Don't demonise us

[Demon15 0]

But as with everything in footy, things change. A large supporter base has always been a guarantee,

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.

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.

Absolutely. I'd LOVE to have someone with Eddie's business nous at the helm of the club (though PG aint half bad).

Well argued DD.

Old Xav. seems to conveniently forget/omit two points.

1. If all the CFC mythology was correct, how did THEY become insolvent in the early 80's through the efforts of the 'New Magpies", and indeed, if being so well organised, why did the new magpies even come into existence. Its all cyclical, (see Carlton FC)

2. Eddies unfortunate performance in running Channel 9 into the ground to the extent that they have lost the annual ratings competition this year for the first time in nigh on 30 years, and with the major owner selling out, speaks volumes for his 'buisness nous' .... not!.

I too prefer PG from that angle, but recognise eddies amazing spruiking abilities.

[Guest The Old Xaverian]

Wow. Rubbish. Ask anyone who was around in the mid-late 50s.

You were?

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.

Debatable.

Collingwood's supporter base was the biggest in the VFL, a supporter base, which had been on the back of the success in the 20's & 30's when they became the only club to win 4 flags in a row.

In the 50's Collingwood still won 2 premierships.

As usual the knuckle-dragging Collingwood fan quotes irrelevant statistic after irrelevant statistic while missing the point completely.

Yes, you said Melbourne was the greatest club. Surely a useless & irrelevant indicator such as premierships won should not be used...

We had the bigger membership base, more money and facilities etc etc...

No, only the MCC had a bigger membership base, which has been a fundamental problem for the MFC. In the 50's the CFC became the 1st and only club until the late 60's to have a licensed Social Club as licenses were impossible to get in these times. The money it generated was far and above any other VFL's club revenue streams.

but what's to say Collingwood won't lose their in the way MFC did?

Collingwood have already lost it's way, in the late 90's we had our worst ever era in the clubs history, not making the finals for 7 years. Unlike Melbourne the club rebounded, at heart though was a supporter base that stuck through the lean times.

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!

Wasn't stark? Yes, record attendances & television ratings (of which Collingwood participated in 8 / 10 of the most watched games) on back of Collingwood breaking the record isn't stark..

Yeah. No [censored]. The point is that he DOESN'T DO ENOUGH for Collingwood, it's the fact that he GOES TOO FAR

I think your point was he does nothing for the AFL, which I'm sure the Bulldogs would disagree with as he organized sponsorship for when they were struggling (there have been other clubs).

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.

You've contradicted yourself here. At 1 level you criticise McGuire for doing what is best for the CFC, not the AFL and as you say it, the fairness of the competition being tampered with.

So Brisbane having an extra salary allowance despite winning 3 flags in a row is not as you say it, the fairness of the competiton being tampered with?

but there would still be thousands of desperately needed fans that would be lost to Australian Rules Football.

If they were that desperately needed they would actually attend games & support Melbourne, trouble is they don't. No great loss as they barely attend games as it is..

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.

The simple fact without complicating things & sprouting about philosophies is there are too many clubs in Melbourne. The Bulldogs, Kangaroos & Melbourne aren't sustainable long term options for the AFL as they rely on financial assistance from the AFL.

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!!!!!

Only Melbourne, Bulldogs & Kangaroos aren't sustainable long term options for the AFL.

[rumpole 515]

You were?

Debatable.

Collingwood's supporter base was the biggest in the VFL, a supporter base, which had been on the back of the success in the 20's & 30's when they became the only club to win 4 flags in a row.

In the 50's Collingwood still won 2 premierships.

Debatable but only if you consider that Collingwood's 2 premierships in the 1950's were worth > Melbourne's 4 premierships in the 1950's which I doubt very much.

I would take four flags ahead of two any day but your comment on this point says a lot about the standard of your debating which is becoming as insufferable as some of your fellow supporters at games.

Could one of the moderators please put an end to this stupidity?

[Nasher 33,616]

Could one of the moderators please put an end to this stupidity?

*shrug*

If people want to feed the trolls, that's their perogative. Unfortunately being a dimwit isn't a thread-closeable offence.

