Rodney (Balls) Grinter
-
Posts
4,971 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Rodney (Balls) Grinter
-
-
On 16/11/2016 at 9:31 AM, Clint Bizkit said:
Email the AFL, not Melbourne.
On 16/11/2016 at 9:35 AM, daisycutter said:or email one, copy the other
Email them both individually and compelle them to both register and reply to our grievance. Also email other MFC members and supporters you know (within and outside Demonland) and ask them to do the same.
The MFC are rightly mostly shifting the issue onto the AFL. However I've also been disappointed that the response I received from the MFC puts more emphasis on defending the AFL policy ahead standing up for the MFC and it's members/supporters views.
-
13 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:
It's not the time but the crime with the inconsistency, if they agreed to a six month ban, why, when it is 4 years
There is also inconstancy in the logic for Whitfield's reduced ban. In quotes I've heard from Gill, he states to the effect that Whitfield is less capable, because as a young person, he was lead by senior figures at the club - this defence did nothing for the Essendon players, even though as I understand it some challenged the club and sought assurances that they were not contravening the banned substances. Whitefield must have known what he was doing was clearly wrong, he is an adult, not a child and should not be given the soft touch he was.
Saad is the one I feel most sorry out of all this. The AFL effectively ended his career over what I think was most likely to be an honest mistake. Even if Whitfield was suspended for the 18momths Saad was it is actually unlikely it would be as career ending.
-
3
-
-
27 minutes ago, beelzebub said:
What could epitomise this ridiculous stance more than havibg a team with NO white normally on its jumper playing. team that does.....and then introducing. White into the confusion where there was none. It's bullshlt.
Again I cannot post images, but check out the below for the case in point:
What irritates me is that in their email responses the MFC actually pretty much defend the AFL's policy, including defending Collingwoods token effort.
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, DemonLad5 said:
We will be wearing this in round 1
Even though it clashes with St Kilda's jumper more than our traditional jumper.
TheAFL's crude white for all policy is garbage.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Satyriconhome said:
The white jumper is one of the most popular products at the Demon Shop, it outsells the 'normal' one
I'm sure they were once they were discounted down to $20 after sitting on the shelf and clogging up the store room all season.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Chris said:
Why can't we simply where our normal jumper against the dons? There is no clash there.
You mean like we always use to. Carlton jumpers can also look fairly similar to the traditional MFC one, but neither jumper is indistinguishable from each other, as the contrast is in the significantly different geometrical design.
Back pre clash jumpers, I recall there being a few moments of confusion in games where an errant handball may have hit an opposition in clear space thought to be a team mate and similaly probably a few mistaken identity umpiring decisions. On average these problems effected both teams more or less equally. Another objection is that tge players find it hard. Having played lower level local footy, many instances occurred playing opposition with similar jumpers - it does require a little extra care, but it is hardly impossible.
At AFL level, it was never the kind of gross problem that justified the atrocious over reaction from the AFL of mandating 'every' team develop a predominantly white away jumper.
-
11 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:
When it comes down to it... at least we dont have sleeves
Or look like some BS superhero outfit.
...But just because other teams make horrendous fashion statements doesn't excuese the violation of white on MFC clash jumpers. I could handle the MFC equivalent of the above - predominantly red jumper with a stylized M blue in the middle (minus the crappy sleeves) and no white, compared to our current clash jumper.
-
For reference, here are some of the other teams 'clash' jumpers for 2016:
http://shop.afl.com.au/geelong-cats-2016-kids-clash-guernsey-119795.phtml
http://shop.afl.com.au/sydney-swans-2016-mens-clash-guernsey-121854.phtml
http://shop.afl.com.au/collingwood-magpies-2016-adult-replica-clash-guernsey-104820.phtml
http://shop.afl.com.au/st-kilda-saints-2016-adults-clash-guernsey-113563.phtml
Gee I wonder why clash jumpers are not an issue for any of these clubs fans?Should make them replace the white with fluorescent pink and see how happy they would be.
Sorry, I can't upload the images directly, this blog site allows me smaller and smaller file size allowance with every upload. Down to about 20kb now.
