Don't demonise us

[w00dy 146]

just curious Nasher, what's the source of those figures... i just find it strange that i haven't seen that type of information pop up before... you would think that this kind of information would be news worthy, worth running a story in one of the main newspapers...

i can see the headline now...

Kangaroos assistance anything but special

[sickto 0]

just curious Nasher, what's the source of those figures... i just find it strange that i haven't seen that type of information pop up before... you would think that this kind of information would be news worthy, worth running a story in one of the main newspapers...

i can see the headline now...

Kangaroos assistance anything but special

Enter the spin doctors to make us all feel better. It was called the competitive balance fund by the AFL as they realise clubs like ours can not be competitive without it and we went begging to them for money to cover our inability to raise enough revenue to keep the club competitive.

We had incompetent financial management at the end of 2003 and nothing has changed - only the spin has evolved.

[emubitter 0]

All clubs receive a significant proportion of their revenues in the form of AFL distributions. No two clubs receive the same amount - some get more and others get less. The AFL distribution is made up of a base payment of $4442316 per club and a total of $25481855 in "other" payments spread across the Clubs with various rationales. The Annual Special Distribution accounts for only $5.9 million of these "other" payments and is shared by Bulldogs ($1.7 million), Kangaroos ($1.4 million), Melbourne ($1 million), Sydney ($0.5 million), Hawthorn, Richmond and Port Adelaide ($0.25 million each) and $0.6 million paid to Telstra Dome home clubs.

In 2006 total distributions were as follows:

Adelaide $5,255,566

Brisbane $4,996,539

Carlton $7,029,949

Collingwood $6,423,481

Essendon $5,877,652

Fremantle $5,208,342

Geelong $5,532,798

Hawthorn $5,617,738

Kangaroos $7,296,115

Melbourne $6,551,687

Port $5,152,040

Richmond $6,191,835

St Kilda $6,227,868

Sydney $6,078,192

West Coast $5,529,968

W Bulldogs $7,589,140

hope you don't mind but i put these figures up on bigfooty.

should be an interesting discusion

cheers

[deanox 9,898]

"In the end, we're quite pleased to deliver a profit to our members"

But isn't in effect a $900,000 loss if you factor in the $1 million special assistance from the AFL?

I understood the "special assistance" allowance was paid, in part, to compensate inequities in the draw compared with the bigger clubs eg blockbusters, Friday nights, inequitable travelling interstate etc etc - just loook at the deals handed to Collingwood, essendon ( and unbelievably Carlton on the back running dead for the last 12 rounds) :angry:

for anyone who doesnt believe the differences in draw is enough to cater for the extra money, they should consider significant advantages other clubs have such as captive membership (interstate clubs and geelong), selling reserved seats (interstate clubs, and geelong, and collingwood), as well as the draw, and TV issues discussed above.

[Little Goffy 14,452]

They should remove the "special assistance" name then. It creates the impression that those who receive it are reliant on the AFL for funds. The average footy person does not know the real story and this results in comments made in the footy public, on the radio, in newspapers, etc. of how Melb, the Roos and the Dogs go cap in hand to the AFL.

I think it paints a picture of serious financial trouble and this is not going to wash well with potential sponsors. I know it's not the true story, but image is important, and the general footy person out there has the image that those three clubs are living off the AFL handouts.

Why does some part of me suspect there's a reason to hate Eddie Acquire here?

I'd lay a small bet that he 'strenuously objected' to the creation of this 'welfare' fund for 'financially underperforming' clubs. Branding the dispersment so negatively was probably a lollipop to make Eddie sit down for a few minutes while they got it done.

Based on what I've read, the special assistance payment is in effect a payment to smaller clubs so that the AFL (and the big clubs) can extract maximum possible revenue from the draw.

One friday night game. More than a dozen sunday afternoons. It's like selling home games interstate, except it affects our financial ladder position instead of our footy results.

But I suppose the AFL couldn't really call it the 'commerce is more important than football' fund, now, could they?

[QueenC 74]

Why does some part of me suspect there's a reason to hate Eddie Acquire here?

Becuase there is always a reason !!!

[Guest The Old Xaverian]

Based on these figures Collingwood gets the most "special assistance" from the AFL. The Pies are getting marginally less than us yet annually, they receive the best fixture of any Victorian club by a country mile, travel less interstate, have more MCG games (this year they had 8 in a row), plenty of Friday night games and special fixtures and they get an easier draw (estimated somewhere as a bonus 8 premiership points). This "special assistance" would probably be worth at least a couple of million every year if you could put a figure on it!

