Nasher

JJC, check here: http://demonland.nozzs.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8367

I totally agree Scoop. I even had the same misconception up until I had these figures pointed out to me. The fact that we're getting it need not even really be public knowledge, it should just be lumped in with the total distribution figures like the little perks clubs like Carlton are obviously getting, given how high their portion of the distribution is. It is unfair tag that does not accurately reflect the true situation, and has made the entire football public believe we're some kind of basket case when that is not true.

These are the 2006 figures. I got these second hand, but these figures are available in the public domain. You only need to look at the AFL financial reports. With the ASD, you can see that for 2006, we're still well within the vicinity of St Kilda, Collingwood, Sydney and Richmond, and are under Carlton, North and WB. If you remove the $1m we get, we then get less money in total from the AFL than Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Kangas, Richmond, St Kilda, Sydney and WB. These figures are high, and the extra $1m we get is in actual fact a fairly insignificant revenue in the total scheme of what everyone else gets from the AFL. As I said, if you're going to take away our $1m from your considerations, you need to take away the other $5m we get, as well as Collingwood's $6.4m, Carlton's $7mil and so on. I doubt this year's figures will paint much of a different story. I guess we'll see when the numbers become public domain.

Yes, we receive "special" assistance, but we get less money from general AFL distributions than many of the clubs anyway. Counting the $1m we get from that fund, we still get less money than clubs such as Carlton and in the general ballpark of Collingwood (this is all from memory -- I am trying to get my hands on the true figures). In reality, we are not propped up by the AFL any more than any other club is.

If you're going to discount money given to us by the AFL as part of "that fund" then you have to discount all the money given to all clubs by the AFL if you want to apply consistent standards. Then we can sit back and watch the joy of 16 clubs recording multi-million dollar losses instead of most of them (including ours) being profitable.

It's almost certainly true, but it's just being prepared for the (strong) possibility that we'll take a kid from Perth. Don't try and read between the lines. We will almost certainly have not 100% made up our mind on who to take until we've seen who is left.

No. You don't discount revenue streams no matter how much you dislike the way you got it. It's just like saying, "well gee, it would've been a loss if we'd had 20,000 less members this year". Besides, through the AFL distribution of funds, I'm lead to believe we actually get less money than clubs such as Carlton and Collingwood anyway, not to mention the disfavourable TV broadcast schedule that greatly impede on our ability to draw sponsorship. Given the abysmal year we had on the field, if our P&L statement for this year is in the black then the board have done an incredible job.

Couldn't give a flying fig what this guy thinks. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Yep, it's on the 24th. Most users online is probably a better guide. The hits will be well in to the thousands, but that's actually not all that unusual.

The reason I call it a "tactical" decision is because I simply do not believe CAC rated Frawley higher than Petterd. My belief is that CAC rated Petterd (and probably several other smalls) higher, but believed there was more chance of him still being available at 30 than there was of Frawley being available at 30, and he wanted both. Btw I didn't say it was a surprise that CAC took Frawley, I just said it was brave, as he could easily have been put off by past mistakes.

It was a brave selection given CAC's history with late first rounders and KPPs. With that said, I suspect it was a tactical selection rather than that being the spot he was truly rated it. If it doesn't come off and Frawley doesn't make it, the fact that we scored Petterd at 30 afterwards will make it slightly more palatable.

Thanks Maurie. I asked that question on purpose so I could give that answer to the inevitable response. Beat me to the punch.

Not at all interested personally.

Such as?

For young players who are still building their bodies and confidence, playing them at AFL level can often be more damaging than anything.

That is the ultra ultra ultra pessimistic view.

I find Jake Orreal of Sydney more "interesting" -- no previous club? Wonder if any of the clubs would let me train?

It's definitely broken (as opposed to "scheduled maintenance").

More specifically http://www.afl.com.au/Default.aspx?tabid=2...mp;newsId=53086

Crashed his car in to a tree while "impressing" his mates with burnouts. How embarrassing. The topic of this thread is sensationalist journalism at its best!

Shane Neaves and Daniel Hughes apparently are. Yawn. According to SandyFC, Shane Valenti and Stefan Martin are also training with us.

Brayden Lyle at 124 was a pretty good effort. Ashley McIntosh at 112 and Chris Grant at 105 are fair selections too.

Bode was a shining light at the end of the year. It was refreshing to have something to look forward to in a terrible season. Especially when coming from where he came from, he said in the article himself that he came from "a long way back" -- that's a massive understatement. He was a true bolter, came from absolutely nowhere. It's up to him now to make the next step. I'm looking forward to seeing if he does.

And the WC would be held in our winter, yes? In which case, good luck getting access to stadiums fit for that grade of competition. I can't see the other codes jumping out of the way to make their stadiums available.

He's a player with a lot of potential that so far hasn't delivered. It's why he came cheap. I can't wait to find out if he's any good or not. Sometimes I swear the anticipation of the coming season is more exciting than the actual game itself.