Rhino Richards

Iso, Good on you for putting some suggestions up. However I think that idea is being explored and implemented. Checky Brocky's thread: http://demonland.nozzs.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8264

I wouldn't touch Sampi. Too much trouble for player that struggled with the demands of AFL when he actually played it. I dont know if I would cherish the "Pagan" touch. There were a number of key footballers he has struggled to bring into line including Pike, Carey and Fevola. I think Pagan has been out of touch with AFL for quite some time. I hope FCS that DB is not in the Pagan mould.

How many of these average attendances were actually Kangas supporters? If you look at there Melb based home games they averaged approx. 35,000. Amongst that number they had home games against Collingwood, Blues, Essendon and Geelong. The numbers would have surely swelled. They had a great year further buoyed by Archers 300 and record breaking efforts. They had the wind in their sails. Short of a flag this year was a maximum year for it. What is more telling is when they played Melb at home (D'lands) sitting 3rd with 10wins and 5 losses the crowd was only 20,187. No big opposition to swell the numbers. As most MFC supporters had disappered skiiing, there was at best for the Kangas 20,000 as it looked like there was only 187 MFC patrons there. In reality there were more MFC people present and the likely Kangas contingent was 10-15,000. A home game, team performing well with a high probability of victory and they cant muster the crowds. It is also a pretty damning indictment about MFC supporters and how difficult it is for the MFC Board to win AFL favour when the club's supporter do not attend games. FWIW, when we played Port Adelaide and Freo at home (at the MCG) in Rounds 6 and 4 we got approx. 16,000 to each match. Hardly good cause to push the bigger clubs off the G! I disagree with your assessment of the Gold Coast. The oldies are but one component of one of the fastest growing demographics in Australia. The Gold Coast for the last 10 years have suffered significant infrastructure shortages on schools, roads, hospitals, shopping centres and water resources to cope with the expanding population up there. Its an important foothold. One in which the rugby league fraternity have already sunk a side. For AFL, the capital commitment of 30-40 million represents a long term investment in developing the game in a State where they have not conquered. For North they get facilities, TV coverage back into Victoria, home ground advantage and access to the support and sponsorship potential of this area. I heard similar comments levied at South Melb when they went to Sydney. It was rough in the short term but the AFL made an important beach head in difficult terrain with a Club that was disappearing fast.

When you have 10 clubs in Victoria. Forget it. It cant feasibly happen. Its not a matter of agreeing with the AFL objectives but understanding what they are and the decisions they take. The AFL was created to look after the game (not the clubs) away from the old rivalries that plagued the VFL when 16 club directors fought things out inequitable around an old wooden table. There was not a chance in hell of getting the salary cap and the draft arrangements through under the old system. Elite sports are businesses and the competitions are rarely even and fair. The AFL is a business first and foremost and to expect any other concept is to lead to disappointment.

Besides heated posts on this site, what practical strategies would you suggest to the Board that they are not looking at now? Sustained on field success is the only way of attracting greater supporters and greater sponsorship. We have to start that initiative from within MFC to get the AFL to change. The Kangaroos are financially stuffed staying in Melb. They either move or withered hopelessly on the vine for a long death like Fitzroy. They have a chance to at least control their own destiny in a demographic that has a strong growing affluent population and a huge demand for AFL to build a brand. They wont do it from rusted meatworks and abattoirs around Arden St.

