Red and Blue realist

Not as simple as just dumping the funds into the bank and getting a 3% return if we're lucky, it'll be about what they use those funds to invest/build so that we either replace the lost revenue or alternatively be able to reduce down costs overall - for instance removing some/all of the leasing we are currently paying (which was around $1.8m last year - but the financial report doesn't break down what that covers).

The more I think about this, the more it seems like a pure business decision. The Age article has been updated to show we sold out of Leighaok for $11 million, noting that we've still got Bentleigh for 3 years then have that asset to deal with (which you'd expect a better return). While having a 'feel good' element about the deal, there's every chance that due to the continual changing nature of the gaming industry and the increase in costs associated, it was just the best time to get out. Generate a return on the sale of the assets, and then use them to invest into other income generating assets (although they haven't said what they are). If those funds are used to help fund a new admin/training facility which might also be used in a commercial sense and we stop having to pay rent for our existing spaces, then this could be the most important move this administration has made.

The article really only mentioned that the funds from the sale of Leighoak will be invested in other areas - there's actually no cash coming in from not renewing the entitlement on the Bentleigh pokies in 2022. From what I understand most/all the debt we have relates to the purchase of the Bentleigh club outright, so they must be comfortable to hold that until they deal with what they do with that venue/land once the pokies cease to operate. I can't see the club holding onto a social club on such a big land holding, so they might look at either selling or a development project at that stage, which should cover the debt and more. I to think there might have been a bit of "assistance" offered by the AFL and Govt's that if we get out of pokies they'll help with home base model.

Really depends on what they could use those funds on? They seem to have a plan in place to replace that revenue, because they've said it won't be to repay debt.

Some more info in the Age article, gaming only makes up 10% of overall revenue, also Jackson said we wouldn't be repaying debt from the sale, as they expect the $5 million debt to naturally be repaid in the next 3-4 years. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/demons-announce-gaming-industry-exit-20180404-p4z7p7.html

Few people jumping to conclusions, around lost revenue etc. without knowing, what the exact revenue and profits were for each venue, what sale proceeds they expect and what they will use those funds for. So far this administration has been pretty spot on with most of their moves (that's publicly visible) so happy to back them in until further info is provided. Have heard some talk that the venue in Bentleigh would be worth a whole lot more if bulldozed and housing/units built. Maybe they'll enter into some sort of property development opportunity?

Would love to go again DV, team name was DoubleDigitMayhem

Very happy he got another gig, would love it if he got back to being a regular AFL player again.

I don't mind that idea, such as giving the Tigers our pick 10 and maybe a 2nd next year and then getting their 1st and also the 1st they've got from Geelong and handing that off, if Adelaide get fixated on two 1sts. At least that's what I'd present to Adelaide as the only way we'll come up with the two 1st, they might panic and think there better off just taking 10 and next years 2nd themselves.

Geelong don't have a first this year, Richmond hold that. Plus Menzel is a free agent. Still don't think we'll give up anything near 2 firsts for Lever, maybe a 1st and 2nd, or 1st and other arrangement.

The majority of trades get done with picks instead of players, but I can understand why the Crows would throw out the hail-mary trade of Tracc or Oliver. If you look at who's been traded over the last few years in a similar situation, Treloar, TMitchell, O'Meara, Danger and Beams, they've all nearly been done with 1 first rounder and something else (2nd) or 2 firsts but with a something else coming back as well as the player (either pick or decentish player). Most of the suggestions have been pick 10 plus a second this year or next, or next years first plus this years 2nd, or even 2 firsts plus we get Lever and a 2nd or fringe player, I think that'll be the way it plays out. Good on Adelaide for trying to get more, but if they really valued Lever then offer him a decent deal to begin with and he might not have wanted to walk away.

Hard to get a read on that, and I'll be waiting for the "love the place was never going to leave" if he stays or "just wanted to be back closer to family and friends" if he goes. I think his partner might have a lot to do with the decision, but then his younger brother plays with the Crows SANFL team so that might be another consideration. I wonder if he does come, if his brother ends up at Casey?

Adelaide don't really have much of a choice here though, Lever is un-contracted so in theory if he really wanted out he can go via the PSD - he won't - but the salary cap doesn't come into play from Adelaide's point of view, unless he wants to stay. However I agree we need to ensure that getting Lever won't cause the loss of a required player in a year or 2 due to salary cap pressure. We've got Gawn, Tracc, Oliver and Hogan who'll all command very decent coin plus Brayshaw, the Macs etc. who'll also want to be paid reasonably well. Hopefully the club has planned for this and front loaded Jones, Viney, Watts, Hunt and even Hogan now so that if we get Level he's salary just gets absorbed so not to disrupt the team long term.

I'd see Lever playing the role Frost should have until he became a bit lost in the last half dozen games or so. My backline would be below: Jetta OMac Lever Hunt TMac Hibberd That means TMac stays back, which I think he is better suited too anyway, and if during a game we need to switch things up he can always go forward for a cameo or 2. Lewis, Salem, Jones and maybe Vince (but I don't like him down there) would then rotate through when the others are either having a break or have moved down the ground. Lever and Lewis would be in charge of organsing the backline, with hopefully one of TMac or OMac picking up the skills to do that (alongside Lever) once Lewis is gone. One of the mids to go back to take the kick ins - in no circumstances are TMac or OMac ever to do it again.