-
Watching our great victory over the Hawks in Rd 20 (again). Two observations:
1. Great that both teams were wearing their traditional jumpers;
2. How much better does the guy on the right of the photo below look in RED and BLUE.
-
3
-
-
11 minutes ago, Swooper Northey said:
Some of you might get a kick out of the AFL's response to my queries about clash uniforms following our win over Gold Coast at the G last year. The answers to my note are in red and come from Tess McManus, the AFL's Match Day Operations Manager. Whilst I appreciated the response, try and make sense or see logic in these answers if you can...
From:
Sent: Monday, 1 August 2016 9:12 PM
To: AFL General Queries
Subject: Query for the AFL - clash uniforms
To Whom It May Concern,as a long-time follower of the VFL/AFL competition I was hoping that someone at league headquarters could help explain how it determines which uniforms teams wear each week?
In days gone by, the rule of white shorts for the away team was a very simple concept to understand, but the current situation with clash uniforms has never really been explained to the football public because there doesn’t appear to be any hard and fast rules in place. I can’t see a logical pattern in how decisions are made and would appreciate the AFL’s insight into how the system works.
There appear to be clear examples of inconsistent uniform policy every weekend which causes confusion and often frustration amongst supporters and followers of the game. The basic policy is to have one “dark” team and one “light” team where possible.I am a Melbourne supporter, so for the sake of this correspondence, I will use my club as an example. I am sure however that supporters of other clubs could raise similar queries.
Melbourne v Gold Coast last Sunday was an interesting case study. Earlier in the year when these two teams played at Metricon Stadium, the Demons were not allowed to wear their traditional red socks. They instead wore a different set of red and blue hooped socks, to reduce the risk of clashing with the Suns. The above is not entirely correct. The Melbourne FC were allocated “clash” socks and as they did not request to wear their home socks, we did not change the initial allocation. That was understood and considered a reasonable outcome. However on Sunday when Melbourne hosted Gold Coast at the MCG, the Suns as the away team made no change to its uniform – i.e. both sides played the game wearing red socks – see above. Given the AFL’s desire to stamp out clashing uniforms, I’d love to know why this was the case, particularly when Gold Coast has a white clash uniform with blue socks which it rarely seems to wear.
The same issue also seems to play out when Melbourne hosts the Brisbane Lions at the MCG. In recent seasons, the Lions have worn their Fitzroy-style red, blue and yellow jumper with predominately red socks against Melbourne (a red and blue team which also has red socks). Why does this repeatedly happen, when Brisbane has multiple uniforms to choose from, yet the AFL puts them in the combination that clashes most? The colours of red are completely different (the Lions almost orange) and therefore we don’t believe it is an issue and neither club has ever raised it as a concern
Curiously, the Demons (red and blue) and Port Adelaide (black, white and teal) are deemed to clash by the AFL and are forced to wear alternate jumpers when they meet – correct, both considered “dark” uniforms, yet Collingwood and Carlton, both clubs with dark jumpers (both with dark backs with white numbers) don’t change their uniforms when they play one another, even though Collingwood has at its disposal a predominately white uniform for its use which more closely resembles its original jumper. We believe the Guernsey’s have enough of a distinction due to the amount of white in Collingwood’s Guernsey’s however on occasions the combination of shorts can cause confusion. We are working with both clubs to ensure we prevent this moving forward.
When Melbourne (predominately navy blue) played the Bulldogs (predominately royal blue), both clubs were allowed to wear their original jumpers, which looked fantastic. Yet when Adelaide (predominately navy blue) played the Bulldogs (predominately royal blue), the Crows were forced to wear their yellow strip – this was a request of the Adelaide Crows. Again, it is hard to see the logic in this, particularly when Adelaide and Essendon (both dark colours with red in their guernseys) wore their traditional jumpers at the Adelaide Oval last night. I would love to understand how these decisions are reached. This is something we are working on with Essendon – I agree, it definitely wasn’t the best distinction.
These are just a handful of examples that I can draw upon which points to the confusion and inconsistency surrounding this issue. There are many more that I could point to. Out of respect for a loyal supporter of our game, I would greatly appreciate some insight into how these decisions are made.I summarized the above as:
If the club has the balls to tell the AFL to stick it and wear what ever jumper the club wants to wear, then the AFL rolls over.
