43 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The news coming out of overseas is that Son of Omicron aka BA2 is more virulent than Omicron and will fast become the dominant strain. The more concerning element is that having had the initial Omicron offers little if any immunity to BA2.

If that holds true the opening round should see us deep in the covid mist.

I dont live in the COVID news cycle but nothing I have read concerning BA2 has said that it is more virulent than Omicron, though it does seem to be more contagious.

Then again, as BA2 is now the dominant strain in Denmark time will tell...

43 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I disagree unfortunately. 

How will last year be any different to this year? 2021 came after a year of zero football in Melbourne and its probably fair to say there were some poor crowds in Melbourne this year. 

I think some people will be still hesitant attending this year and will most likely see same crowd attendance as last year. Some people who have experienced covid once may not be so keen attending a crowded venue.

I feel that this year will be a bit different in terms of crowds. Last year we had caps on crowds forcing reserved seat members out of their seats, members out of their sections and people could not move out of their assigned areas to meet up with other people.

There was also the rigmarole of "purchasing" free tickets online with caps at certain times on how many you could get making it hard for larger family groups sitting together.

This year if the caps are abolished and entry and allocation return to normal then some of the hesitancy will be relieved.

Of course there will still remain a certain group of people who will be hesitant to return to the footy and the packed in crowds not to mention the packed public transport.

5 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While there might be no capacity limits at the MCG, crowd numbers might be affected by any other Covid controls that might be in place. For example, measures such as mask-wearing, having to check in with the QR code, having to show a vaccination certificate, etc are all nothing more than annoyances. However, I know many people who have found things like that enough to keep them from going out. Plus, if Omicron is still around, I suspect there will also be a group who don't want to take the risk of being in a crowded place. Finally, many people who previously would have attended will have become used to watching games on TV and may never return to watch matches live.  

You can put me partly in that group LDC. E.G. now when you go out for a meal it seems it has now become common practise that you have to order via your phone. There is no waitress/ waiter to take you order  Net result my wife and I  enquire before we sit down if there is waiter service. If it is ordering by phone we move on. Of course it isn't helped by the fact that we are reluctant to eat inside in crowded environments. I suspect my attendance at games of sport will be affected as you suggest. We are both triple vaccinated but of an age that we don't want to contract covid if possible. I will no longer attend any function inside that has large numbers of people. I doubt I will go to the first mfc  game of the year. Too many people. Things could change as 2022 wears on but at this stage I am very care full about reducing the chances of contracting Covid. 

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

I feel that this year will be a bit different in terms of crowds. Last year we had caps on crowds forcing reserved seat members out of their seats, members out of their sections and people could not move out of their assigned areas to meet up with other people.

There was also the rigmarole of "purchasing" free tickets online with caps at certain times on how many you could get making it hard for larger family groups sitting together.

This year if the caps are abolished and entry and allocation return to normal then some of the hesitancy will be relieved.

Of course there will still remain a certain group of people who will be hesitant to return to the footy and the packed in crowds not to mention the packed public transport.

I also think that with so many more people having had Covid, the fear relating to catching it has somewhat been replaced by inevitability. Not to mention that unlike last season, everyone attending will be vaccinated.

At some point everyone has to make the personal choice to either get on with life, or keep isolating. 

5 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I also think that with so many more people having had Covid, the fear relating to catching it has somewhat been replaced by inevitability. Not to mention that unlike last season, everyone attending will be vaccinated.

At some point everyone has to make the personal choice to either get on with life, or keep isolating. 

In February I am still in the isolating Group JNM. Now that may change as the year progresses. Over the last two years I have learnt to live without attending sporting events live. I will wait and see.

Edited February 4, 20223 yr by old dee

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not sure why you think a Wednesday night game wouldn't happen with Peter Jackson as President. Whether the attendance is 40,000 or 80,000 or somewhere in between is neither here nor there for our sponsors. The game is likely to draw mammoth ratings and the commercial value of those eyeballs in that timeslot is enormous.  