Agree completely, I do think Lever would automatically make OMac and Tmac better players, and also make Hibberd even more dangerous. OMac and TMac wouldn't get caught in no-mans land as often as they do if we have a reliable 3rd tall who sticks more-or-less to the back half. We all know both the Macs do have a tendency to run down the field a little, not that that's always bad but doing it with Lever in the team carries so much less risk than say Frost who again can run forward with little regard to who's left behind - makes for exciting play but can also make us too easy to score against on the rebound. Hopefully then OMac and TMac combined can take care of those taller forwards.

I don't see the Lever and OMac comparison as fair or correct, given that they do play different roles, and the way we play as a team being much different to the way Adelaide play. If OMac was playing for Adealide he'd be taking Hartigan/Keith's role, whereas if Lever was with us he'd be taking Frost's role (I know he's not playing at the moment) as the 3rd tall with Hibberd returning to a 4th tall/primary interceptor/re-bounder role. The Lever discussion should be about what he can bring to the team rather than who/what he could replace at the moment. I think he'd actually make guys like TMac and OMac considerably better players as they can both take the game on and might find a better balance when rebounding from Def50. At the moment some of the frustration is that Tmac, OMac and Frost seem to get caught out with their run forward, where Lever seems to have a better ability to read the play and would bring better leadership and structure to the backline.

Not sure why this has turned into a Lever vs Oscar thread, they would play in the same team if Lever came to us. With Adelaide, Lever plays with Talia and Hartigan/Keith as the 2 'bigger' guys and also has Jake Kelly in the mix. Ideally we'd have Lever, TMac, OMac and Hibberd, which I think would be an even better combination than Adelaide's. OMac incidentally average's around the same intercepts as both Talia and Hartigan.

I think the majority would have Lever in a heartbeat, it's just that most are now debating his cost/value. Realistically we can't sell the farm for one player because we're still going to have to pay guys like Tracc, Hogan, Gawn, Salem, the Macs and Oliver either by the end of next year or 2019. So we need ensure that we not only have enough to keep them, but also continue to invest in the future as well.

Agree with the all that you said, one thing I think we need the coaches to work on is for a better plan with our 'bail out' kicks. OMac and Frost, seem to kick their bail outs shorter than most and on 45 degree angles so seem very easy to read. With time i expect they'll get better, but it's also up to the coaches to get them there and provide a plan for those pressure kicks. Leave the creativity to Hibberd or Hunt, or like Frost does often, tuck the ball under the arm and sprint out of trouble until they can go for those easy targets.

I liked him as well, hopefully he's matured a bit from when he was with us. I heard very early on that, nearly the opposite to some indigenous players, he actually liked the Melbourne lifestyle a bit too much and might have been focusing his efforts elsewhere rather than his footy. Maybe returning home and engaging with his community a bit more has given him greater perspective and if he comes back he'll be prepared to give it his all, in which case I'd happily give him another chance.

Doubt Adelaide would actually want a future 1st rounder, I'd imagine they'll be gunning to add something immediate to their team as they are well in the so called 'premiership window' and won't want to wait. We might need to get creative to move up the draft order if they want a really high pick, something like our first this year and a 2nd next year for a clubs 1st this year, meaning we might be able to give pick 6 or 7 instead of pick 14 or higher.

I wonder if we've spend a lot of time trying to fix our deficiency's on those other grounds that we've become less effective on the 'g. That should hopefully be pretty easy to over come, and possibly was put in place for the front half of the season, knowing we had more games away from home?

Well done with the amount of research that's gone into this! I wonder if it tells us anything, we won 6/7 on grounds less than 129m wide and then 2/6 on the G which is 141m. My guess is that when were on the wider ground we still have a higher possession rate but those possessions might be of greater distance (forwards, backwards or sideways) so our guys are expending more energy getting to the ball or give's us too much space in which to make error (then less space to minimise them)??? Maybe we'll see more direct play tomorrow night because of this.

Make's you wonder why they do it, or why this hasn't been called to attention earlier. If I were a supporter of those clubs then I'd be furious and lose a little trust that the clubs there for the supporters not just using them. I can understand the supply vs demand aspect as long as clubs don't go overboard, but only when a sell out is likely and fans are then compensated when lower attended matches have there prices reduced.

We had the chance to do it on Queens Birthday and I'm not sure if was from respect to Danners Fight MND, but we didn't. This isn't correct, I don't think any of the teams you've mentioned there WB, St K or WB have reached capacity at any of their home games and they've still used it. Same as Carlton, they got around the same crowd to their home game vs Essendon as we did the week before as a home game against them, but Carlton have used the pricing 5 out of 6 games. Maybe what we can't afford to do is shaft supporters while we're building something special. No point turning off those who might be just starting to support us or re-connecting with the club.