Not really. In business which is multi branded like the AFL there are brands (clubs) that not only provide strong revenue/attendance flows but also have the capacity to further grow at a rate that is greater than the those clubs who have poor revenue/ poor attendance flows and little capacity to grow attendances, you focus and favour the brand lines that maximise your objectives. The AFL objectives are to make as much money by providing 16 teams in football competition that maximises bums on seats, TV viewing audiences and corporate sponsor. Financially MFC is not a viable standalone club. Like other Vic based clubs, I suspect that MFC has been a financial basket case (as well as on the field) for at least 35 years. It like other Vic based clubs exists because the AFL is committed to providing 16 clubs to cable TV. The legacy of history and experience with other clubs suggests that longer term, the AFL cannot field 10 Vic based Clubs. Longer term clubs like Kangas, Saints, Richmond, Bulldogs, Hawks and ourselves are in the gun re survival in this State unless we can turn it around organically rather charity from the AFL in the draw where we currently just dont draw the numbers. The Kangas are going to the Gold Coast. That is there only hope. Hawthorn may eventually make Tassie its own. The Bulldogs up North in the Top End. The Saints, Richmond, ourselves are in doubt. We may stay because of our name. But what form we will be in 20 years....who knows? Well firstly Dean, we have had neither sustained success nor have we had bums on seats. Secondly FWIW your proved nothing but just misled yourself because you cant see AFL football beyond it being game. The AFL will not sacrifice a big draw game like Carlton - Collingwood for piddling crowd from two low drawing clubs (one of them Melbourne). MFC need to make systemic changes to the way it operates if it is to survive in the future. It has low membership, low number of supporters and based on market research that was carried out a relatively low number of people in Australia identify themselves as MFC supports relatively to other clubs. Given the AFL is tied to its commercial objectives I dont see the commercial logic in weight the draw back towards MFC hoping to grab 10 to 20 members at the sacrifice of a Collingwood that would probably lose out on 200 members. Thats a significant lose to the AFL.

On basis have we been bending over? I am aware the Board have fought where it can to get a better deal on game locations but when your membership is low, your game attendances are low you stand a great opportunity to force your position against 15 others. So by getting bums on seats will by the criteria adopted by the AFL give you a better go at the draw selection.

And Ben Cousins will be coming in off the bench....

Teams aren't doing this blindly out of choice. They are doing it out of financial necessity. We did not sell the Brisbane game for the objective of a win/loss benefit. We did it because it gave us guarantee gate revenue where we would not have made any money on that game at. It did not help playing Brisbane at the Gabba when they were at or near their peak. Its very easy for posters to blow wind about selling games. Very few come up with revenue replacement strategies that would replace the income that would be lost.

GM, The AFL knows it plays favourites and does so to maxmise the value of the brand "AFL" and the individual teams in terms of TV rights, merchandising, corporate sponsors. Its not a well meaning parent. Its a business like any professional or semi professional sport that aspires for broad community participation and support. You right we need to develop a winning attitude within the Club culture but we need to develop this in unison with other arrangements including but not limited to facilities, membership, player development and sponsorship. Its a big ask and from where MFC is the challenge is greater for us than the bigger clubs. That would make a premiership all the sweeter. It would also give the AFL the opportunity to boast that the competition is a level playing field. The fact is it never has been.

Exactly the case Jack. We have to be prepared to play and succeed by those rules whether we like it or not.

Notwithstanding WCE's apathetic handling of the Cousins/drug scandal (and the complicit behaviour of the AFL), I am not confident that the AFL will impose draft penalties. From the two test cases so far at Carlton and Melbourne the impact of draft penalties (as opposed to fines) is prolonged and often severe damage to a team list that takes 5 years or more to rectify. Both Carlton and Melbourne still bear the scars of such a harsh penalty. I am sure there are situations where such heavy handed actions are necessary. But IMO, its a last resort action (or near enough) by the AFL and prudence needs to be carried out when the penalties are laid. If the draft penalties are too harsh and too deep, such actions could hamper a wealthy club but absolutely gut a weak club. While I believe a penalty is necessary, I am not sure its a draft penalty and if it is a draft penalty what precedents does it set for further incidents for arrangement for the "3 strike" unnamed club and Collingwood over the Didak fiasco. I think Jack has a point. Draft penalties are a blunt and draconian measure that has long term pain for the inflicted club. Where does it stop?

A superb summary of the fallout with Cousins by Greg Baum: http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/a-story-...2300859504.html

I note we are on the same page but...... If trading TJ proves that we are not looking at a flag next year and that if we did not trade TJ and he stayed then we would still no be looking at a flag, then how do two opposite actions necessarily prove the same outcome? What does trading TJ prove? I dont think trading TJ makes that statement necessarily. It does address the cancerous soft lazy culture at MFC then is a clearly barrier to winning a flag. It was clearly a judgement also about getting more value for an underperforming 28yo with a bad attitude than doing so when the aforesaid is 29 and out of contract.

You two legs arent related are you? <_<

Our financial position, membership and facilities are inferior to other Clubs and we perennially draw small crowds. This does not meet the AFL's criteria for maximising crowd numbers. It got nothing to do with aritificial tiering of Clubs. You need to understand what the operating objectives of the AFL are. I do agree with you that the draw is the least of our worries and in my opinion the draw is only a small part of the reason why we are where we are. Have you inquired what the MFC do as to lobbying the AFL on the draw. Your case has been put often and clear to the AFL. I dont agree that the sponsor will equate equal time with equal value in sponsoring clubs. It would help but its superficial to think it would on its own create equality. I think your view of sponsorship and advertising underestimates what the true value of each club/"brand" is.