The reason is that in the half hour after we won the GF in Perth Gary Pert immediately rang the AFL ( no sure who)and suggested the repeat game on the opening round and that's where the push came from.  
I am not saying that PJ wouldhave OR would not have done this but he is not as practical as Perty in these matters as  I can recall.  Perty has any minute commercial and/or money-making opportunity on short charge.

I think PJ did an amazing job in his time and we should be forever thankful for his excellence and astuteness.

But we are now in Pert's world and as a reason why he was selected as CEO he is bridging the gap with the Club now in its best position EVER to be able to grow into the best version of ourself. If that means 80,000 members that's it If it means the admon is finished by 2024 than ok and it if means we play Wed night then that's what big Clubs do.

He no doubt is behind the Replacement  game being the QB Pies blockbuster not just an ordinary  Hawthorn or Carlton fixture which have been Ho hum in the last 3/4 years. 

We also hold a lot more bargaining power now I admit but Perty uses this extra muscle to our advantage and long May he continue to keep this attitude going now we are top on the ground let's maintain and improve off the ground also. 

10 hours ago, Demonland said:

I feel that this year will be a bit different in terms of crowds. Last year we had caps on crowds forcing reserved seat members out of their seats, members out of their sections and people could not move out of their assigned areas to meet up with other people.

There was also the rigmarole of "purchasing" free tickets online with caps at certain times on how many you could get making it hard for larger family groups sitting together.

This year if the caps are abolished and entry and allocation return to normal then some of the hesitancy will be relieved.

Of course there will still remain a certain group of people who will be hesitant to return to the footy and the packed in crowds not to mention the packed public transport.

All that plus people were hesitant without widespread vaccinations to attend large crowd events.

Omicron is much different compared to previous variants in terms of its risk and consequences

Yet public policy hasn’t moved to acknowledge this obvious fact. Talk of mandating the booster makes no sense. There is no evidence to support it reduces hospitalisation (so says the FDA in the US)

QR codes, pointless waste of time. Masks, there’s no need anymore (certain limited scenarios accepted). Let’s get rid of the passports and mandates. We should stop demonising the unvaccinated, denying them access to society and robbing them of their livelihood. As much as I dislike the Eagles and enjoy watching them flounder, Jack Darling should be allowed play football. I want society to get back to normal. I want to attend the footy, unimpeded by pointless unnecessary rules and regulations.

They may be another variant which is as transmissible as Omicron and as pathogenic as Delta. Make sure we’re ready if it happens, stockpile antigen tests and continue to refine and improve the vaccines. If the worst happens be prepared

Other countries are dropping all restrictions. Denmark, hardly a bastion of reactionary right wingers, has lifted practically all restrictions. Hospitalisations are down, ICU admissions are down. We are vaccinated. What more do the powers that be want from us?

Even with restrictions lifted people will return to society at different rates. We’ve been through a pandemic so not surprising people will be cautious. It totally understandable. And let’s not forget immune compromised and at risk people. There are quite a few around. They will still need to follow certain precautions

The first step to normalcy is governments, state and federal, dropping the restrictions. It will be the signal to people to get on with their lives. I want to see full houses at the G to cheer on the mighty Dees. I think its time.

22 hours ago, Demonland said:

I feel that this year will be a bit different in terms of crowds. Last year we had caps on crowds forcing reserved seat members out of their seats, members out of their sections and people could not move out of their assigned areas to meet up with other people.

There was also the rigmarole of "purchasing" free tickets online with caps at certain times on how many you could get making it hard for larger family groups sitting together.

This year if the caps are abolished and entry and allocation return to normal then some of the hesitancy will be relieved.

Of course there will still remain a certain group of people who will be hesitant to return to the footy and the packed in crowds not to mention the packed public transport.

Even though I have had 3 shots you can count me amongst that group. At my age not even an unfurling of a flag after 57 years will see me take the risk. I plan to attend games that have low attendances this year. Who knows what the world we look like come June/ July but that is my current plan. 

