Rhino Richards

Problem is he doesn't.

Given the debacle of Round 1 I would have thought our game against Collingwood in Round 2 against against a bigger crowd would have been as bigger hurdle. But I am sure we can justify each week as our [biggest]/[most important] game since 2006.

Rich also had a year of senior football in the WAFL before he was drafted. No chance Scully will be dropped.

He makes good decisions and uses the ball well (the great majority of time). I think it more apt that you compliment his ability to find space through traffio and can hit a teammate in a better position to use the ball. Has great deft touch that hurts oppositions. More strength to him and hope he continues to perform.

Only Jurrah,Watts and Morton would be best 22. I struggle to see JoelMac being unseated for Rivers. Particularly on recent form. Wonna has not played for 18 months and needs to establish himself. Bennell has more runs on the Board can play up the ground. I am not sure why Bartram is out as it leaves us with no one to cover the small forward. Bartram has been good in the past two weeks as well. And he is leading the grabs for that role. Backs Bartram Warnock Garland HB MacDonald,FrawleyGrimes Mids McKenzie,Trengove,Morton HF Sylvia Watts Petterd F Davey Jurrah Green Rucks Jamar McDonald, Scully Int Bruce Bate Moloney, Bennell Emerg Bail Rivers Spencer

Well done. Missed the point again. Keep trying though.

Looks confident and has an air about him that suggests he could get better. Look forward to seeing it too.

Well said. FWIW, I dont think posters should underestimate the importance of the two wins on an area called confidence. Small steps but the progress is there.

Crowd or Members??? I thought you could play JoelMac or Garland on him. McDonald might get Black. Bail for Rich? And you would definitely tag Travis....Dunn?

Good point. Makes a myth of the claim that lighter bodies players cant be expect to commit to contests because of their weight. Keep it up Junior.

Neither can ruck and Bate does something Newton cant...create opportunities and assists and he even kicks goals too.

Warnock on Brown. Frawley on Fev. Bruce on Brennan. Hope we win the midfield battle.

Good thinking. We lose a player for a week or so and then cop a massive fine for an antic that does not address the first problem. Sage. Hopefully common sense rules and Beamer is not rubbed out. Nason should get demerit points for the terrible dreads

I can see and appreciate the improvement but I am not prone to frothing at the mouth in April like you. I think we can play better than we did today. And we were not made to pay for a pretty ordinary 2nd quarter. Otherwise we are on the right path. Look forward to getting Morton back, introducing Watts and eventually Jurrah as well. We are a class above Richmond and Adelaide at the moment but lets count the scalps as they come and not in advance.

Who goes out for the Rivers floating role with no clear match up? Surely not Bruce, after 29 possessions with 90% efficiency (The Hun). Apparently the game is passing him by. Barring injury I cant see Rivers in as I think they will pick an unchanged team. However they may consider a viable 2nd ruck option for Jamar at the expense of Dunn.

Thanks for the clear up.

Why should it have changed? You did not think we would win this?

On the radio 774, they said that Jordie McKenzie was reported. He wont be nominated now. Of the MFC players, Bail was the best of a very good lot today.

The first 3 words says it all.... Clearly a mate who does not know him well enough.

6. McDonald 5. Sylvia 4. Moloney 3. MacDonald 2. Jamar 1. Jones

And I dont think the giving the Clubs a large slice will necessarily make the competition more even or make the poor Clubs morre viable. As it risks funding the raise of the bar by all Clubs. I have dealt with with this and thats clearly not what I have proposed Once again your drawing an inference that was not made. I made it clear that hand to mouth made reference to unprofitable business model of some clubs. I am sorry you dont like but it adequately describes the debt demolition and tin rattle antics of poorer clubs.Its not a matter of should would or could. The fact is they are. Beyond their annual sources of revenue, clubs like MFC and NM have no funds to invest in the infrastructure of the business (eg facilities, medical resources etc) The AFL is supposedly there to act in the best interests of the promotion of the competition (and its not just the Clubs). I am not sure that AFL necessarily should just give out unrestricted more money to all clubs as it just means the cost of competing will go up. The rich clubs remain rich, the poor clubs remain poor. Changing the fixtures to a conceptual even playing field with all teams getting the same amount of air time and access to even fixtures will potentially dull the value of TV and potentially reduce the overall flow of income from other sources. (eg fewer people will want to watch NM as opposed to Collingwood etc) Some of the poorer clubs have less propensity to generate income that would be more than foregone if the AFL does not seek to promote its leading brands. Weighting on some metric of the impact of fixturing on Clubs is a idea to pursue and I wonder if the AFL has already done so. Financial Security for some poorer Clubs is the development of a sustainable business model which they have struggled with in the past and will struggle with going forward. Your comment on NSW is interesting and reflects the longer term interests of the AFL to expand the Code in Northern States. I suggest the amounts you suggested will utlimately be eclipsed in the medium to long term by all the other costs you reference. I think the AFL has an eye on the complete nationalisation of the Code and a focussing funds to those longer term goals than increasing the clip to each Club.

So whats in it for the City of Melbourne? Some of the one sided sponsorship suggestions on this site that actually little or no benefit to the actual sponsor but all to the benefit of the Club are naive.

Its either nitpicking or semantics which is not going to get far. The AFL revenue is actually earned by the AFL packaging and selling access rights to the licences represented by the Clubs. No they dont. I made no implication that the Clubs are happy to live off the TV rights. Some dont have a choice. I think NM, MFC and WB are all keen to do be wealthy clubs but some clubs are unable to achieve that for a number of reasons. All Clubs understand the motivation to diversify income streams. Some have not or cannot achieve it. I may have misinterpreted your point about prospering on just the share of the AFL revenue and no other sources. At present the AFL allocation to the Clubs is not sufficient to cover the reasonable costs in the AFL. The reference to hand to mouth reflects that the poorer clubs are not profitable and do not have a sustainable business model. If a persons cost of living is high enough then people who have a single employer or multiple employers may well not have a sufficient income to support the lifestyle or commiitments. In the AFL the cost of living (ie competing) is getting more expensive each year. If a Clubs revenue is not sufficient covering their costs then they are in essence living beyond their means or living hand to mouth.

Any money from the AFL consolidated funds always comes with strings attached. If the AFL has concerns with any Club administration.....they dont last long as the AFL will pressure change to better operators by the Clubs. THe AFL has enough money to give more the Clubs but choose not to encourage the Clubs to find develop and maintain sustainable business models. Its also good sense for the AFL to increase the breadth of sources of money into the game and not just be single source welfare recipient which feeds off TV rights.. I think the Clubs will always want more regardless of what you give them and there is no happy medium! The Clubs with diversified sources of revenue will still be able gain competitive advantage over Clubs that live hand to mouth of the AFL.

The issue is that the money is at the control of the AFL and its interests not individual clubs. If the amount was indeed reasonable that allowed clubs to prosper then clubs would not be chasing corporate sponsors, additional membership or resorting to tin rattles. The reason they do this is the AFL income only goes so far and that Clubs like the gaming, sponsorship and membership revenue because its there direct funds controlled by the Clubs and not received at the call of the AFL. It is clear that from the experiences of WB, NM, MFC and the Tigers in Melb, PA in SA that this clearly is not the case.