Incorrect.

Regardless of which club we play, more people watch/attend Collingwood games than any other club. That is why Collingwood get a "perceived" easier draw. You could stop giving Collingwood blockbuster games, the result would be the same, that is they would still lead the league in attendances.

I'd love to know how you calculated a bonus 8 premiership points, in the last 2 seasons we've won 7/9 interstate games, which is a higher % winning ratio than our MCG record. The AFL by not allocating extra interstate games is infact penalizing the best performed Victorian travelling side.

Without Collingwood's assistance you would be racking up more losses than you currently have.

[CARN THE DEES! 14]

Incorrect.

Regardless of which club we play, more people watch/attend Collingwood games than any other club. That is why Collingwood get a "perceived" easier draw. You could stop giving Collingwood blockbuster games, the result would be the same, that is they would still lead the league in attendances.

I'd love to know how you calculated a bonus 8 premiership points, in the last 2 seasons we've won 7/9 interstate games, which is a higher % winning ratio than our MCG record. The AFL by not allocating extra interstate games is infact penalizing the best performed Victorian travelling side.

Without Collingwood's assistance you would be racking up more losses than you currently have.

Yes but on the contary go die

[Whispering_Jack 29,782]

Incorrect.

Arrogant and stupid.

The last time I looked OX, your club had only won one premiership since 1958 so there's no need for the arrogance. The AFL organises the handouts and it also manufactures its own programme, not Eddie (well not officially anyway) which means we aren't getting any "assistance" at all from Collingwood. If you bothered to read the first post you'd also be aware that Melbourne isn't "racking up" losses as you allege either. Indeed, I think my figures are about right. Collingwood are claiming a profit in the millions, Melbourne about 100k so why does your team get almost as much monetary assistance from the AFL?

At least you make sense when you suggest that you could stop giving Collingwood blockbuster games and they would still lead the league in attendances. So let's stop giving them blockbuster games.

The easier draw is by no means "perceived". I've looked at your programme for next year and I'd gladly swap it with ours any day of the week, particularly from the point of view of its "easiness" but also in light of its capacity to draw sponsors an additional crowds. If you get the crowds anyway, you don't need the blockbuster games and the Friday night matches. But it's the programme that gives Collingwood such a charitable run. You could have kept Guy Richards as your first ruckman and had his grandmother roving to him and you probably would be a certainty to make the finals next year with what you've been given.

You mention interstate matches and I'll get to them in a moment but you forget other aspects of the programme. When was the last time you had to play Geelong at Skilled Stadium? You never play them there these days. In 2007, your only game v Geelong was an away game at the MCG! Given where you finished this year, you would expect to be playing at least one of last year's grand finalists twice. But no, you don't – you play Geelong and Port Adelaide once. How's that for easy?

You say "in the last 2 seasons we've won 7/9 interstate games" which is incorrect. This is your team's record in the last two years -

2006: the first six games were all played in Melbourne, and then you had these away games -

Round 7 - lost to WCE by 14 points

Round 12 - defeated Sydney by13 points

Round 18 - lost Adelaide by 4 points

Round 20 - defeated PA by 2 points

2007:

Round 2 - lost WCE by12 points

Round 6 - defeated Adelaide by 24 points

Round 9 - defeated Brisbane by 33 points

Round 12 - defeated Sydney by 19 points

Then you had nine games in Melbourne (eight in a row at the MCG) before your home final against Sydney and your ninth interstate game in 2 years in the semi final against WCE where you scraped home in extra time against a team that was decimated by injury and whose coach suffered brain fade and took off the wrong player at the wrong time. Guy Richards' grandmother would have starred in that game.

So contrary to what you say, your record interstate in home and away matches in the last 2 years is actually 5/8 but you seem to be blessed even on that score because 5/8 of those games interstate games have been the closer ones – i.e. that involve only the one hour flights to either Sydney or Adelaide. There's one 2 hour flight and, in the space of two seasons, only one five hour flight a year to Perth. This minimises the "week after factor" that afflicts many clubs the week after the flights across and back over the Nullarbor. And of course, you get the easy end of things in that regard again in 2008.

