Chris

Didn't help in 2001. We had made the granny, got two Fridays (one as home game), a few Saturdays, and heaps of Sunday games. It is a nice theory, but it is just that, a theory. Reality looks a whole lot different.

We do have a far better deal this year than the many years past, which is a step in the right direction. We don't have anywhere near an equal draw in terms of opportunities to make money, which is an issue. I hate quoted American examples but I think the NFL have it right, Each team gets an guaranteed number of their equivalent of the Friday or Saturday night games. This is a great long term strategy as you are not constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul. You may not reach the same heights of the massive blockbuster, but you will provide greater consistency of games, each team gets exposure, no one can complain. The current model the AFL use is too short sighted and ignores the long term viability of the clubs and at the end of the day that is the base the comp is built on. The longer each club competes against other clubs the more chance of the other codes going past the AFL. This is an issue of the AFL doing what is best for the comp as a whole in order to compete against the other codes, sacrificing teams sustainability for short term gains is just that, short term!

The answer to your question about Carlton may well lie int he chairman of the commission, where do his allegiances lie again?

That is equalisation of your chance of success. Unfortunately success does not lead to financial stability and support, especially if you don't get access to the market. the article is far more about back of house equalisation than on field. The way it is now, one does not lead to the other. Why would Carlton have 7 Friday night games this year if that was the case?

You are ignoring the elephant in the room, access to market. The AFL almost went broke through the 80's and 90's, they lent on the big clubs and their membership to get them out of it, it worked. It come at the cost of the smaller clubs though as they were not allowed access to the market and became smaller and more irrelevant as they were not seen. The pendulum must swing back the other way at some point or the AFL will turn into the EPL with 3 or 4 clubs winning every flag for 25 years. That would not be sustainable for very long in the small Aussie market. All this is compounded by bad business decisions, there is no hiding from that, but to ignore the elephant distorts your view.

Hawthorn and Collingwood got out of debt by being allowed access to the market, they had the supporter base, they got on telly, got the crowds made the money. Many lower clubs are not provided that opportunity. I agree we have been run by halfwits, I agree we need to take responsibility, but there is an inherent inequality in the league that is unhealthy. People say that is fine and it is capitalism at work, the problem with that is that the clubs competitors aren't the other clubs, it is the other codes. The AFL is acting in a capitalist realm where they need to survive against the other codes, to do that they need all the clubs being strong and viable, that isn't allowed the way things work today. For too long the AFL has built the big clubs, the clubs wont admit it, but they are big because the AFL wanted them big for their own survival. This ignores the long term pain felt when you end up with a lague with few viable teams and people walking away from the game as their team will never have a chance. You are right it is chicken an egg, but it is with the fixture more than anything, have a look at ours this years and tell me more than one game we can expect to make money from (with the exception of the two we sold). This wouldn't be changed significantly if we had more members as most of our home games are against interstate or small drawing teams. Then compare that to the big teams, who all play each other twice, make heaps of cash of each other, and then make cash off playing us, as we don't get a home game against them!

Check out round 13. It was 13 or 14 injured from memory.

Because he didn't do anything to anyone, not that anyone can prove (yet) that is.

It is very easy to fix. The holding the ball rules should be that if you take possession you must either kick it or hand pass it to dispose of the ball, none of this 'it was knocked out int he tackle' nonsense. If you have had prior opportunity (i.e a couple of steps/seconds) and you are tackled and it causes a stoppage then it is a free kick. The only way there should be a ball up is if someone is tackled without any prior opportunity and it ends in a stoppage. how many times these days do you see the ball dropped, thrown, knocked out and nothing, the ump just waits until 10 players are all on top of the ball. Pay the first free and the game moves on, opens up, and the stoppages disappear.

I don't think Jack made him cry, I think it was something else he wanted to do to Jack!

Amazing that two hours after the game there are only two posts on this thread. I am used to two pages in the first hour after a game! I guess Garland, Watts, Howe, Dawes and co can keep their jobs this week.

Robbo lost all my respect with the way he has reported the Essendon SAGA. Other than that, I am with you, he calls it as he sees it, even if he does seem to be drunk most of the time. he is certainly no great literary genius though, or even close to a Mike Sheahan replacement but who could be.

WADA can bring in what ever new evidence they want, from when ever they want. This doesn't run by the normal rules of evidence in appeals.

Eddie drove me mad with his barracking for Essendon on Saturday. Especially with the touched call, kept saying it was over, even after all the other commentators said the call was right.

1. from my Dad. He would take me and my sisters to the footy and we only got chewing gum if we went for the dees, he won me and one sister but the other goes for the Tiges. He is dees due to his father and so on back through the generations. 2. Ox 3. 88 prelim 4. Sitting in the rain with my old man at the 88 granny. 5. Is it child abuse to push my 18 month old towards the dees? She has the dummy, scarf, beanie and doll already. Should I be reported to the authorities?

Would be worth thinking about.

The other thing in common, they all came through the club during a leadership void. They have and to work it out themselves, and to a large degree are getting there over the last 18 months or so. Unless you can replace them with better leaders then the current young ones will come up in a void of leadership as well. That is not a good thing. Garland would also add leadership to the quieter players, the ones who aren't into the jock crap that football clubs can throw about, and the reason I stopped playing in my 20's. No interest in it, Garland offers an alternative.

Because you argue based on someone leaving because they have been here too long. Does not make sense and is a mistake. Not every player also needs to be an overt leader, I am sure there would be young players who would look up to the Garlands and Jetta's of the world, quiet achievers who get their job done with little fanfare. I know as a kid these were the sort of people I sought out, not the overt look at me I am leader type, they left me cold, and still do. You need a mix of both.

Isolated case. Basing a decision on a player on whether they are from the past or not is a mistake. Base that decision on their contribution to the team, skill, errors, etc. Not on that they have too much experience!

No I didn't just appear out of a cave, Yes we have drafted and recruited well, I have been following the club since Carl Ditterich was the Coach. Going with youth alone does not work, you need to keep experience around the club. Three examples, us after we sacked the captain and all the other experience and went with youth (worked wonders), Gold Coast, went with youth with very little experience around, really struggle when the littel experience they do have is missing, and lastly, GWS, have bought in experience with their youth and have leap frogged GC by a country mile. If you think we need only focus on the future and get rid of anyone from the past then we are rid of N. Jones, Vince, Cross, Dunn, Garland, Howe, Watts, Lamumba, Dawes, Trengove, Grimes, Pederson, Garlett, and a bunch that will either retire or probably delisted (at best provide a little depth). Remove these players (which is the extension of your argument to go with the future) and our club would sink straight back into the mire it finally seems to be extricating itself from. But I suppose that's OK, we have some players for the future, again.

What happened last time we threw out the past and bought in the future?

Garland I think will stay, if he wants to. I don't think the club will push him. He is very versatile and is in our best 22 every week, no doubt.

AFL: looking to open a rug emporium when the whole thing passes over.

I thought you only commented when you were responding to someone?

Token ban would be a crock. They either cheated or they didn't.