titan_uranus

This is a perfectly written post which captures the core issue, as well as my position. There may well be a way to replace gambling revenue, as I'm sure tobacco revenue was replaced over time, but in the short term it would mean a hit to the league's revenue. And that will disproportionately affect lower-paid players, and likely members too (increased membership costs, for example). Of course, none of that means that taking a stand against it is the wrong thing to do. Maybe, but maybe not. Brown is a very principled person, and it's not without example - Easton Wood is on record as having said he'd have accepted a pay cut if it meant no more gambling advertising.

Thanks - I hadn't seen anything from Rucci or Edmund that wasn't purely linked to Cornes. There are two stories here though, sort of. One is that Pickett doesn't like Melbourne (the city). The other is that Port is interested. There's no surprise about the latter, as you've said. But it's the other story I'm more interested in - whether there's any truth to the rumour that Kozzie doesn't love living here.

I'm not letting this go just yet. I just did a Google search and cannot find anything from any journalists reporting that they'd heard Pickett wants to go to Port, or was considering it, or doesn't like Melbourne, other than articles forming part of the AFL Trade Radio circle jerk (i.e. raising it because it was raised on Trade Radio). Again, I'm not suggesting it's impossible that Port (or any other club for that matter) might be interested, but so far all I can see is that Kane Cornes said it one time on Trade Radio and has been peddling it ever since, and everything seems to be flowing from there. Given his obvious Port link/bias, I'd be interested in seeing any other journalist/media person who claims to have heard the same thing, not just repeating what was on Trade Radio.

Seriously though, can you identify any other smoke? I haven't heard anyone say "I've got mail that Pickett's thinking of leaving" other than Cornes. Doesn't mean there hasn't been anyone else, I just haven't heard it. And it doesn't count if people are just talking about it. I'm of the view that Cornes is making a mountain out of a molehill because it suits him and his Port Adelaide link/bias. He only needs one line (the whole "he doesn't love Melbourne the city" thing) and then just starts talking about it as if it's serious/confirmed/going to happen.

Out of interest, is there anyone in the industry other than Kane Cornes who is discussing the possibility of Pickett leaving us at the end of the year?

This seems right - this link worked for me but the one in the email didn't. Thanks @DemonWorshipper. Disappointing from the club to have sent members the "you should renew now" email and then to have the link wrong anyway.

I am, but also I am not. We all put too much stock into pre-season games. Remember the reaction to our pre-season loss to Carlton last year? Or the pre-season loss to the Dogs in 2021?

I’m excited to see Brown looking more mobile and threatening but the clear issue IMO is maintaining that. He looked great this time last year and Round 1 was arguably his best game for the season. Very keen to know if the tweaks to his pre-season will pay off. Will change us demonstrably if he’s closer to his best.

Such as?

Eagles, Chiefs, Cowboys

Some thoughts: 2023 is the 8th consecutive year we've played West Coast in Perth. We haven't played them in Melbourne since 2014 We haven't played Essendon twice in a season since 2005 (18th straight year of only playing them once) We will be playing Geelong in Geelong for the 12th time in the last 15 seasons Only 1 game at Marvel all year - dropping down from 2, which gives us a 13th game at the MCG Yes, 8 interstate games, but only 5 genuine ones (Brisbane, West Coast, Gold Coast, Port Adelaide and Sydney). The other three are our home game in Alice Springs, North in Hobart, and a pure neutral game against Essendon at a ground we play well The most games we play away from the G in a row is three (Rounds 15-17, Geelong then Alice Springs then Marvel). That's a huge improvement on this year's 5-straight stretch Our spread of MCG and interstate games feels like a much better spread. 8 MCG and 5 interstate games pre-bye, then 5 MCG games + Marvel and 3 interstate + Geelong post-bye. Finishing with 5 of our last 7 games at the G is fantastic We get dudded with the bye again - Monday vs Collingwood, then the "bye", then Thursday vs Carlton means we get a 10-day break. That's the same as playing Thursday night one round and Sunday the next round. It's not a bye. Four 6-day breaks and one 5-day break in the 15 rounds scheduled so far. Not sure how that stacks up against other clubs. Feels OK to me Getting North and Hawthorn twice looks like a good draw at this point. Getting Sydney and Brisbane looks tough. Carlton should be good, Richmond should be average, so it's probably a fair slate.