You know, I think you might be right. Looking at Collingwood's programme it's probably more of a 12 point free ride your club's getting from the programme. And if you're wondering why I call it a programme and not a fixture or a draw, it's because such things assume an element of fairness or at least randomness that would give the competition an element of integrity. There is no integrity in the AFL programme and at least Fonzie admits that – Collingwood's on a very good wicket not only for on field reasons but it gets an additional advantage of $2m a year in its assistance from the AFL on top of that easy programme.

[Guest The Old Xaverian]

Collingwood are claiming a profit in the millions, Melbourne about 100k so why does your team get almost as much monetary assistance from the AFL?

I think your definition of monetary assistances is a bit inaccurate.

AFL runs an equalization fund, it's made up of the revenue the AFL generates through merchandise sales, attendance revenue & the like. That is a fund that the individual clubs contribute towards.

It's no great surprise Collingwood in terms of revenue would contribute most to this fund, thus they get a bigger slice of the pie. It would be like a bonus scheme at work, the number 1 salesperson in terms of sales, would be entitled to a bigger bonus than his less performing collegue.

At least you make sense when you suggest that you could stop giving Collingwood blockbuster games and they would still lead the league in attendances. So let's stop giving them blockbuster games.

That's an AFL based decision. Lets face it, no other club in the AFL has more rivarlies than Collingwood, often the return games against Essendon & Carlton recently have penalized Collingwood as they could have drawn more against higher performing clubs, we would have drawn 90 K plus against Geelong if there was a return game.

Although it's strange clubs are complaining about it now, but not in the late 90's when Collingwood was a bottom club & Essendon & Carlton were premiership winners.

The easier draw is by no means "perceived". I've looked at your programme for next year and I'd gladly swap it with ours any day of the week, particularly from the point of view of its "easiness" but also in light of its capacity to draw sponsors an additional crowds

Have you got a crystal ball? No one can say a draw is easy until the season is actually in full swing. Regardless of last years finishing order, teams rise & teams fall.

The main reason it's perceived easy is we play 14 home games @ the MCG. Others don't realize we also play 4 games @ Telstra, a stadium where we struggle & didn't win a game in 07.

The reason why we play so many games at the MCG is clubs including yours request to play Collingwood at the ground. If you stopped requesting games against us here, we would gladly stop playing you there.

You mention interstate matches and I'll get to them in a moment but you forget other aspects of the programme. When was the last time you had to play Geelong at Skilled Stadium?

Geelong request to play Collingwood at the MCG and have told the AFL it's not in their best interests not to play us anywhere else. Brian Cook mentioned playing us at the MCG netted the club $400 K, those returns aren't possible at Skilled Stadium. Again this issue has nothing to do with Collingwood but other clubs requesting to play us at the MCG.

your ninth interstate game in 2 years in the semi final against WCE where you scraped home in extra time against a team that was decimated by injury and whose coach suffered brain fade and took off the wrong player at the wrong time. Guy Richards' grandmother would have starred in that game.

I think you're getting a tad carried away. Sure WCE had injuries but we were missing our 1st Ruck, our Vice Captain & our starting full back, only Geelong would have knocked them over on the night & they still had 17 premiership players on deck.

They also had a more experienced side than Collingwood & were playing on their homeground & I don't buy the fact we only won due to the injuries as since 04, we now have beaten WCE in 4 of the last 6 outings, games where Judd, Cousins & Kerr were on deck.

So contrary to what you say, your record interstate in home and away matches in the last 2 years is actually 5/8

It's actually 6/9 (I was 1 off), a winning ratio, which is superior to our winning ratio in Victoria.

[Yencks 8]

Old Xaverian....just admit it, your club is absolute filth and get laid out the red carpet from the AFL each year....have fun walking past us to get to your training oval in two years time!!!

Whispering Jack has laid out all of my points plus more so i wont bore you with arguments, but why dont you and your president have a cry when baileys men lead by Brock, drill you into the ground AGAIN this queens birthday weekend and we will see who is superior then

-watch this my friend..sorry, my FILTH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-27a7CD-Fc

[CARN THE DEES! 14]

Have you got a crystal ball? No one can say a draw is easy until the season is actually in full swing. Regardless of last years finishing order, teams rise & teams fall.

The main reason it's perceived easy is we play 14 home games @ the MCG. Others don't realize we also play 4 games @ Telstra, a stadium where we struggle & didn't win a game in 07.