[Deeatribe 0]

This stuff about the Ferals and the like being passionate and Melbourne supporters being effete snow loving theatregoers is one of footy's great myths.

In March 2007 Collingwood had 688,000 supporters nationally (source: Roy Morgan). For season 2006 they had 38,038 paid up members(source: AFL), a conversion of supporters to members of 5.5%.

Melbourne had 228,000 supporters and 24,689 members, a conversion of 10.8%. A further 16,000 known Melbourne supporters are paid up members of the MCC but not the MFC. If you include these in Melbourne's membership numbers then the conversion is 17.8%.

The facts are that Melbourne supporters are 2-3 times more likely to support their Club by taking out a membership or attending games than Collingwood supporters.

I suppose it's hard to get along when public transport from Wron Wron and Barwon Prisons is so ordinary.

[Guest The Old Xaverian]

A further 16,000 known Melbourne supporters are paid up members of the MCC but not the MFC. If you include these in Melbourne's membership numbers then the conversion is 17.8%.

.

And 11% of the MCC are made up of Collingwood supporters. Works both ways.

Roy Morgan polls aren't accurate, same pollstar indicated the ALP based on sampling would win the last election in a landslide. A large majority of Melbourne supporters live in Kew, Camberwell, Armadale & Malvern, on a winters weekend they are more likely to be located at Mt Buller, Portsea or taking in a VAFA game than being in the MCC.

[Little Goffy 14,542]

This stuff about the Ferals and the like being passionate and Melbourne supporters being effete snow loving theatregoers is one of footy's great myths.

In March 2007 Collingwood had 688,000 supporters nationally (source: Roy Morgan). For season 2006 they had 38,038 paid up members(source: AFL), a conversion of supporters to members of 5.5%.

Melbourne had 228,000 supporters and 24,689 members, a conversion of 10.8%. A further 16,000 known Melbourne supporters are paid up members of the MCC but not the MFC. If you include these in Melbourne's membership numbers then the conversion is 17.8%.

The facts are that Melbourne supporters are 2-3 times more likely to support their Club by taking out a membership or attending games than Collingwood supporters.

That's a golden post right there.

If there's one thing I'm sick of in football, it's people who say 'yes, I follow AFL, I'm a Collingwood supporter' but have never been to a frickin game.

That, and the absurdly imbalanced broadcast arrangements for Victorian Clubs.

Here's a table I threw together based on the fixture, this should be enough to silence anything but pathetic excuses from Collingwood fans.

Club Free 2 Air Fri Ngt Sat Ngt Sunday

Collingwood 19 7 4 (11) 3

Geelong 18 6 4 (10) 4

St Kilda 16 5 8 (13) 7

Essendon 15 5 4 (9) 7

Carlton 14 2 6 (8) 8

Hawthorn 12 3 6 (9) 7

Kangaroos 10 2 7 (9) 7

Bulldogs 10 3 3 (6) 11

Richmond 11 0 4 (4) 11

Melbourne 10 1 0 (1) 15

Average 13.5 3.4 4.6 (8) 8

* Note: all interstate clubs have ALL games broadcast free to air in their home state.

If Collingwood only had double our exposure, I'd accept it's a matter of business.

But the limits placed on some clubs so that others can load up on media are worthy of Dick Pratt. It's anti-competitive practices santioned by the AFL in order to create revenue for themsleves. If this is a matter of business, then it should be taken to the ACCC.

In internatinoal development, there is a perpetual debate about the merits of 'picking winners' when trying to promote industry in developing countries.

Those in favour argue that by choosing an existing company in the, say, electrical supply industry, and then pumping capital assitance and technology into that company, you quickly get a massive, cost-efficient boost to infrastructure and capacity.

Those against this policy tend to be able to envisage the future, beyond a five-year plan, and argue that doing this will result in a monopolistic environment where a single company controls all energy supply and sets prices to suit themselves, resulting in gross price exploitation and a total failure to delvier services to much of the population and economy, who then need to be perpetually subsidized.

Guess which one the AFL is pursuing. Envisage, beyond a few years, what it would do to the AFL competition in Melbourne.