On that basis, the MFC needs to grow a pair on this issue and defy the AFL's general guidance and wear it's supporters preferred guernsey.
-
5
-
-
6 hours ago, biggestred said:
here are some alternatives i have saved over the years from places like here and big footy.
no reason we couldnt be in any of these - or even have 3 (blue/red/white)
i feel sick
this has actually turned me off the AFL in a big way
ffs
158 years and we have to wear THAT next year? jfc
The red shorts do go well with the NT sponsorship logo on the one on the bottom. Perhaps we could get them to make the request to the AFL? $ talk to the AFL.
-
1 minute ago, DominatrixTyson said:
It would be better if it was a darker grey or dark silver. White or light-grey is terrible. I think a dark grey not only looks nicer, but mixes better with red and blue and maintains them as the main 2 colours. If you put a white or lighter grey in, then all three colours just turn it into a 3 coloured guernsey like the Dogs or Saints. I'd rather we choose all red and a little blue than have white in our uniform.
http://shop.afl.com.au/products/58081-melbourne-demons-mens-down-vest-2000.jpg This grey, but maybe slightly lighter for the benefit of the light-clash strip.
In all fairness to our graphic designer, our logo is awesome and i can see where they're coming from with this clash strip: Get that logo in the forefront and have our team build a brand with good football, so that logo becomes iconic. Perhaps why they chose to go with the full logo on the front and don't care too much about the background and the lines dividing the colours.
Why does it need to be grey or white at all. The purpose is to create sufficient contrast with the other teams jumper and if you are skeptical, another variation to market to fans (which going on the overwhelming disaproval of it is unlikely any would be sold).
In the interests of being reasonable and pragmatic, I'd be prepared to accept Melbourne's 80s retro royal blue version, which I think should sufficiently achieve the clash objective satisfactorily if a predominantly red with blue jumper was insufficient. Have fond memories wearing a long sleave retro MFC jumper with my favorite number 2 on the back as a kid!!
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Jesus Hoganshaw said:
I emailed the club to tell them it's horrific and they're better off keeping this year's. They replied with a copy-paste response saying white clash guernseys are necessary and there are ongoing discussions about them with the AFL. Actually annoyed me more than if they didn't respond at all. Just condescending.
1 minute ago, Swooper Northey said:I notice that the Demon Shop link is now inactive.
Regardless I've written to the club this evening outlining my displeasure with the new uniform. I said that the club only needs to look at social media posts and club forums to gauge instant feedback. I've pointed them to Demonland's poll whereby nearly 80 per cent of respondents claim to 'hate it'.Jesse, good on you for emailing the club, that's a positive start. The MFC are always going to tow the company line Re the white in any initial response rather than risking the AFL hauling them over the coals for publicly opposing them, particularly when the initial response is probably coming from some low ranking person in the organisation like a membership admin officer etc. However the more emails and public protests they receive from their members, it will give them better grounds for going to the AFL.
Like Swooper and yourself, I will also be writing to the club tomorrow. If I can find a suitable contact for the AFL I will also be including them in the communication.
I am sick of sitting passively by on this issue. Gill McLachlan has put himself out there as the CEO of the fans, then it's time for him to deliver on this. If he can get cheap chips and meat pies, buy stadiums and borrow our marketing guru, then he can fix our clash jumper (least we even need one).
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, old dee said:
Spot on and the answer is No.
will we all return our memberships? No
will we stop going to games? No
Will we do anything that effects the MFC? No
AFL you win.
How would returning memberships or stop going to games help the situation other than hurting the MFC.
There are better ways to push this with the AFL than the above - how about burning a white crap jumper on the doorstep of AFL house, or something along those lines that expresses our extreme dissatisfaction with the situation without hurting the MFC?
-
1 hour ago, Is Dom Is Good said:
If these were our clash Guernsey's I'd be fairly happy with that. I'd probably remove the little emblem on the original but other than that I can't see much better of an outcome than what you've put together here.
