Dee*ceiving

Damn shame about McAdam. I thought he'd be a big chance to replace billings.

6. Gawn 5. Lever 4. Langdon 3. Petty 2. May 1. Fritsch McDonald, Oliver, Windsor, Pickett & McVee unlucky. In fact nearly everyone played their roles very well.

MLB has a looser model around spending caps. i understand teams you can spend over a nominated cap but every $ over is taxed at a rate that scales up the more you spend. A luxury tax as such. Not sure how effective it is or where the money goes.

If there's one thing we can commend the AFL for it's how the draft, soft cap and other factors have led us to the even competition we have now. Sydney, the Bulldogs and Melbourne have broken big premiership droughts in the last 20 years and whilst Hawthorn, Geelong and the Tigers have won multiple premierships they've all also had some tough years. Not only that but I think nearly team has played in a GF since 2000 except GC? - could be wrong on that.

Agree, not for me. The returns are regulated though. I think 85-90% of what goes in must come out (assuming they run to regulation and audits etc. are effective). So if you play long enough you will win! But if you are a long time player you will forever run 10-15% down on what you bet. That structure actually encourages the problem gamblers because they know eventually they'll get something back. The casuals though will mostly lose interest. Play a time or 2, lose and think that sucks.

The league is rich. The clubs operate under a soft cap & are somewhat handcuffed (league and self inflicted). Gaming revenue a simple example. Foregoing that is morally the right thing to do (as our club has done, not all though). But theres a stack of money in it. The Dees turning a profit of $3m from $56m revenue is pretty good (>5%). Pokies is another license to print money though

100% Great argument. It will definitely drum up 'feels'. I just wonder about the capital investment required to get the infrastructure up to standard and the ability for the team to attract regular, local support. Based purely on population, I have been to Darwin and love it as a place and have zero view on social demographics of the locals Correct. Plenty of cash. One of the reasons the executive and the AFLPA get so much money is because there is just so much money! No private equity firm wanting to use profits to capitalise other opportunities and no shareholder dividends. Its a license to print money and not pay tax. & the people getting rich are the execs!

I'd think he's taking a paycut no matter where he ends up. Question is how big a pay cut and how interested he is in moving interstate to maximise his salary and/or potential to play finals.

If Steven May played full forward and influenced every game the way he does at full back he'd be celebrated as one of the greatest players to ever play. I always found it interesting that preventing goals isn't applauded anywhere near the degree kicking them is.

I am of the belief we'll end up with a 20th team but it won't be from the NT. SA or WA would be my guess, borne from a WAFL or SANFL team.

Players come and go. The players are the products of the club's leadership. If North get the leadership right, just like we did with Jackson and Roos (and others), (after several failures!), they'll turn the ship around. Didn't GC and GWS enter the competition during our doldrums? IIRC correctly GWS cost us Scully & our captain but directly netted Hogan, Salem and Tyson. That netted out ok (and we hadn't yet gathered the premiership winning administration)... The list is not the hardest thing to fix IMO. Getting good leaders into the club and getting them aligned on the same objectives is the number 1 challenge. BTW, NM has recorded 50,000 members for the last 2 years

I can see your point too SWYL. We can agree to disagree. Whilst painful and difficult to turn into solvency I don't feel consecutive losing seasons are a significant threat to a clubs livelihood in the current AFL climate. Their is stacks of money to go around and options to create more if/when needed. Plenty of low hanging fruit (IMV)... Regarding talent, yes there will be less to go around for a time but in 1 or 2 generations I think we'll find Suns, Giants and Devils will have stirred their local talent pools considerably purely through their existence which will benefit every club. But, I could be wrong too!

I think the pertinent question is... "are there more eyeballs on the product in those regions this year than there were last year and what does the forecast suggest for 5 years time?" When those numbers decrease year on year over a 5 year period then there would be reason to worry. But my main point is, the AFL won't let that happen. They can't afford to let that happen. When that happens the first thing that occurs is executive bonuses get slashed (ouch) and then when it doesn't get corrected executives get marching orders (big ouch!).