AFLW teams given permission to fly in fly out of WA this weekend. 
Absolute joke. WA is a disgrace. I feel for anyone with family over there. 

12 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

AFLW teams given permission to fly in fly out of WA this weekend. 
Absolute joke. WA is a disgrace. I feel for anyone with family over there. 

It seems the hospital system is the worst in Australia. Even after 2 years warning they have done little to improve it in preparations for the coming covid increase. That is evidently the main reason for the continued lockdown. 

26 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

AFLW teams given permission to fly in fly out of WA this weekend. 
Absolute joke. WA is a disgrace. I feel for anyone with family over there. 

Community cases are on the rise over there. Give it 2-3 weeks and the border issue will take care of itself

18 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

AFLW teams given permission to fly in fly out of WA this weekend. 
Absolute joke. WA is a disgrace. I feel for anyone with family over there. 

If AFLW teams can FIFO, should we anticipate that the AFLM will do likewise?

I agree with your last line, by the way.

Jack Darling denied medical exemption from vaccine by AFL

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/no-vax-eagle-jack-darling-sought-medical-exemption-to-jab-20220215-p59whw.html

The Darling application went to the AFL’s chief medical officer, Dr Michael Makdissi, and head legal counsel, Andrew Dillon, who rejected it. The AFL relies on expert medical opinion in forming its view on vaccines and cases such as Darling’s.

Darling has a four-year contract that AFL industry sources say is worth close to $750,000 a season. Should he remain unvaccinated and unable to train or play with West Coast, he is certain to be placed on the inactive list, which would see him paid a quarter of his base salary for the year. He has been training away from the club.

38 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Jack Darling denied medical exemption from vaccine by AFL

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/no-vax-eagle-jack-darling-sought-medical-exemption-to-jab-20220215-p59whw.html

The Darling application went to the AFL’s chief medical officer, Dr Michael Makdissi, and head legal counsel, Andrew Dillon, who rejected it. The AFL relies on expert medical opinion in forming its view on vaccines and cases such as Darling’s.

Darling has a four-year contract that AFL industry sources say is worth close to $750,000 a season. Should he remain unvaccinated and unable to train or play with West Coast, he is certain to be placed on the inactive list, which would see him paid a quarter of his base salary for the year. He has been training away from the club.

A good deal for J Darling.

Earn $187,500 a year for doing absolutely nothing on the inactive list.

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Jack Darling denied medical exemption from vaccine by AFL

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/no-vax-eagle-jack-darling-sought-medical-exemption-to-jab-20220215-p59whw.html

The Darling application went to the AFL’s chief medical officer, Dr Michael Makdissi, and head legal counsel, Andrew Dillon, who rejected it. The AFL relies on expert medical opinion in forming its view on vaccines and cases such as Darling’s.

Darling has a four-year contract that AFL industry sources say is worth close to $750,000 a season. Should he remain unvaccinated and unable to train or play with West Coast, he is certain to be placed on the inactive list, which would see him paid a quarter of his base salary for the year. He has been training away from the club.

Stupid people be stupid. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Ultimately this will mean AFL distributions to clubs will be reduced. If only they hadn’t wasted money on Gold Coast and buying dock lands stadium.

And they probably will not be as supportive of any MFC training facility.

Edited February 15, 20223 yr by george_on_the_outer

12 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Ultimately this will mean AFL distributions to clubs will be reduced. If only they hadn’t wasted money on Gold Coast and buying dock lands stadium.

And they probably will not be as supportive of any MFC training facility.

I think you'll find that buying Docklands stadium was a financial windfall for the AFL. If I recall correctly, the AFL was able to borrow at a low rate of interest to keep the game going in 2020 because of its ownership of Docklands. 

I also disagree on Gold Coast being a waste of money. A second team in Queensland (and NSW) generates revenue through increased national sponsorship returns. In addition, it should strengthen the code in the northern States over time. Whether the money has been well spent at the Gold Coast is a different question.  

13 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Ultimately this will mean AFL distributions to clubs will be reduced. If only they hadn’t wasted money on Gold Coast and buying dock lands stadium.