Geez mate do you think at all!! Sorry your a collingwood fan i forgot.

Obvisously when Melbourne have played Adeliade at AAMI and Geelong at Skilled in the run into the finals is an obvisous advantage when compared to collingwood who have to play some fringe team at the G. A draw can bring an advantage towards teams and provide them a higer succes chance this is what is happening with the filth as you bring more fans you get easier games so you have a higher chance for more members and to make the finals so the AFL can draw more revenue from the attendents in the stands when you play.

You receive more games at the MCG than the team that is the MCG; Melbourne. The team that invented the game and founded the sport. If your interstate record is better than at the MCG then why not play less games there and more interstate according to your statistics then you will win more games.

Collingwood are pathetic. You think your the best team in the comp after Geelong but if that where the case then wouldn't you have smashed a team like Melbourne like Geelong and Port did? The fact is we beat you on Queens Birthday and you struggled to beat us later in the season when we had no bench and half our team shouldn't have been playing.

Are you still obsessing about that game in Perth? I watched that game and West Coast played shithouse and so did Collingwood i believe Melbourne would have beaten you on that game. You where without your ruckman and full back, West Coast didnt have there leaders in Judd Cousins and Kerr and had to reley on young players such as Priddis. Players such as Cox played their hearts out which is more than what collingwood players have done.

I look forward to beating Queens Birthday in our 150th year

[Guest The Old Xaverian]

Obvisously when Melbourne have played Adeliade at AAMI and Geelong at Skilled in the run into the finals is an obvisous advantage when compared to collingwood who have to play some fringe team at the G.

Collingwood play Fremantle at Subiaco in RD 22 & Port in Adelaide in RD 20. I'd hardly call this some fringe team at the MCG..

A draw can bring an advantage towards teams and provide them a higer succes chance this is what is happening with the filth as you bring more fans you get easier games so you have a higher chance for more members and to make the finals so the AFL can draw more revenue from the attendents in the stands when you play.

We've played & won more finals than any other club. Regardless of draws, finishing positions & the like, Collingwood draw more members & attendances than any club. People don't attend games because that club has an easy draw, they attend games because that club has a bigger supporter base than any club.

You receive more games at the MCG than the team that is the MCG; Melbourne.

You can blame the MCC for that, that is the club that is supposed to represent the MFC more than any other club.

The MCC in their wisdom signed a deal with the CFC many years ago in 98' giving the club minimum 13 games at the MCG.

The team that invented the game and founded the sport.

I'm pretty sure the MFC isn't Scotch College or Melbourne Grammar.

If your interstate record is better than at the MCG then why not play less games there and more interstate according to your statistics then you will win more games.

If we had choice we would, the reason we play so many games at the MCG is because of 1) the MCC & 2) clubs such as Melbourne, Geelong, Hawthorn, Kangaroos, every other Victorian club request to play Collingwood at the MCG. If you stopped the requests, we would play less games at the MCG...

I believe Melbourne would have beaten you on that game.

But you wouldn't have beaten WCE in Subiaco & that is all that matters. We played & won finals this YR & at the same time introduced more 1st YR players than Melbourne.

Good day.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Good day.

Yes. Good day. And try not to bring your brand of excuse making back...

Simple fact - Your draw is easier. Has been for some time. This is one of those situations where you don't need to "explain" it to other people. You just wasted 10 minutes writing stuff we all already know that hasn't become any more relevant since you wrote it here.

Why is it that when people say something simple like "the draw is unfair" one of Eddie's little trogolodytes crops up and says "well, no-one comes to the games. We have more members so we should be able to play in Melbourne more."

What they're saying is "we want more money so we can get EVEN stronger. And we're willing to sacrifice, bit by bit, the integrity of football in general to suit our club's needs."

What the game needs is someone more powerful than Eddie to bring it back to being a sport, not a business.

There are times I envy the Irish and their logic.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Without Collingwood's assistance you would be racking up more losses than you currently have.

You are a tool. And most of your comrades are as well...

50 years ago we were the greatest and most powerful club in Australia. It was so agreed on, and understood by all that everyone who went to the footy simply assumed we'd end up winning the flag "because they win it every year." We had more of everything, just like you...

Within 20 years of our last flag we were a basket-case of a club. We had a great history, but had somehow become weak. Let's wait a few decades, with the national competition thriving, and Eddie's influence waining with the public wising up to his [censored]... Collingwood may do what we did. It doesn't take that long. If that happened, I would be all for keeping the Pies around. They are a foundation club, and we have a rich history...