Can we honestly put this forward along with a signed petition? Would anyone else be keen to try do that?
I'd be happier with the below version and only in games where there is a genuine clash (not just every away game).
And yes I'd be happy to sign a petition for almost any variation that didn't include ghastly white domince. I hate the white with a passion and there are few things more sacred to a footy club than it's colours. I feel violated every time I see us in a poxy white piece of crap jumper.
The Brisbane Lion supporters lobbied hard and won their battle against the Paddle Pop Lion jumper - time Demons fans took up arms to fight for our own jumper. The AFL has clearly set numerous precedents allowing other clubs away jumpers much closer to their regular home and away jumper, so the MFC should have reasonable grounds, particularly as we are the oldest club in the comp.
Is there someone here on Demonland that can set-up such a petition?
-
5
-
-
2 hours ago, AzzKikA said:
I do not understand why we dont just have an inverted clash strip, predominantly red with the blue V?
I do not hate the new one but I do not love it either, was the same feeling with all out clash jumpers.
You mean like the one Richmond were allowed to wear in 2016?
No poxy white on this.
-
2
-
-
Here are a few more points for a bit of perspective:
1. In year one, marquee players will be paid $27,000, the next tier of players will receive $12,000 and the remaining listed players will be paid $8,500 for an average of 10.5hrs 'work' for 16 weeks. (That's pretty good pocket money in my book for a part time commitment of playing a sport they love, that most participants play for free. Look at it another way the rates are equivelent to $100K - $320K full time professional rate. I think these wages are more than 'fair' when you consider the average Australian wage. No not equal with the men's comp, but the women's comp is far from equal to the men's comp on many fronts - YET).
All three tiers will rise in the second year.
2. Is pretty generous when considered that 'top' AFL field ($150K) and boundary umpires are only paid around $50K per year (i.e. a full 22 round season) and all umpires are also only part time (it should be noted that the AFL supports both male and female umpires at the top level). These people do a very though job, have a particularly hard development pathway and also put in fitness work outside their principle AFL training commitments;3. The whole women's AFL comp is immature. The reasons given why it is only 8 teams and an abbreviated season is over concerns of severely diluting the talent pool at both the state level and national level to a point where the quality would dramatically suffer. Similar to point 1, the current pay deal is a transition arrangement which is aligned to the maturity of the competition;
4. Many activists and media commentors are suggesting that the women's comp should be fully professional from day one. However have they considered that many of the players may not actually want this, as many may prefer to hegde their bets between a sporting career and profession in everyday life. Again particularly with where the comp is at.
5. Some of the arguments about 'under payment' of the women's comp suggest that the AFL is 'a wash with money', it needs to be considered that as I understand things, it is the clubs that need to pay players. Whilst the power clubs could no doubt afford high salaries, lesser off financial clubs like Melbourne and the Bulldogs survive financially somewhat on a knifes edge can not afford to risk big deficits. The fincial security and good will of the AFL can only be milked so far.
Probably the biggest mistake the AFL made was not paying for players boots which in hindsight was stingy and opened up a cheap dig at the AFL. The intital offer, which was really still pretty generous has been increased to what I would actually regard as overs in most instances, so if the women's lib activist movement or anyone else wants to take their boots off over this issue, as far as I'm concerned, I know a good place they can shove them and it starts with the letter 'A' (nothing more or less).
-
1
-
-
On 14/11/2016 at 8:47 AM, stuie said:
See comments inserted into your post for clarity.
Cheers Rod.
Stuie, I take you comments on board in the reasonable and genuine spirit I think you intend them. However I still think you are over playing the facts of the commercial proposition. Below is the AFL's statement on the matter (which I take with a grain of salt):
Lethlean expects it will be a long time before the women's game funds itself, with a broadcast deal to be finalised in the coming weeks.
The AFL will not make any money from television stations.
"We've got one sponsor at the moment. We're trying to do broadcast deals now with our partners, which hopefully take shape in the next few weeks," Lethlean said
In the present context, the reality is that the AFL is probably under playing the issue, but I don't doubt that the women's comp is presently a loss maker. How quickly that may change is anyone's guess, bit until the competition does mature, the AFL does also need to manage it's financial risk. I think that the ultimate solution is to manage the EBA's for the women's and men's comps as one, as would be standard business practice, but only once the women's comp is actually at the point of maturity where professionalisim is justifyed.