Vikings, Chiefs, Patriots

I can (just) tolerate JVR moving number because he never played in 21. But Smith moving from 44 to 29 grates my gears. Yes, 29 was his dad's number. So what. Make 44 your own, Joel!

Browns, Seahawks, Chiefs

Missed out on Thanksgiving so will go Bucs, Ravens, Chargers.

Debating the 6 repeat games that each side will get is, as every year, futile. Right now you would say that drawing Geelong, Sydney, Brisbane, Richmond, Collingwood etc. twice would be tough. But undoubtedly at least one of those sides will struggle next year (this year's Port or Bulldogs equivalent). Conversely there will be at least one 2022 non-finalist who will rise up the ladder. Might be Gold Coast. Who knows. As others have said, the main things to focus on at fixture-release time are time slots, six-day and five-day breaks, and spread of home games against big sides vs interstate sides.

Eagles, Chiefs, 49ers

Eagles, Packers, Bills

I'm quite doubtful we'll go into any game next year with all of Gawn, Grundy, Brown, TMac and Van Rooyen playing (alongside May, Lever and Petty). At least one of Brown/TMac/Van Rooyen misses.

I raised this earlier with @Slartibartfast - is there a copy of the judge's ruling/reasons/orders anywhere? The three major Deemocracy supporters on here - yourself, Slarti and @george_on_the_outer - have all described the court case as (in different terms) a slam dunk in Lawrence's favour. It may well have been, but as I said earlier if it was that clear-cut why didn't the judge decide it straight away on the Wednesday, and why was it then described as a possible "test case"? It is of course possible that Lawrence offered the alternative of the Club sending the Deemocracy material out because he'd received legal advice that he might possibly not succeed in getting access to the members' email addresses? I have no idea what the answer to those questions is because I'm not an expert, I wasn't there and haven't seen any ruling/reasons etc.. As such, you may well be 100% right that it was a slam dunk, but I'd love to see the reasons/ruling to see how bad the Club's defence was, or alternatively whether it might have perhaps been more nuanced. Simply saying the court found in Lawrence's favour therefore it was "pig-headed" or "disgraceful" for the Club to defend the application is hindsight-reasoning on its own, without knowing more.

Whilst I agree with you that some of the anti-Lawrence views on here are misguided (principally, comments on the privacy issues have been been overblown IMO), I also think that those who, like you, are aligned with Lawrence are misguided to an extent in your perception of the dispute. Do you really think it is "inexplicable" that a company might, at first instance, seek to resists handing out its members' personal information to a member who is known to be an agitator and who seeks to obtain that information to mass communicate with members who, according to the Club at least, don't want to receive the communication? You've leaned heavily on the Supreme Court outcome in Lawrence's favour, and clearly it suggests the law was on his side on the issue. However I've not seen any written reasons from the judge explaining the outcome, or declaring any particular orders. All I've seen is what was reported by Peter Ryan from The Age. What we know from his tweets and articles is that, at the first hearing on Wednesday, the issue was described as a "test case", and that a decision wasn't made on the spot. If the issue was as clear-cut as your post implies and Lawrence would want to argue, wouldn't the judge have made relevant orders on the spot at the first hearing? On the contrary, if it was actually described as a "test case" that would suggest there was some sort of arguable/unclear legal point. I wouldn't know either way as I'm not a company lawyer nor have I seen the judge's reasons; if there are written reasons and they're available to be shared, I'd love to see them. But I hardly consider it "inexplicable" that the Club took the position it took. And at the end of the day, the Deemocracy position was emailed to 40,000+ members prior to the SGM and posted to many thousands prior to the SGM as well.

Dolphins, Giants, Bengals

Right, sorry. With it being election time now I inferred that into your post. You didn’t say that. There’s still a big difference between what opposition parties say mid-term and this situation - in ours, there is a vote. For the opposition, the public isn’t voting on anything.

I was commenting on your analogy of the vote being like an election, which it isn’t. I agree with that. It’s the right way to go about it. I consider some aspects of the Deemocracy website to be misleading but the provision of an alternative constitution lends a lot of credibility to their arguments.

No it’s not, and this is my precise point. Deemocracy present themselves and their proposed constitution as an alternative but this is not a vote between alternatives. This is a yes/no vote for what the Club is proposing and if you vote no, we get nothing. We don’t necessarily get anything, let alone everything, Deemocracy is asking for (although if the vote fails you would imagine at least something Deemocracy is seeking would ultimately make it in).