rpfc

Yuk.

Does this 'cut' make Clint Bizkit feel better?

I think we all need to stop. I don't know whether it is Godwin's Law - but comparing me to BH hurts. Especially the poor man part. You both are good to argue/post with - I only have issues with attempts to tie what I post to the problems of the club and personal asides in posts - I do try to refrain from them. I don't think it is necessary to denigrate a poster personally, usually their argument provides enough rope - that is what I thought I was doing with you Billy. If I crossed the line (obviously I crossed that line the Blow post) then I apologise.

You're a lovely person, Billy. Jabberwocky asked for a comparison - I gave it. I also said "whether is matters" is up for you - the Land poster - to decide. I think direct comparisons like that are fraught too. But you go blow a gasket Billy, you go blow.

Our midfield is terrible, just terrible. In 2014 we will have Cross and Vince as known quantities to improve our fortunes, but that is somewhat offset by the loss of Sylvia. Tyson, Trengove, Watts, and Toumpas may improve and may make us better, but it is far from a guarantee that they will - or that their improvement will be significant enough to put us on a par with lower-middling sides. What did last year show us about forward depth? That if you can't compete in the midfield it doesn't matter that you have forward depth. As I said above, our recruits in the last off-season help but it is far from the end of it. I expect us to target midfielders again next year and I am willing to part with luxury items to get a premium midfielder.

4th Years in the system: Fitz (2013) averages: 10 disp, 4.2 marks, 1.4 goals. Dawes (2010) averages: 12 disp, 5.6 marks, 1.5 goals. I will let the readers decide who had the more impressive year, how much it matters, and whether the fact Dawes played in a flag that year is a plus or a minus in this discussion.

2016 will come and go without any significant change to the current situation, even if we continue to struggle. I guess the future will reveal whether that statement is right.

I hope he is as good as you think he is and we can trade him (or some other tall forward) for a midfielder. Depth players is a luxury we should not be concerning ourselves with. It's no good having a 1st world forward line with a couple playing at Casey when your midfield is bereft of talent.

lol Secret, behind-the-scenes machinations? Then why would they go and get us Jackson? The AFL wants us to suceed. I even think YOU think that - and yet, you throw out this possibility of nefariousness plans in the works? Yes, it is a solid income stream. So why tap it if it is already tapped? Of course, GC and GWS are going to have it tough but the converts that the Lions have won and lost ten times over have led to the SE Qld market to be tapped - bringing in new revenues. The same applies for the tough times ahead for GC and GWS. If a Tasmania team brings in negligible new revenues - why are the AFL going to go ahead with it? Paul Little and James Hird beg to differ... And precedent is tough to find for this in the AFL but when the NRL kicked out South Sydney at the end of 1999 after the Super League dramas; they were forced by the Federal Court to reinstate the club. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnKw_iLfngY&noredirect=1 I am more convinced after finding that video above that it would be a long drawn out and expensive matter to merge. It cost a few million just to fail to merge in 1996. There was a reason NM were offered the Gold Coast and not forced up there. If you had a merged NM/MFC and a Tassie team in lieu of the MFC and the NMFC you are just swapping struggling clubs for struggling clubs. People will stop supporting the merged teams in droves and, again, the numbers on Tassie being able to house a team are spotty at best. They would need to bleed every corporate and hope the state govt support them in perpetuity. Remember, Tassie is not growing: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/tasmanian-population-exodus-continues/4984372 The next few years are important, as all 'next three years' are important, but you are wrong when it comes to the possibility and benefits of Tasmania getting a team and of the chances of the AFL wanting to merge clubs and lower their number of games in order to do so. The clubs will continue to push back against equalisation because they are consumed by self-interest, but the AFL knows that getting all clubs in a position to compete for a flag on a stable footing is the mark of a good and profitable league.

We will see. I agree with what they did, but history will, once again, judge us. I hope it is kind.

Yeah, but they should be allowed to watch the footy too.

I thought I was being conservative about how difficult it would be - and how long it would take - to dissolve two clubs into one, create a new team, and reneg on a contract with a team who recieves $3m+ from the Tas govt. You make it sound as simple as the idea itself. And lol at the bolded - cost isn't important now? Cost is why, in the hyperthetical (intended mispelling), you have dissolved MFC and NMFC. The rest: - scaling back money to MFC and NMFC - how does the AFL do that? Give a lower base payment than other clubs? That's headed for the courts... - Hawthorn is irrelevant, and the GC have turned football people - Well, this touches on something you are glossing over: the ROI. Tasmania is not the Gold Coast, they already watch footy in Tassie, converts increase revenues. AFL supporters who change allegiances do not. and the govt will have to pour the money into a Tassie team, and will get a far better return than on the the current Hawthorn deal. They will want out.

