titan_uranus

Jags, Rams, Broncos

We actually haven’t played GWS in NSW since 2014. We’ve only ever had 6 away games against them in their 14 year history, and 4 of those have been at Manuka. Not sure if it’s a record but we’ve only played them at Giants Stadium twice ever.

It is on the website - https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/1932463/notice-of-annual-general-meeting

A stack of completely uninformed opinions in here, which mine would be too if I tried to discuss accounting with any authority. “Creative accounting”, “poorly run business”, etc - are those having a crack at the club paid up members? On my reading of the documents, we lost $1M compared to 2024 in our membership drop off alone. That might be a sign of a bad season on field, but is it necessarily a sign of a poorly run club off field? And the club repeatedly says that we have to list the Goodwin and Oliver payments up front this year even though we are paying them spread out over the next 1-4 years. I have no idea what the rules are but I can at least appreciate why this might be the case. That we have to make the payments may again be a sign of bad football department decision making but is it bad corporate governance or accounting?

Patriots, Seahawks, Falcons

So are we taking Sharp if he’s the one Essendon pass on?

As others have said, it's pointless analysing difficulty based on double ups by 2025 ladder position. Someone next year will be this year's Adelaide/GC, or Port Adelaide/Sydney. There are other metrics I'm far more interested in. The timeslots are to be expected, but at least Sunday 3.15pm games are on FTA which helps. We lose the Geelong game but it's "traded" for another interstate game, effectively Hawthorn in Tasmania. Our Melbourne games remain 15 (12 at the G, 3 at Marvel). Our travel feels spaced out much better this year - no 6 road trips in 10 weeks this time. On the flipside, the longest span we go without travel is 3 weeks (Rounds 9-11, albeit two of those are Marvel, and Rounds 18-20, another one of which is Marvel). We never play more than two straight games at the MCG. On a related note, St Kilda doesn't travel after Round 13 on 7 June. One game in Geelong and every other game in Melbourne from Rounds 14-24. Double-ups are never going to be equal. Travel also can't be equal with 8 non-Victorian sides. But this is completely within the AFL's control. It's beyond a joke that any side gets the best part of three months in their own beds. Don't worry about how we, or any other Victorian club feels, how would any non-Victorian club feel travelling every second week in winter whilst St Kilda go absolutely nowhere?

Texans, Packers, Ravens

Meanwhile Sam Edmund reporting that Carlton have 7 Thursday or Friday night games in the first 16 weeks. So for some, poor performance equals a poor fixture. But clearly not for others. Hell, this is more than Collingwood are getting! https://www.sen.com.au/news/2025/11/12/afl-fixture-hawthorn-prime-time-games/

A bad draw commercially is to be expected. Playing Hawthorn in Launceston is not, though. Our number of MCG games next year might be a record low.

Haven’t played Essendon twice in a season since 2004, which AFAIK is the longest active such streak in the competition.

This doesn’t solve the problem you’re raising here. Double up games may still decide 6th vs 7th, and now the same argument will apply to 10th vs 11th.

Yeah but when their fans hate Marvel, they may as well cash in while they're [censored] and get the money. When they get good again, they'll wipe this deal and push for 11 MCG home games, and if they get a Marvel home game they'll pull 20,000 extra than they will in the next two years of being bottom 4.

Of all the arguments that get put in favour of it, this is probably the worst one. Got a problem with the pre-finals bye? GET RID OF IT! It shouldn't be there anyway, it should be the week before the GF, but if the problem is that we don't want a week off between the H&A season and finals, the AFL has the power to just get rid of it. Absolutely moronic reasoning here. A bit like this year? When Sydney finished 10th on 12-11 and 97% but would have made finals and got to have a crack at Gold Coast, who were 15-8 and 124.9%? If GC had not choked and beaten Port in Round 24, 7th would have been Fremantle, who were 16-7 and would have been percentage out of the top 4 and one win off 2nd. But Sydney, who barely broke even on the year, would have been gifted a chance to knock them out. [censored] me.

Not only has the AFL made a terrible decision, they've also managed to mangle its implementation. The majority public outrage tells you that this is not what fans want. Sure, some people like @Bring-Back-Powell can't get through a week without watching football, but for the rest of us, we want finals to mean something. Now you can finish 10th, in the bottom half of the competition, and make finals. They had the chance to say these wild card games weren't finals, to make the top 6 seem like a feat, but they haven't done that. 10th is a finalist. 10th having a rubbish year but playing a blinder against 7th credits them with a finals win. It is of course clear that the decision is purely monetary. You hear it when people like Greg Swann talk about it - they mention that it's good for revenue, good for broadcasters, etc. It's no wonder Kane Cornes and Gerard Whateley are so in favour of it - it means they make more money! The AFL makes a lot of bad decisions, but I can't recall the last time they treated the fan base so poorly. Knowing the (vast) majority don't want this, but shoving it down our throats anyway, and then gaslighting us by telling us we don't know how good it's going to be.

Bills, Lions, Eagles

Chargers, Colts, Jaguars

Not our call though, these dates will all be locked in under the CBA.

IMO 2026 goes one of two ways. We either find that we had midfield cover all along (plus Steele) and a new coach and game plan reinvigorate us to such an extent that we challenge for finals. Or the transition hits hard and we finish bottom 4.

Yeah, after everything that’s happened, Gawn should have to earn his spot. /s

Bills, 49ers, Bucs

I took this a completely different way. To me, it was an indication that perhaps the penny has finally dropped. We have spent 2022-25 trying to keep as much of the premiership winning 23 together as possible, not just on the list but on the field. We continued to try to get a supposed "best 23" to gel together with an argument that we needed to get the best 23 playing together as much as possible for results to come. So we kept playing the same guys over and over, and as a result didn't play other guys who were fit and at times in strong VFL form. That extended to wanting to keep Trac and Clarry, despite what had happened to both of them in the last few years. The club's overall view was to keep everyone together where possible. Now, whether it's because Goodwin's no longer there, or for other reasons, this is no longer our priority. So we let Trac and Clarry go, and we "grow up" and accept that our next flag isn't going to come about just by continuing to plonk members of the 21 flag winning side on the park.

We have a new regime and we just turfed two MFC hall of famers, with members having deserted us all year It would be incredulous if the new leaders didn’t get out there and talk about what we’re doing.

Didn’t take long to get the classic “talk is cheap” trope. What do you want the club to do in [censored] October? Yes, judge the club on how we play. But we can’t play until March. It’s brainless to suggest the club should say nothing until March, so just accept that in October (and November-February), the only thing the club can give us is words.

Thankfully he was under contract then! Long term contracts aren’t always a bad thing. As @Lucifers Hero says, Clarry netted us such an awful return for other reasons (off field stuff, and our mishandling which led to us having no negotiating leverage).