I think, over the next few years, a campaign will be needed to replace the 'competitive balance fund' with a 'competitive balance policy', as the existing way of doing business will ultimately result in the less promoted clubs requiring more and more assitance to compete with the 'picked winners'.

Anyway, does the AFL really have the right to choose which clubs are commercially advantaged, based on how best it can line it's own pockets?

[old55 23,571]

The fact is that Collingwood are supported by the AFL with a soft fixture with huge commercial upside and have massive resources at their disposal and are still unable to win the flag

[Deeatribe 0]

Morgan has been doing this survey for years with remarkably consistent results year on year. Exactly why should we reject them as "inaccurate" just because they expose your argument as a crock?

If you believe that the MCC is 11% Collingwood (who let them in?) then I'll redo the numbers:

CFC = 38038 members plus (11% of 80000 = 8800 of whom 20% are paid up CFC members and 80% are not =7040) = 45078 who are either CFC or MCC members = conversion of supporters to members of 6.6% compared with Melbourne's equivalent 17.8%.

Pathetic.

[Yencks 8]

and if i was good at maths i would be complementing deeatribe's hard work

[diesel 420]

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

Not really our choice but we know who is driving up the cost of being competitive in this era and have been left with no choice. For your info the Brisbane deal is over. We are "promoting" the game by playing in Canberra at the mo. Can we ever imagine Collingwood doing such a noble thing in the interests of promoting the game. No Chance!!

Besides the MCG wouldn't be available for extra Melbourne home games. Get the F*** off our ground, move back to your spiritual [censored] hole and that problem will be solved

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.

Having a big crowd does not equate to promoting the game. In fact the Sydney game as one off split round game was/is yet another example of how the AFL has become the hand maiden of Eddie McGuire and Collingwood.

[demonfanjezza 1]

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

The only reason why you get big crowds in sydney is because sydney are 'winning' at the momnet, you watch if sydney start losing and going poorly the crowd will be a lot smaller

[Guest The Old Xaverian]

Not really our choice but we know who is driving up the cost of being competitive in this era and have been left with no choice.

No choice? Last 2 times we've played Brisbane in Melbourne we've attracted 45 K & 54 K. Last time you played them here you attracted 26 K, your club & it's management have basically conceded they won't attract decent numbers in Victoria. You had a choice but your club hasn't shown support to justify a game in Melbourne.

Can we ever imagine Collingwood doing such a noble thing in the interests of promoting the game. No Chance!!

Whenever we play Sydney in Sydney we conduct marketing activities, we play an annual preseason game to add to the rivarily & we have clinics in Western Sydney. For 2 years prior to 07, we had our regional training in the same location.

Besides the MCG wouldn't be available for extra Melbourne home games. Get the F*** off our ground

This is the 1 line I love from Melbourne supporters. The MCG isn't your ground, if it was, the MCC (a club, which is supposed to represent the MFC more than other) would have signed a ground deal with the MFC gave more benefits than any other tennet.

The MCC in it's wisdom set up such a deal with the CFC that makes it the most looked after tennet. We have our own dedicated rooms there & we play 13 to 14 games per season there, we also got to train on it every week in the finals & whenever we requested during the season. I personally love it, means I can get full use of my MCC Membership, 14 games & some more finals matches.

Having a big crowd does not equate to promoting the game. In fact the Sydney game as one off split round game was/is yet another example of how the AFL has become the hand maiden of Eddie McGuire and Collingwood.

The Sydney/Collingwood game has been the best promoted game of any interstate game. It is a big occasion game, as far as importance goes, it is one of the biggest H&A games in the AFL.

Having a big crowd between 2 ridgy didge rivals is promoting the game as it's bringing the game to more people that normally wouldn't go to an AFL game.

[old55 23,571]

The MCC in it's wisdom set up such a deal with the CFC that makes it the most looked after tennet. We have our own dedicated rooms there & we play 13 to 14 games per season there, we also got to train on it every week in the finals & whenever we requested during the season. I personally love it, means I can get full use of my MCC Membership, 14 games & some more finals matches.