-
On 8/11/2016 at 5:15 PM, stuie said:
Read this champ.
"It was the largest overall average audience in Melbourne of any game during the 2016 home and away season.
The previous best was the St Kilda-Geelong match in round 14, which drew an average audience of 347,000 viewers, while the Essendon-Richmond Dreamtime at the 'G clash in round 10 nabbed an average of 331,000."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-04/womens-allstars-game-a-ratings-smash
"Over hyped" hey?
Already read that thanks buddy and I suspect it is one of the major contributing factors to it being over hyped. As others have said, it makes just a bit of difference it being the only footy on TV on a week in the middle of the regular season.
Further though, it's pretty easy to flick on the box for a few minutes or a few hours compared to actually attending the game. Tell me what was the actual attendance at the ground? I'd say the ground attendance is more indicative of the core support the game is likely to attract in the longer term - and then you could divide that by two once you have two other Melbourne based teams. Let's not even think about how much further diluted that support would be were it competing with the regular men's AFL season. In a regular AFL round, I'd see that the womens ratings would be worse than televised VFL (and no commercial station was actually interested in that).
The only real opportunities for regular ratings I can see for the women's game in the short term are in the off season (as the AFL has astutely planned). Even then the women's game will be competing with cricket, soccer, basketball, netball etc. Speaking honestly, from a personal perspective 'right now' I have limited interest in watching women's AFL on a regular basis. My wife who actually played the game 10 years or so ago has hardly expressed a burning passion and joy that the women AFL league is upon us either. I'd temper these statements with an admiration for the personal attributes displayed by Daisy Pearce and that in time my interest level in the women's game may grow, but I think that is also a little patronising and unrealistic in a way - I also have admiration for Michelle Payne, but I still have almost zero interest in watching horse racing.
I don't mean to be negative or anti women in any of this, but there is also a need to be realistic and not over inflate the results of idiosyncratic, one off events.
-
I am so sick of this bloody overzealous equal pay argument cr@p. It is clearly not a professional league yet - does nine hours 'work' per week, for part of the year really constitute a full time job?
This whole issue has been highjacked by the now super aggressive 'affirmative action' women's movement, which actually puts equality and fairness to one side on an individual level and is hell bent on squaring up the numbers to give the appearance of equality.
Next someone will be saying that the under 18s competition is child slave labour, so we should be paying them award wages.
As a side issue, I'd also actually argue that the AFL men are overpaid and more AFL money should be going into supporting local grass roots footy at all levels (and sexes), but that's another story.
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:
Yep I couldn't remember if they'd done that or not. It's a start, still, I'd rather delisted free agency go all the way until Feb. Where's the rush? Let clubs see which youngsters are progressing and who's fit over preseason.
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-28/whats-next-all-the-afl-dates-you-need-to-know
Yes, agree, they could potentially be spaced out a bit more and end closer towards the end of preseason.
-
23 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:
So many things are backwards in the AFL if afforded the opportunity to do so it makes much more sense to have the draft first and get the kids that you want in and then worry about delisted players to compliment your list.
A bit a miss on this I think.
From what I understand, the AFL has several delisted FA periods, following the National draft, probably for the reasons you suggest.
-
108 years. that's a f#@*ing long time
I don't want to wait 56 years for the red and blue to hoist the cup again. Another two years will be long enough.
-
2 hours ago, Deefiant said:
I don't see the fact that he had suicidal tendencies before having any fact in the matter. I would like to think any workplace would care about the welfare of their employees regardless of their history. Obviously Richmond could have done more to help this kid, although I don't think it's a problem that is isolated to Richmond. I would think that many clubs are lacking in the ability to deal with the welfare of all their players and maybe the AFL need to set up an external program for all players.
I don't actually think it is or should be the 'responsability' of clubs to look after the welfare of their players. They certainly shouldn't set up environments which are detrimental to a players welfare, however I don't think it is entirely their duty to manage a players welfare for them.