And they probably will not be as supportive of any MFC training facility.

How Etihad Stadium has transformed the AFL into a financial powerhouse

 

The AFL borrowed $280M in 2016 to "purchase" Docklands.  They would have paid $30...yes Thirty dollars! to own it outright when the financial arrangements concluded in 2025. It made $3M profit on $76M of income in 2016, and $5M on $78M of income in 2017.  Hardly a financial goldmine, especially since if the profit was stable for the remaining 9 years it would have only totalled approximately $30-35M.  The only windfall was to the Superannuation funds that owned it back then.

Now how much income would it have had in the past two years of COVID with no crowds at Football, cricket or concerts? Furthermore, they have borrowed further against the asset to keep the competition going during that period.  That was necessary, but it means more outgoings. 

https://www.afr.com/companies/sport/what-the-afl-has-planned-for-its-200-million-etihad-stadium-20170507-gvzo33

The AFL has supported Gold Coast to the tune of about $20M per year ( slightly reduced in 2021) for at least the past 5 years.  Yes, it provides a TV spot for the AFL to sell, but how much better would it perform financially if the AFL cut the losses and ego and moved it to Tasmania?  They are flogging a dead horse, which cannot attract sponsorship nor members, which ultimately means all the other clubs supporting this folly. 

All this means is that there is less money to be spent on OUR club, who still do not have a training base in 2021, and probably not until 2026, if we can piggy-back Commonwealth games infrastructure.

1 hour ago, george_on_the_outer said:

The AFL borrowed $280M in 2016 to "purchase" Docklands.  They would have paid $30...yes Thirty dollars! to own it outright when the financial arrangements concluded in 2025. It made $3M profit on $76M of income in 2016, and $5M on $78M of income in 2017.  Hardly a financial goldmine, especially since if the profit was stable for the remaining 9 years it would have only totalled approximately $30-35M.  The only windfall was to the Superannuation funds that owned it back then.

Now how much income would it have had in the past two years of COVID with no crowds at Football, cricket or concerts? Furthermore, they have borrowed further against the asset to keep the competition going during that period.  That was necessary, but it means more outgoings. 

https://www.afr.com/companies/sport/what-the-afl-has-planned-for-its-200-million-etihad-stadium-20170507-gvzo33

How much longer do you think the tenant clubs at Etihad/Marvel would have put up with their deal as they stood before the AFL purchased it? What would they have borrowed against to survive COVID if they didn't have it?

You don't think $8M PROFIT in 2 years is worth it? I would argue $8M profit is certainly a different scenario to the "wasted money" you originally said it was.

They borrowed $280M, but they paid under $200M for the stadium, which as of 2018, was worth $237M.

Look, I'm no financial wiz, but I don't understand how you think a massive asset that generates a profit is going to end up in 'reduced distributions'. In fact, I would suggest that (at the very least) the tenant clubs would tell you otherwise.

 

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think you'll find that buying Docklands stadium was a financial windfall for the AFL

Docklands is an out of date stadium permanently crippled by the sale of free premium seating in the form of the Medallion Club.

Wimbledon did the same thing by guaranteeing debenture holders free centre court seats many years ago. Luckily it was able to increase revenue by building extra show courts.

The best thing for Docklands would be knock it down and build a modern 40-50k seat stadium but even that is compromised by the over development of the surrounding concourse

15 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Docklands is an out of date stadium permanently crippled by the sale of free premium seating in the form of the Medallion Club.

Wimbledon did the same thing by guaranteeing debenture holders free centre court seats many years ago. Luckily it was able to increase revenue by building extra show courts.

The best thing for Docklands would be knock it down and build a modern 40-50k seat stadium but even that is compromised by the over development of the surrounding concourse

Not something I've tracked very closely so don't know the plans, but there's a fair bit of government money going into Docklands Stadium, remember reading something like nearly $15M in 2020. The facts are though, it's now worth far more than what they paid and generally turns a decent profit.