely...

Just a little anecdote... Kids can get injured playing footy, for sure, but a bloke I know played union for Wales had broken his arm 14 times - was bent like the proverbial sunshine fruit - and his back 3 times. He chucked it in after the 3rd... Tough, yes, and that was union, the softer rugby, where apparently they can't tackle....

I do hate to say it but privatisation may actually be the only true saviour and I suspect Sydney and Hawthorn will be hinting at that in some capacity. In that instance Melbourne would likely be saved given its relatively strong financial independence and history, which presents strong branding opportunities. Dogs appealing from purely an asset perspective. But North would be unable to find a suitor unless it seriously considered relocation.

GWS and GC may as well merge at this point, or at least each fold into Sydney and Brisbane, respectively. Brisbane could rename itself to South Queensland or even just Queensland. There was absolutely no need for GWS. At least GC had a strong aussie rules presence via the Sharks.

Privatisation would unfortunately lead to the demise of some clubs and a hit to the community but for the longevity of the league it may be necessary. I know some here will disagree and the long term ramifications of Privatisation may not be pretty but it is a deal with the devil that is perhaps inevitable 

52 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Because of the private ownership model. The franchises are privately owned "for profit" organisations and the NFL commissioner (Goodell) is there to serve their interests.

The AFL is unique in that they play a dual role - governors of the competition (the AFL) as well as governors of the code (Australian Football or Australian Rules), the latter role which was usurped from the ANFC in the early 90s.

That dual role should be looked at by this proposed review. If it is indeed unique to our game, there must be reasons why other codes aren't following it. That's not to say the current arrangement is wrong, but the Commission should at least look to see whether the governance model is optimal.  

Someone posted this on twitter before (they added the bold themselves for emphasis) - Koch on SEN

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, roy11 said:

Someone posted this on twitter before (they added the bold themselves for emphasis) - Koch on SEN

 

 

 

well that sounds reasonable

but it is only one side of the coin

personally i'm in favour of a bit of introspection.....but it all depends how independent and inclusive it is

30 minutes ago, roy11 said:

Someone posted this on twitter before (they added the bold themselves for emphasis) - Koch on SEN

 

 

 

We also have to remember that David Koch has a conflict of interest given his major employer is a broadcast "partner" of the AFL. That doesn't mean his views as stated are wrong, but his conflicts (and, similarly those of Eddie McGuire, who is employed by both Nine and Foxtel) need to be appreciated.

5 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I heard Andrew Pridham interviewed over the weeked. His proposal is much more than the number of teams in the competition. He wants everything looked at - governance, structure, rules, revenue streams, etc. And I think he's right. The last comprehensive review of this type was done 27 years ago by David Crawford. A lot has changed since, and not just in the AFL.

There are different technologies (streaming, social media); there's more competition for people's time (does game time need to be shortened? for example); the big cities have grown at the expense of rural areas (what impact has this had on grass roots football?), AFL now has significant competition from other codes (such as NRL and soccer in Melbourne) which didn't exist 27 years ago, the game style has changed so much in the last 27 years to the extent that many claim it is unwatchable, the second-tier competition chops and changes all the time, etc. And all that is before the financial effects of Covid-19. A proper review needs to look at all these things and more to ensure a wholistic approach is taken to the next 25 years of the AFL.

The AFL can't sit on its hands and say that all wisdom resides within the current Commission.

Sounds wise to me LDC. But I fear it would end up being an internal review that would protect the old boys. 

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

Sounds wise to me LDC. But I fear it would end up being an internal review that would protect the old boys. 

I think you are right to be sceptical. If I recall correctly, the self-interest of clubs and individuals was a major stumbling block when Crawford did his review and, further back, when the Commission model was first mooted. 

As Paul Keating once said, ‘In the race of life, always back self-interest — at least you know it's trying’.

(While Keating did say this, he was repeating what had been said about 50 years earlier by one of his heroes, Prime Minister, Jack Lang)

Agreed @La Dee-vina Comedia and @daisycutter. 

Part that resonated with me was the fact COVID19 is being used to leverage power by the big clubs, same thing happening in English football at the moment. 

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Because of the private ownership model. The franchises are privately owned "for profit" organisations and the NFL commissioner (Goodell) is there to serve their interests.