These are grown (be they mostly fairly young) adults and they need to take certain responsibility for their own actions and wellbeing. Obviously, it's in everyones best interests for the club to be as supportive as possible, but that is different to them being held to account for managing a players wellfare for them, which it almost seems like this individual has the expectations of.
-
3
-
2017 Clash Guernsey
in Melbourne Demons
Posted · Edited by Rodney (Balls) Grinter
That is not the word I would use.
Take your pick of illogical, discracefull or challenge to "the integrity of the competition" - MFC/AFL words, see below response from MFC.
This is one of the prime reasons I hate last years and similarly this years clash jumpers with a passion - they look like some bad love child of a St Kilda and Carlton jumper and I don't recognise it as being a MFC jumper.
My email and response from the club below:
From: Melbourne Football Club <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: 16 November 2016 3:32:28 pm AEST
To:
Subject: RE: White Clash Jumpers are Not MFC
Thanks for taking the time to contact the Melbourne Football Club.
It is the Club's strong preference to wear our home guernsey all of the time however the AFL require all clubs to have a clash strip for when we play teams with similar colours to our own. The reasons for this are quality of broadcast - ease of the viewer to tell the teams apart when watching on television and, the integrity of the competition in terms of players being able to easily tell the opposition players apart from team mates in a contest.
The broader debate around the use of clash guernseys is an industry wide issue. For reasons of history and tradition, all Club's would choose to wear their home guernsey at all times but the AFL, as the governing body, has determined for reasons such as clarity for television viewers and player confusion during play etc that clash guernseys are a required part of the game.
We have tried a number of designs that don't include white but none of those designs reduce the clash issues with all the teams the AFL determine us to clash with. The bottom line is, some Club's uniforms, like ours, Fremantle, Western Bulldogs, St Kilda, West Coast etc are perceived to clash with more Clubs than others. Clubs like Collingwood and the Swans hardly have any issues with clash. When we are the home Club we will always wear our home Guernsey but as the away Club there are occasions when the AFL will require us to wear the clash guernsey. In 2017 we will be required to wear our clash guernsey 5 times, and potentially a sixth. We will look to work with the AFL to determine if our home guernsey can be worn when we play against St Kilda as the away team in Round 1.
In 2015 we had an additional clash option, a predominantly red clash guernsey. This guernsey was only worn twice during that season. As our guernseys need to be approved by the AFL before proceeding to production in May/June the year prior to the season they are to be worn, without a fixture it is impossible to determine if in fact we could wear a clash guernsey that isn't predominantly white.
For the past two season we have kept a similar design. The 2017 design has allowed us to include more red and blue whilst remaining predominantly white.
We will continue to have discussions with the AFL about our clash guernsey options during the design process for 2018 in the first half of 2017.
Thank you for your feedback and ongoing support it is greatly appreciated.
Melbourne Football Club
T: (03) 9652 1111 | melbournefc.com.au<http://melbournefc.com.au>
Melbourne Football Club, Great Southern Stand, MCG, PO Box 254, East Melbourne, Vic 8002
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 4:06 PM
To: Melbourne Football Club
Subject: White Clash Jumpers are Not MFC Jumpers
To whom it may concern,
I have been a MFC member for the past 30 years, having recently renewed my membership again around 2010, a period in which the club saw little success.
I am writing to express my extreme dissatisfaction with MFC playing jumpers that feature a predominance of white. Jumpers featuring a majority of white are not identifiable as a Melbourne Football Club jumper and I have high confidence that the vast majority of Melbourne Football Club members and supporters have the same view. Every heart beats true for the RED and BLUE, not Red, Blue and White - that is the Western Bulldogs.
I understand that this issue is somewhat driven by relatively contemporary AFL requirements. However these requirements are not applied universally as Essendon and Richmond featured clash jumpers without a predominance of white.
I am tired of the club rolling over on this issue, meaning that we watch our team play in putrid playing jumpers for a significant number of games over the past ten or so years. It is time that the club acted on the interests of it's members and refuse to bow to the AFL's white clash jumper policy.
Sincerely,