That's always a risk but the bottom out can be avoided. We've actually been really successful at obtaining/retaining draft picks and then injecting them into a settled senior side in recent years: Kozzie, Bowey, JVR, Windsor, Howes, Tholstrup, etc

If I remember correctly we spent more than 4 years down the bottom. 2007 to 2017 was absolute misery. Best finish was maybe 12th(?) and again, without counting, 3 times dead last? 6+ times bottom 3 or 4? North have resigned Larkey, have some decent kids and a wise old coach. 3 - 4 more top 30 draft picks at the end of this year and 2025 and 3-4 smart FA pick ups (the don't need to be superstars) and the wheel will turn. IMV, the long term viability of all the existing clubs would have been considered by the AFL before signing off on Tasmania and I'd be stunned if relocating an existing team wasn't considered as an option.

The point is, they can run in the red for some time, like a whole bunch of things do across the AFL today. The onfield stuff will turn around, put good people in charge who work hard and smart and the wheel turns. You could tell that story of every club in the league to varying degrees and of the old VFL teams 20+ times over each. I'm 42 and Melbourne alone has gone from basket case to contender ~5 times in my lifetime alone (without specifically counting). They will eventually have to become solvent but my point is it's ok if that takes years and they don't have to do all of it themselves. Other factors will assist, eg. TV & gambling revenue that will continu to grow year on year (plus many other financial gains the league will identify/grow)

North will come good. I personally believe we are more likely to find a 20th team than see one disappear. The fixture is already a dog's breakfast, a 19th team for 4-5 years won't make a huge difference. The AFL is bringing in tons of cash and essentially increases in value as a product daily. In fact they choose how much money they wish to make, small tweaks to the pricing of tickets & peripherals can bring in millions with the punters not even noticing. Not to mention round zeros, gather rounds and whatver else. Another bright idea to creat $ is only a 2 hour worshop away. I'd hazard to say they are actively looking for places to invest to avoid taxes they'd otherwise be obliged to pay. Not unlike a government the AFL knows they can spend now and get it back later, they get credit at low rates, easily and the big end of business cue up to be involved. The Gold Coast, GWS and AFLW business cases would have predicted decades of red, but on they press with support from all sorts of sectors 'because it's the right thing to do. North will be ok...🤞

I agree, I think TMac will get Cameron. May always get's Hawk. We'll seek a favourable matchup for Lever to be the general. The worry for TMac will be Jeremy's turn and sprint back towards goals, he time's those brilliantly it seems, but that's where the other defenders need to help out.

Brown managed to be ready for the Cats -> Blues 5 days a part Agree. Goody loves his structures and stability but I feel we could have been better prepared for the last two septembers with better fatigue management. I was staggered when Gawn was on the plane to Perth to play WC (for one example)

23 players named there by young Kev so I'd suggest we know the team. The only watch might be if BBB was to be selected ahead of Turner despite not training. My read is BBB left out to be fresh for Cats -> Blues five days a part. It gives us a look at Turner as a forward and gets a game into him should we need him back or forward to cover injury or fatigue coming off the short break post the Cats game. I'd disagree. BBB has done a great job bringing the ball to ground most games this season. The Adelaide game was poor but he was clearly fatigued & probably shouldn't have been selected off the short break. None of our forwards got a look in against Brisbane

I reckon that's right about Toumpas. It was reported that the injury/surgery also led to a modified gait (IIRC).

I would agree with other posters, now is the time to try Fullarton (assuming he's ahead of Verrall). We get a look at him, give BBB another week off and can hopefully manage Max's workload ahead of a big fortnight. If TF plays well he stays in, we've got another string to our bow and a range KPP combinations to consider for the Cats/Blues games. If he struggles we go back to BBB with JVR back up ruck.

In fairness, his handle is 'Cranky Franky' Gives me visions of 'Blackboard' from Mr Squiggle...yes, child of the 80s

Taj looked a little fish out of water down back but it wouldn't feel right to leave him out and retain Kolt based on their respective performances. Perhaps Taj moves into Billings role allowing us to bring in a proper defender like Hore? Then Kozzie for Kolt, Kolt will be better for the run. His next chance will come before long. The game against Richmond needs to setup a squad ready to take on Geelong and Carlton the following fortnight, then WCE away. We should be looking to go at worst 3-1 in that month but also achieve some rest for the likes of Brown & Gawn and build some form in Clayton & Petty.

Byron, yeah?