And in the end, you massive, massive jerk...

That is what makes MFC supporters, and the vast majority of supporters of other clubs BETTER THAN YOU.

And your mob of uneducated, toothless nuff nuffs. You see, we did what was right for the game when we were strong. You, and your knobhead of a president do what's right for your club, and Australian Rules Football is weaker for it.

Now.

Without Melbourne, Collingwood would play one, maybe two, less games a year, and miss out on the revenue of 25,000+ members and even more supporters who wouldn't want to watch anything but the red & blue run around. And as long as we're at it, why not say without Hawthorn, St. Kilda, Kangaroos etc. etc.

Yeah. While you're at it, why not relieve Victoria of its 6 least powerful clubs. What would happen then? Just a few hundred thousand supporters giving the game away?

We get your support because we have EARNED your support. We are 1/16th of AFL Football. We take up a place in the fixture and allow players and fans more room to enjoy the game.

I can't wait for the day the dazzling intellect of Collingwood supporters matures enough for them to realise that just because they have a lot of supporters DOESN'T MEAN they can change the draw to suit their own ends... but experience suggests that it will never happen. You're living proof.

Go back to Bigfooty.

[Guest The Old Xaverian]

50 years ago we were the greatest and most powerful club in Australia.

That's extremely debatable. 50 years ago Collingwood led the premiership table & was the most successful VFL club.

Collingwood may do what we did.

Even more debatable. Collingwood have always had the most support of any club & this basically ensures their future. The Collingwood brand has always been the most recognizable in the competion, Melbourne has never had such support, that is why they are a basketcase.

You, and your knobhead of a president do what's right for your club, and Australian Rules Football is weaker for it.

The AFL wouldn't agree with this statement, when Collingwood is up & about, the AFL is thriving.

Attendances on the back of a strong Collingwood generate record revenue for the code, more people watch the game on TV, etc, etc. A non performing Collingwood would actually mean less coin in the equalization fund, which is distributed to clubs who are at the mercy of the AFL such as Melbourne.

If my President wasn't doing what is right for Collingwood then he would be failing in his job, his description is to make Collingwood stronger, not anyone else.

Without Melbourne, Collingwood would play one, maybe two, less games a year, and miss out on the revenue of 25,000+ members and even more supporters who wouldn't want to watch anything but the red & blue run around.

I think you're overrating Melbourne's importance. Without playing Melbourne we could easily generate equal/more revenue as there are a queue of clubs the AFL wide that want a slice of Collingwood.

Unlike Melbourne, we've embraced the national code. Sydney are a big rival who we can draw 70 K in Sydney on a regular basis & the same in Victoria, Port Adelaide are another rival, ditto for Brisbane, clubs we've played finals & grand finals against, more relevant rivals than Melbourne who were merely a distraction in the 50's & early 60's.

The moral in the story is that if you attend your club's games, year in year out & buy a membership each year over a substantial base of your clubs supporter base, you will become a more powerful club.

[Demonland 71,594]

The MCC in their wisdom signed a deal with the CFC many years ago in 98' giving the club minimum 13 games at the MCG.

Are you seriously suggesting that the MCC dictates to the AFL which clubs play their games at the MCG?

[Whispering_Jack 29,782]

Have you got a crystal ball? No one can say a draw is easy until the season is actually in full swing. Regardless of last years finishing order, teams rise & teams fall.

You really can't have it both ways OX. In the first instance you argue that because your team's interstate record in the past 2 years has been better than it's overall record the low numbers of interstate games in its programme disadvantages you. Now you come up with the above argument. So perhaps the interstate teams are going to provide tougher opposition in 2008 than the weakened and injury ravaged Adelaide and Brisbane teams you played in Rounds 6 and 9. Of course you play loose with your statistics as well. It is only 5 out of 8 home and away games and 2007 is the first and only time in many years that you've won a plurality of games interstate. If you are going to rely on statistics then get them right and apply them correctly. To use a sample of one season is a misapplication of statistical data and that's what makes your argument about as real as most of your supporters' teeth!

Geelong request to play Collingwood at the MCG and have told the AFL it's not in their best interests not to play us anywhere else. Brian Cook mentioned playing us at the MCG netted the club $400 K, those returns aren't possible at Skilled Stadium. Again this issue has nothing to do with Collingwood but other clubs requesting to play us at the MCG.