If a past champion of a club had an adopted son - it would be a PR nightmare for the AFL (who are driven by such things) to refuse it. 'Biological relationship?' Please. Do they do DNA testing? What an invasion into people's lives that would be. lol What if a son failed the biolocal relationship DNA testing that was not supposed to fail... Er...awkward...

I don't think that is true, or old information. In 2009, the MCG/Etihad agreed with the AFL that teams will be given $100k extra for home games at both venues. Perhaps that means that instead of a cheque of $100k being written out the club saves that money but I am confident that the arrangement at the G is far better than 22k. http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/afl-clubs-set-to-prosper-from-afls-new-deal-with-etihad-stadium/story-e6frf3e3-1225778600083

As CB says - you had a go at him for being injured - so maybe you are a player basher. Hopefully Tyson gets over his knee issues and can play some games - he cost an effload more than Dawes.

The MCC makes quite a bit of money when the MFC plays at the G, if we suddenly didn't bring our 20k MCC members through the gates every second week, the MCC would feel it. And the money required to make this change should not be sniffed at either - we haven't mentioned that yet. For example, to do this hypothetical merger of two clubs and a standalone Tasmanian team while removing Hawthorn would need members/boards of two clubs to agree to a framework for merger AND with the blessing of another club who is happy in Tasmania and, let's not forget, has a deal with the government there. You have to spend money on PR/consultants to convince people/members/boards to do this, the Tassie Govt to pump in the money and extricate themselves from the Hawthorn situation, and to convince people to go for this Tassie team in lieu fo the AFL team they support now. And that is before we get to the, very pertinent, question of whether Tasmania can actually house an AFL team and not be the kind of money-drain that this hypothetical removes MFC and NMFC for being. There are too many moving parts in this fantasy scenario. And, marketing firm? It's a consultancy firm that lobbies governments, business, and institutions like the AFL on behalf of clients. The fact that Tasmania hired such a firm should tell you they were once serious about this. However, this was pre-GWS, pre-renegotiation with Hawthorn, and with different leaders in the Tassie govt.

I don't think it is as simple as TV money vs AFL grants to clubs as a value measurement. If you lose $100m+ in TV money from losing a game a week, other stakeholders lose money - venues, merchandise, beverage, food stalls, et al. I think that 18 teams and 9 games are entrenched and to move back to 8 games would be seen as a massive failure of the league, and the leaders of the league would do this and then hand in their resignations.

I am certain adopted sons qualify.

I wouldn't know the exact fraction if St Kilda or Melbourne were not in the competition but the figure will be close to 1/9 if you are removing a game a week. And, yes, the PR/consultancy firm used by the Tassie govt advised them before their latest deal with the Hawks that it would effectively end their chance to have a Tassie team. The Tassie govt, signed the deal, and sealed their fate. Hawthorn will not let go (and now NM) of their lucrative teet anytime soon.

Is it? For the teams in this league that can sustain themselves without the approx. $10m that all clubs get - they would not survive without most of those teams that need that $10m. It's a complimentary point that evades the General Football Public's mind.

I see it the same way. If Clark plays a season injury free - Fitz should be traded. If Clark is the desired second ruck/tall forward then he is playing the position Fitzpatrick is suited for. This is all a bit 'iffy' really: Will Clark and Dawes be able to play AFL footy? Will Fitzpatrick continue his development from 2013? Will Clark play second ruck? All things being equal (and going well) - Clark, Dawes, Hogan, and Howe complement each other well and, in my opinion, is the basis of a forward line that will still feature another Fitzpatrick-like player in Watts. I hope 2014 is tougher for Fitzpatrick than 2013 because that will mean we are injury free and on the up.

I was simply curious as to why you gave evidence for one conclusion then proffered another conclusion. And he is 'seen' as the better player? Dawes is better than Fitz. And, more to the point Pman intimated above - Dawes serves an important role Fitzpatrick will not be able to do anytime soon if ever. I am very happy with how Fitzpatrick is developing. I have read on here that the previous FD did not rate him - that indifference has helped his development - he has honed his leading, marking, and positioning down at Casey. However, he plays a different role to Dawes and doesn't do what he does well better than Clark and Hogan.

It's difficult to prove as it is a zero-sum equation - we can't go back and develop Watts differently - we can only comment on what should have happened to someone who was used a PR stunt by those in charge of the club at the time after a playing three VFL games to be thrown into what is lamentably and patronisingly called - our Grand Final. He was given games, he played as a waif, played all over the place, and has mentioned a few times that he has had issues with confidence at this level. I think we could have done a better job. But can I prove it? Of course I cannot.

Not just physique (about 15kgs at least) and temperament - in his first game he will be over a year older than Watts was in his infamous AFL debut. Not to mention the forced proper development of playing him at Casey for year. No frustration - just the reinforced belief that he can play with and beat hardened footballers. If only we were forced to properly develop every other kid, but that is another argument...

Why would he get the nod if Fitz is 'taller, quicker and can ruck better'?