Exactly the AFL run the show for revenue maximisation. The AFL does not have to ensure a level playing field. They only have to provide a competition that maxmises the issues I said before. As they are doing that overall and MFC are not changing their profile as a club, I cant see MFC cutting a significantly better deal. Where I have I accepted anything about us being a 2nd tier club. Financially we are. Furthermore a realistic understanding of the situation is the first step to resolving the problem. But keep bleating as much as it achieves.

Dont know but it is indeed a good question. Love to hear the AFL's answer.

Touche. There is no golden goose solution to this as systemically MFC has problems in financially viability on its own. It going to win games, encourage support of a successful club despite the inequities, and to pursue the 1%'ers that make us a more viable club in the long term (eg strengthen relationships with the AFL powerbrokers and lobby the AFL when we can). Unless we achieve that, MFC and others will continue to live on a lifeline long term at the grace of the AFL that we are condemned to doing in the short term to medium term.

How is it wrong???? Its called reality. As a stand alone business, MFC or about 5 other Vic clubs could not survive on their own. Indeed the demographic of this country suggests that it is ludicruous to think Melb can fund and support 10 teams. 9 with Kangas moving North. AFL football is a brand which has value through the sale of TV rights. As part of those rights, the AFL contracts to provide 16 clubs playing 8 games a week for 22 rounds and then finals. This predominantly why clubs like MFC survive. The AFL puts in place enough equalisers (draft, salary cap etc) to create a competition that people will watch and follow. By the value of the rights, attendances and TV ratings, the AFL have done a good job at expanding the game. Giving Melb greater exposure the cost of say a Collingwood costs the AFL through the gate and through the TV ratings. It might be better for MFC or another struggling club but it is potentially at the cost of your stronger clubs. Its an unfair slur at the MFC committee saying their "gutless" in accepting the draw as it is. I know for the fact that the MFC Committee have lobbied the AFL match committee to achieve a better outcome. However we bring small cards to the table. What do you suggest?.....I'll huff and I'll puff. Dean's onto a good point. Given the nature of football and the money involved, it is harder now to bridge that gap than say 20 years ago. However, its no good bleating "its not fair" like a spoilt child. Its self serving at best and achieves little.

That's neither here nor there with the AFL. Its the same draw that drives the TV rights that puts up the bulk of the grubby money that goes into MFC.

Richmond pull big crowds and TV stations like them for ratings. There is undoubtedly a sweet heart deal to get Kangas to the Gold Coast. And I bet they are playing a big drawing club. Big deal its our 150th year. Where is that talk about in the TV rights contract?

Sorry Jaded you havent a clue about this and your letting your emotion gallop ahead of your common sense.

Big deal. Jaded, MFC could every game just the way they wanted it and the only time we would get big crowds is when the opposing side (like Collingwood) provides them. Your question infers that the draw limits us from drawing big crowds. That bollocks. At present we dont draw large crowds on our own. Think about when we have been travelling well and playing Port or Freo at the G. Its empty. It long term success that brings bums on seat and a generation of supporters. Richmond benefit from the success in late 60's and 70's despite their poor recent performance over the past decade. Hawthorn benefit from the success in the 70's and 80's despite their indifferent recent performance.

If Carlton and Collingwood were to play at the G who would draw the most spectators them or Tigers and us. Its a no brainer. If the G is vacant I would prefer it at the G. If its a Richmond home game then I am less concerned as I cant stand them. Notwithstanding the centerary years, a competitive Richmond and Melbourne should draw a good crowd. The only problem is 70% of the crowd will be Richmond. The Tigers are a crap team with a self serving coach but they still pull 30,000 + membership and they do turn up to the games. We have been more successful of recent and our membership and attendances have been poor. As far as selling memberships the AFL will seek to maximise the brands that work like "Collingwood", "Essendon". "Melbourne", "Kangaroos" does not work as well. There is more benefit to the AFL to have a Collingwood at the MCG selling 500 memberships than an MFC sellling 50 to 100. Think about it.