The issue is about the fairness of the programme. Whether or not the clubs ask for it is irrelevant. My point is that given the AFL maintains its all about equalising the teams with a draft and a salary cap then it should come up with a fixture that gives the competition integrity. It doesn't because it's all about $ and it herefore deliberately favours the stronger clubs (and that applies to the requests they make in respect of the programme as well). In the end you find clubs like the Kangaroos, who developed the concept of Friday night footy in the first place missing out and eventually they can't even stand up on their own two feet.

If you think your programme for 2008 isn't soft then why don't you write to Eddie asking him to organise a direct swap with our fixture and wait for the laughter?

[diesel 420]

Unlike Melbourne, we've embraced the national code.

Garbage, MFC has embraced the national code to the extent of selling games interstate. Collingwood have "appeared" to by creating a circus and gimmickery around their infrequent intertsate trips (e.g. low altitude return from WA)

The moral in the story is that if you attend your club's games, year in year out & buy a membership each year over a substantial base of your clubs supporter base, you will become a more powerful club.

This may be so but every club has roughly the same percentage of supporters who are members, every club churns the same percentage of members year in, year out. Every club has a percentage of supporters who go into hiding when things go bad. Collingwoods base has always been bigger and therefore these numbers will always look good for Collingwood compared to Melbourne, et al.

Morals aside the fact is Collingwood are the golden haired, spoon fed child of the AFL and we must become used to competing with one hand tied behind our backs for the time being.

[Guest The Old Xaverian]

So perhaps the interstate teams are going to provide tougher opposition in 2008 than the weakened and injury ravaged Adelaide and Brisbane teams you played in Rounds 6 and 9.

We have one of the best records at AAMI Stadium in the AFL, we've won finals over there (only 1 other club has) & generally win a game over there every year.

is the first and only time in many years that you've won a plurality of games interstate.

Again, incorrect.

In 1992 we became the 1st club to defeat Brisbane, West Coast (Subiaco), Sydney & Adelaide interstate in the same year.

In 2001 we defeated Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Fremantle (Subiaco) & Kangaroos (Canberra) interstate in the same year.

In 02 & 03 we won a minium of 2 games interstate each season.

If you are going to rely on statistics then get them right and apply them correctly.

Read above..

Whether or not the clubs ask for it is irrelevant.

It's totally relevant. The AFL Fixture is made up of requests by the individual clubs, there is no way in hell Geelong will ever sign off on playing Collingwood at Skilled Stadium.

My point is that given the AFL maintains its all about equalising the teams with a draft and a salary cap then it should come up with a fixture that gives the competition integrity.

Until there is a 30 RD season, the fixture is always going to be perceived as uneven.

[Guest The Old Xaverian]

Garbage, MFC has embraced the national code to the extent of selling games interstate. Collingwood have "appeared" to by creating a circus and gimmickery around their infrequent intertsate trips (e.g. low altitude return from WA)

Selling games & making that interstate opponent stronger isn't embracing the national code.

Having an annual game in Sydney that has attracted 64 K in 07, 60 K in 06, 45 K in 05, 50 K in 04 & 72 K in 03, having a bone fide rivarily with Brisbane that seen muiltple Grand Final & Finals battles, developing another bitter rival with Port Adelaide, which has seen finals wins at AAMI Stadium & in Prelim Finals & having finals battles here and in Western Australia against the Eagles is.

[deefuture06 0]

I'm afraid that this a case of sour grapes on our behalf. Collingwood has been at the forefront of marketing and using the media since Eddie became the pres there. Who would nt want someone of eddie passion and influence at Melbourne. I question your statement about melbourne being irrevelent in the 50's and 60's (we won at least 6 flags during that period). I do agree with u about the position that collingwood has put ITSELF it. I have to applaud them for that. Of course the AFL is a business, just look at Collingwood v the Kangaroos. I Know which way I'd like us to go. The supporters need to go to the games and we need to become relevent again. The new broom of pre season 2008 may yet do this, but it is entirely up to the supporters who are not financial members of our club.

[Sydney Pennski 294]

Irrespective, Collingwood is blessed with an easy draw year in, year out. As much as you want to crow about your interstate record (an on your own evidence, you've won a majority of interstate games twice in 15 years), the fact is that you have the best of all worlds and despite that your record hasn't been all that impressive for a club that has such an easy run.