Yes but surely the question is with all those games on the MCG in front of big crowds, all those games where the GF is played, all that money spent on the Lexus Centre and high altitude rooms etc, the trips to the Grand Canyon, your 35 and growing coaching staff, the massive recruiting structure including stealing the best of the Irish, a fixture that provides huge exposure for your sponsors and therefore a never ending money pit and gives you year in year out the softest draw in the AFL bar none. How come you still cannot generate any on field success?

I can understand why my club with meagre resources and a draw heavily biased against it struggles to win the flag. What's your excuse?

Quite frankly all those benefits and resources are wasted on your perennial loser of a club and the AFL should do something about it.

Collingwood = ugly spoiled rich kid who is not much good at anything.

[Guest The Old Xaverian]

Yes but surely the question is with all those games on the MCG in front of big crowds, all those games where the GF is played, all that money spent on the Lexus Centre and high altitude rooms etc, the trips to the Grand Canyon, your 35 and growing coaching staff, the massive recruiting structure including stealing the best of the Irish, a fixture that provides huge exposure for your sponsors and therefore a never ending money pit and gives you year in year out the softest draw in the AFL bar none. How come you still cannot generate any on field success?

3 Prelims since 02' is decent.

We've only started going to Arizona since 06, ditto for the altitude rooms, ditto for pumping more $ into our recruiting & coaching networks.

Still much a very work in progress as Cloke (20), Goldsack (19), Thomas (19), Pendlebury (19), Clarke (19), Shaw (21) represent our core group & have only been introduced to the club since 05'. If 14 wins in 06 & 15 (including 2 finals) in 07 on the back of blooding more youngsters than any other club in the AFL isn't success than you must be watching too much of that 64' premiership in DVD color...

[old55 23,571]

If 14 wins in 06 & 15 (including 2 finals) in 07 on the back of blooding more youngsters than any other club in the AFL isn't success ...

No it isn't success. Glad to hear you're satisfied with those results from your ample resources - I wouldn't be.

How long have Eddie and Mick been in charge now?

BTW did the Crow player in your sig successfully disarm Didak or did he get the shot away?

[biggestred 5,086]

The MCC in it's wisdom set up such a deal with the CFC that makes it the most looked after tennet. We have our own dedicated rooms there & we play 13 to 14 games per season there, we also got to train on it every week in the finals & whenever we requested during the season. I personally love it, means I can get full use of my MCC Membership, 14 games & some more finals matches.

this is great.

because melbourne dont have their own rooms at the mcg, never have.

because your deal with the MCC gets you 13 or 14 games there and not the AFL draw - which the mcc has next to no power over except that they have a minimum number of games requirement, which i think is 60 or 70 odd.

funny about that. melbourne get to train on the mcg every week too. during the season.

are you a collingwood member as well as MCC?

i am an mcc member and a fully paid up melbourne member (got my gold card yesterday)- and this is different from being a mcc member and an associate melbourne member.

[Tim 3,418]

"The Old Xaverian"?

What a sad case. Fancy admitting to it in the first place.

Someone who has to hark back to "school" for identity - at least could have selected one that's not embarassing.

Having to define himself by proximity to what he (very mistakenly) thinks are leading brands.

Comes on to fan sites of other clubs, apparently in order to define his own pre-eminence in terms of slagging others.

Good luck in your quest to find a life. By the way, the avatar says it all - adoration of a tool.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The chap masquerading as a supporter of the working class club and spouting his old school tie has really made some pretentious claims about success.

Full marks to Eddie and his dynamism for the way he has rejuvenated a traditionally strong football brand with a now solid and active supporter base. The Lexus centre is a winner and his spruiking of sponsors and the interests of Collingwood has been admirable.

But for all that money, strong supporter base, great facilities, rich sponsors and strongly favoured draw their lack of on field success has been a shambles and embarrassing. Their football list with the exception of 3 or 4 youngsters is underwhelm with most of their best players in the twlilight of their careers without ready recruiiting. This list bears the scars of 4 to 5 years of truly pathetic recruiting under Judkins and Malthouse and Eddie must share the blame for it.

For Club that has "everything" they have little to show for it and that may be Eddie's ultimate epitaph.