rpfc

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'?

Dec 14, 2013 - 22,761 members

How is this a good settlement for the AFL? It's all about perception down at AFL HQ. The writing is on the wall for The Bloated One. It's Succession Planning Time I reckon.

The Tassie team is a shadow.

No, but they rely on a compeition with about 14 clubs that do "rely" on AFL money. So, indirectly, ALL clubs rely on it.

Ok, give back a 1/9 of the TV money in the next deal... The Tassie bid is nowhere. There is no market there, Hawthorn is sucking off of that teet, the people of Tasmania watch AFL football, some of them are members, they have some of their corporate population exploited by AFL teams. There is nothing left to get, there is no Tassie team on the horizon.

There has been no official movement on that. And, Arrow, the reports were based around UFA. And I agree that UFA should be exempt from the compensation model. They involve 28+ year olds or 26+ fringe players. Clubs need to be compensated for losing their best players in their prime, and they should be compenstaed relative to their ladder position as a measure of equality. RFA has never been a part of that discussion. But, again, there has been no official movement in that at all.

Perception is reality in the AFL, especially with The Bloated One close® to the end of his tenure with what has just happened. They got the Head of Footy Ops from Clubland in Evans and he comes form an entitled Hawthorn with a staggeringly short memory. What if the next CEO of the AFL isn't as equality-minded and socialistic as TBO? This is an important argument - that ALL clubs are dependednt on the AFL and the AFL as an 18 team entity.

I don't understand this. Threre are people out there who think that their club subsists on its own and the Demons are living at the courtesy of a benevolent AFL leadership that takes money from the richer clubs in order to keep the MFC alive. The above means that that is bogus, a lie, and the figures represent the fact that ALL clubs rely on the money afforded to them by a league made up of ALL the clubs.

That is ALL the payments to clubs. The base was $6.76m to all clubs and then at least an extra $1.2m each from the TV rights with further funding (very complex) on top of that:

That may be your question, but it is not the last question. The answer is yes. But the next questions are; do we meet his contract? And if so, does he enter the draft? In the NBA - if a team 'meets' the salary for a RFA - that contract is immediately enacted. That is not the case for the AFL.

Rocket scientist? I'd be happy if half of them could spell scientist.

Well, if history is a guide he will either have already signed elsewhere or won't sign anywhere (clubs are not allowed to talk to other players outside of October) until the FA/Trade period. I hope he hasn't signed elsewhere of course, but if he does leave, it is better for our planning that he tell us he has already signed...

It's more 'noteworthy' than his opinion that Toumpas is soft. I agree it's not a big deal, I have also heard some disturbing things about players and from players and you just remember these boys are 20 somethings with stunted mental growth. Leading Teams have their work cut out.