[biggestred 5,015]

the point is that it doesnt matter if you win or lose interstate, its the fact that you actually have to go less - i have this arguement with a bloke from work once a week.

he even agrees the draw isnt fair but says since they have more fans they should get more games. i say, go [censored] yourself, if it was fair we might have more fans.

30 games a season doesnt work either, but i think there needs to be some system in place that assures vic teams of playing equal number of games interstate over at least a couple of years. even if it was 15 games interstate per 3 years, that would be fair, not incl the sold ones. thats 5 a year - a fair number for any team. just a suggestion.

then teams like collingwood wouldnt play less games interstate in 2 years than the kangaroos do in one. and then everyone wonders why the roos dont have any supporters- because the members get less value for money and less chance to see their team play, and im not talking about the hardcore that sign up every year either, im talkin about the the 5000odd who sign up if they think they will do well, or will get to 10 games or whatever.

the afl needs to make the draw fair in relation to travel before anyone can go critizing teams for being poor or [censored] - make the draw fair then see what happens. i bet if the roos had the pies draw they would have 5000 more members and wouldnt be under pressure to move to the gold coast!!!

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

That's extremely debatable. 50 years ago Collingwood led the premiership table & was the most successful VFL club.

Wow. Rubbish. Ask anyone who was around in the mid-late 50s. MFC won 5 out of 6. We were regarded by the vast majority as the biggest and the best because we WERE the biggest and the best. CFC were strong too, but we were the strongest. As usual the knuckle-dragging Collingwood fan quotes irrelevant statistic after irrelevant statistic while missing the point completely. We had the bigger membership base, more money and facilities etc etc... If you're going to bother coming on here, answer peoples posts instead of derailing them... Debatable? No. Unless you're a Collingwood fan.

Even more debatable. Collingwood have always had the most support of any club & this basically ensures their future.

Over the journey, yes. But as with everything in footy, things change. A large supporter base has always been a guarantee, but what's to say Collingwood won't lose their in the way MFC did? Or do I have to repeat myself again?

The Collingwood brand has always been the most recognizable in the competion, Melbourne has never had such support, that is why they are a basketcase.

Incorrect... and Rubbish. Collingwood has for the majority of the history of footy had the most recognisable brand. But what about before CFC existed? Certainly in our lifetimes (assuming you're not, like, 90) your point is valid... but then you wouldn't care about whether or not MY point was taking into account the 100 year history of footy would you?

The AFL wouldn't agree with this statement, when Collingwood is up & about, the AFL is thriving.

WHAT?!!! The AFL is up and thriving when ANY club is up and about. Collingwood had a good year this year and the difference wasn't that stark! I would say when ANY of the interstate teams are in purple patches (Brisbane, Sydney, WC and Freo) the AFL is immesurably stronger as they gain support where there was little before, and can help win the war against the other codes. Jeez you're full of it.

Attendances on the back of a strong Collingwood generate record revenue for the code, more people watch the game on TV, etc, etc. A non performing Collingwood would actually mean less coin in the equalization fund, which is distributed to clubs who are at the mercy of the AFL such as Melbourne.

You keep telling yourself that. Collingwood has a few more members than everyone else, and these members watch their games REGARDLESS of how well CFC go. A non performing Collingwood, like the one that last won a flag in '90, the one that hasn't been able to win a flag for one of their greatest ever players DESPITE their dominance financially... has gone from strength to strength regardless of what kind of on-field problems they've had. your point is wrong.

If my President wasn't doing what is right for Collingwood then he would be failing in his job, his description is to make Collingwood stronger, not anyone else.

Yeah. No [censored]. The point is that he DOESN'T DO ENOUGH for Collingwood, it's the fact that he GOES TOO FAR.... but once again, we make a point and it is disregarded... Before you whinge and moan, look at it like this. He's free to jostle for position all he likes, that's the nature of any competition. What we're objecting to is that the fairness of the competition is being tampered with.

I think you're overrating Melbourne's importance. Without playing Melbourne we could easily generate equal/more revenue as there are a queue of clubs the AFL wide that want a slice of Collingwood.