The AFL is unique in that they play a dual role - governors of the competition (the AFL) as well as governors of the code (Australian Football or Australian Rules), the latter role which was usurped from the ANFC in the early 90s.

No the NFL don't play favourites like the AFL they give too much money to the sun's GWS, the biggest suckers saints who get the 3 nd money in the AFL, the broadcast deal money should not even be handled by those  corrupt AFL..

2 hours ago, praha said:

I do hate to say it but privatisation may actually be the only true saviour and I suspect Sydney and Hawthorn will be hinting at that in some capacity. In that instance Melbourne would likely be saved given its relatively strong financial independence and history, which presents strong branding opportunities. Dogs appealing from purely an asset perspective. But North would be unable to find a suitor unless it seriously considered relocation.

GWS and GC may as well merge at this point, or at least each fold into Sydney and Brisbane, respectively. Brisbane could rename itself to South Queensland or even just Queensland. There was absolutely no need for GWS. At least GC had a strong aussie rules presence via the Sharks.

Privatisation would unfortunately lead to the demise of some clubs and a hit to the community but for the longevity of the league it may be necessary. I know some here will disagree and the long term ramifications of Privatisation may not be pretty but it is a deal with the devil that is perhaps inevitable 

Which Russian oligarch do you have in mind to own the MFC?

4 hours ago, Better days ahead said:

The other big difference of course is Irish whiskey is much better ☘️

I'll have to take your word for that BDA as I'm not partial to the stuff myself. I do enjoy a good pint of the black stuff though. Sláinte!

16 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think you are right to be sceptical. If I recall correctly, the self-interest of clubs and individuals was a major stumbling block when Crawford did his review and, further back, when the Commission model was first mooted. 

As Paul Keating once said, ‘In the race of life, always back self-interest — at least you know it's trying’.

(While Keating did say this, he was repeating what had been said about 50 years earlier by one of his heroes, Prime Minister, Jack Lang)

LDC I am not certain of this but wasn’t Jack Lang the Premier of NSW? My father told a long time ago a little scepticism is a wise thing when dealing with large organisations. 

15 hours ago, sue said:

Which Russian oligarch do you have in mind to own the MFC?

The richest one of course

21 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/seven-and-cricket-australia-fight-over-broadcast-rights-expert-20201016-p565sl.html

The Channel 7 v Cricket Australia arguments continue

Next could be Nine v Tennis Australia

Increasingly I am seeing reports of the magical vaccines not being available to health workers until mid 2021 which makes mass vaccination prior to September 2021 unlikely. It seems that while the trials are almost finished for the initial candidates the trial evaluation process will take around 6 months ?

Surely that can't be right 'Jim'...someone was recently trumpeting that a vaccine would be available in weeks.

21 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/seven-and-cricket-australia-fight-over-broadcast-rights-expert-20201016-p565sl.html

The Channel 7 v Cricket Australia arguments continue

Next could be Nine v Tennis Australia

Increasingly I am seeing reports of the magical vaccines not being available to health workers until mid 2021 which makes mass vaccination prior to September 2021 unlikely. It seems that while the trials are almost finished for the initial candidates the trial evaluation process will take around 6 months ?

It appears to me DJ that there will no return to going to the football in numbers  in 2021. I have already reconciled that it will be a TV game for me in 2021. I even have doubts that games will played in Victoria. Along with a lot of sports AFL is going to have to get by with less money. 

31 minutes ago, old dee said:

LDC I am not certain of this but wasn’t Jack Lang the Premier of NSW? My father told a long time ago a little scepticism is a wise thing when dealing with large organisations. 

Quite right, Old dee. Lang was indeed Premier of NSW. In my defence, all NSW politicians think they're more important than any Federal parliamentarian. Many even think they're above the law.

21 minutes ago, rjay said:

Surely that can't be right 'Jim'...someone was recently trumpeting that a vaccine would be available in weeks.

It probably will be to him rjay 

If the AFL want to prevent Jeremy Cameron leaving GWS they could relocate them to Geelong and form a second team in the city. They could be the Greater Western Victoria Giants. I think the lease on the phone box they use as their social club is about to end anyway. 

6 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Quite right, Old dee. Lang was indeed Premier of NSW. In my defence, all NSW politicians think they're more important than any Federal parliamentarian. Many even think they're above the law.

Sorry for diverting the conversation LDC I agree with your comment.