My god. You're unbelievable. READ what I've written, don't come up with your own ideas of what I meant... If Melbourne suddenly vanished, the AFL would lose the vast majority of its supporters, including me. If we moved interstate the damage wouldn't be as severe, but there would still be thousands of desperately needed fans that would be lost to Australian Rules Football. If we went out, the comp would go down to 15 teams, but there'd still be 22 rounds. There'd be a bye and Collingwood would still get their unfair draw. The point... ONCE AGAIN... is that the philosophy is inherently dangerous for the game. You're claiming that if another team were dissolved or moved that it wouldn't hurt Collingwood. In the short term, you wouldn't see less money, that's for certain. But as usual you have no regard for the AFL or the game itself. You keep this up YOU WON'T HAVE ANYONE TO COMPETE AGAINST!!!!! And that's to say nothing of the rich history you share with our club, but I don't expect you to respond on that front because it doesn't serve your inane arguement.

Unlike Melbourne, we've embraced the national code.

Unlike Melbourne?! Jesus. Do you know what you're talking about? Others have answered this. your credibility here is getting stronger every sentence.

more relevant rivals than Melbourne who were merely a distraction in the 50's & early 60's.

You mean the distractions that cracked 5 flags in 6 years? You need to do your homework you schmuck. We are weak now, but then so were all of the teams you mentioned at one point or another.

The moral in the story is that if you attend your club's games, year in year out & buy a membership each year over a substantial base of your clubs supporter base, you will become a more powerful club.

That is true, but you're preaching to the converted. We, more than you, know what memberships mean to a club. NO-ONE'S SAYING you're not powerful. Were saying you're misusing the power. Or at least Eddie is, since the buck stops with him.

Once more, I'll remind you and hope your staggering intellect can grasp what the intelligent people are trying to impress upon you. Once upon a time there was a club that was EVEN MORE POWERFUL THAN YOURS. They came out of the woodwork with a coach and a number of players that redifined parts of the game, played hard, real footy and walked away with a dominance of an era that even Collingwood couldn't boast. In this club's arrogance they became lazy, made a few decisions that tore at the fabric of the club, and before you could bat an eyelid, they had lost all their strength. At the time they were hated by everyone because they had all the money and class, and every other club took joy in their pain. This club was MFC. Your club is CERTAINLY the most hated in football. Even moreso than Essendon and the Blues.

Now. For the last time, try to look at what people are saying to you. You are arguing points that we agree with. NO-ONE CARES how powerful you are. We were powerful once, and we certainly don't think temporary power and success amounts to anything. And anyway, for all your power you've won exactly one flag in the last few decades, so it's no skin off our noses anyway. What we, and the rest of the comp want, is for you to be subjected to the same mandatory limitations as everyone else. NO consideration for money, or attendances, or anything else should come into play. It's a lovely luxury the AFL has to be able to shuffle Vistorian games so that we get the most people we can, but they're shuffling OUTSIDE of Victoria, and pushing clubs who's home games should be played at the 'G OUT of the 'G. Why? Money alone. The rich get richer. And that's ok, but NOT at the expence of the weaker clubs and NOT at the expense of the fairness of the competition.

Answer me this simply. WHY is it logical that just because you have the most fans you should be able to shift the draw to suit your own financial needs? When did this become a directive of a fair competition? No-one's questioning the value TO COLLINGWOOD of this kind of arrangement, and it's certainly a healthy short term situation to cram as many fans into the grounds as we can, but why at the expense of the draw? The answer is pretty simple. The AFL is more concerned with attendances and money than an even comp and draw.

I'm afraid that this a case of sour grapes on our behalf.

Of course it is. Isn't that sort of the point? We're sick of being shortchanged. What's wrong with that?

Collingwood has been at the forefront of marketing and using the media since Eddie became the pres there. Who would nt want someone of eddie passion and influence at Melbourne.

Absolutely. I'd LOVE to have someone with Eddie's business nous at the helm of the club (though PG aint half bad). He's great for Collingwood, and a lot of the time great for footy, but only when it suits Collingwood, and sometimes he goes too far. He believes his team should not be subjected to the same rules as everyone else. Has done for a while now. In short I want a leader at my club that wants it as much as he does, but not at the detriment of ethics and morals like he does.

I do agree with u about the position that collingwood has put ITSELF it. I have to applaud them for that.

Wholeheartedly agree. Unlike this jerk, I never offered a hypothetical, and WOULD never offer a hypothetical of what the game would be like without Collingwood. I love footy, and Collingwood are 1/16th of the greatest comp in the world. Long may they be a part of it.