praha

You mean with clubs swimming in zero-asset debt, Victorian clubs embroiled in constant merger talks, games played at stadiums falling apart (and clubs losing millions in the process), little to no regional and grassroot support, little to no Indigenous support ... shall I go on? What's your definition of "swimming in cash", and what is "a payoff" to that surplus? The commentators have nothing to do with the AFL. The AFL is limited in who it can sell broadcasting rights to. Foxtel arguably offers the best value and best quality across a diverse broadcasting structure but the problem is that it limits free-to-air access...the AFL is in a corner because Channel 7 invests in the wrong individuals to lead its sports coverage. It's the networks that seem out of touch with the broader public, not the AFL.

This is not an argument. In what ways does Gil's salary adversely affect the functionality and wage distribution throughout the league? SPOILER: It doesn't. +1.

The AFL is actually treated as a seperate entity of the clubs, who pay a license fee to appear in the league. That Gil earns more than the highest-paid players is irrelevant. He manages and oversees the league, its finances, its distribution mechanisms, corporate sponsorships, and broadcasting rights. I do believe players should earn more, but it shouldn't be relative to what AFL executives run. The AFL is a corporate entity, and it's seperate from the ways in which clubs are run, and how people within those clubs are paid. If a club wanted to, it could pay its President more than the highest-paid player on the team. This is a silly thread because it mostly disregards other mechanisms that actually contribute to the ways in which players are paid. Gil might be overpaid relative to his output, but it has zero bearing on what players are paid. Suggesting he shouldn't earn more than the players demonstrates a comical lack of understanding of the AFL and its corporate structure.

What have the Doggies got? I reckon they'll crack 50,000.

55. Don't see him as a huge goal-kicking forward beyond the 50s. I think he's far too talented and has too high a football IQ to be restricted to kicking goals.

Hutchy might actually help bring the show more in line with being, you know, a footy show. He's not much of a joker so he may be more inclined to focus more on football itself. Guaranteed Sam will be the next one to go. They are slowly shifting towards a more focused show with this lot.

How stupid to have any team travel interstate on the eve of the actual season. The final week of the pre-season should be the clubs from WA, SA, QLD and NSW play their cross-town rivals, while Vic teams play each other. I know there is a break beforehand, but it just seems to pointless to go that far for the last pre-season game. Maybe it's just me.

You don't "tag" a bloke like Riewoldt. He rarely plays deep so it's impossible to constantly have a KPP on him. Teams have played him the same way for years: play off him, force him to the flanks, and a force a centred kick. We did that both times we played them this year but being at Etihad we just didn't have the cattle back for the switch.

Maybe that's exactly why we drafted him...

They're both still playing AFL?

How do you gauge what metric the greater-than, equal-to and less-than sit at? For example, is Lewis further ahead of Mitchie than, say, Dawes is to Smith? We may have lost some players and replaced them with players that are further away or may not be as good *right now*, but the bigger picture suggests we've definitely improved. Let's rank each player out of, say, 10, and use your analysis of like-for-like swaps for players brought in and players lost. Lewis (8.5) > Michie (1) Hibberd (6) > Terlich (3) McKenna (4) = Grimes (4) Hannan (4.5) > Newton (3) Johnstone (2) < Jones (4.5) Filipovic (3) = King (3) Keilty (2.5) < Dunn (5) Smith (3.5) < Dawes (4) So: Bringing in: 34 Losing: 27.5 That's not considering that I feel Smith is an improvement on Dawes.

15 wins.

I see the resemblance, too.

Online shopping is for people who know what they want. Having a retail shop that only serves diehard fans is pointless. Walking traffic and random purchases in the heart of the CBD is merely a branding exercise. It's not about making money. It's about putting your brand anyway but the bowels of the MCG.

Didn't PJ mentioned a few years back that they wanted a store in a more centralised location in the CBD? Regardless of how nice the apparel is, is the branding effective if people not otherwise engaged with it are actually aware of it? I can't imagine anyone that isn't a Melbourne supporter making the effort to catch the train to Richmond or Jolimont, and then walking to the bowels of the MCG to buy a t-shirt. It might seem trivial but the store's location has always seemed at odds with the club's intention of being "the AFL's NY Yankees". I suspect rent in the CBD would be incredibly expensive, but I also suspect that increased foot traffic would lead to a boost in sale, which may offset that increase in rental expenses. If you're a visitor to Melbourne and you see a store dedicated to "The Melbourne Football Club", I suspect you'd be remotely interested enough to curiously window shop or step inside for a gander. I know I would and have when overseas and see similar stores for sporting clubs. I know that branding is a chicken-egg scenario -- you can't have a strong brand if you're not strong on the field, and you can't be strong on the field if your brand isn't strong enough to attract people to financially support it -- but it's little things like this that contribute to the bigger issue that is the club's long-lasting branding issues.

Based on some of South Cross-Austereo's recent digital acquisitions, I wouldn't be surprised of Cowboy McGuire is indeed in charge down there.

It's fine.

It's a fascinating outburst, and I feel for the kid because he obviously has issues. Calling out the club is one thing, but he mentioned individual people, which is bordering defamatory unless he can prove the accusations.

It's 2005 all over again. I remember we beat the Pies on QB, then had like 4x 6-day breaks in a row after that and it snowballed into a 7-game losing streak.

TBH it's a bit deceiving. St Kilda has no real "blockbusters". We play two games in NT which reduces possibility of Melbourne-based night games. We also have ANZAC Day and Queens Birthday, both during primetime. Also, the fact Carlton, Richmond and Essendon only have 2 and we have 1 is fine with me. At least we're not getting 20 Friday night Carlton games.

Many teams could realistically finish anywhere between 6 wins and 16 wins. People severely understate how competitive and tight the league currently is. There are very few genuinely "weak" teams aside from Brisbane. We are still comfortably in that mid-tier where we could win anywhere between 6 and 12 games and finish anywhere between 6th and 16th. There are many other teams that fit into this bracket (including last year's premier's, and last year's wooden spooners). Trying to pick who we were going to beat is just silly. Take every week, one week at a time. Let's start with round 1 against the 'Aints at Etiherpes stadium.

2006 says otherwise

4 Etihad games in the first 13 rounds. In the same period we play at the MCG 6 times. Glad we play Geelong in Melbourne. Essendon away at Etihad. How about a game against them for once? 2x games vs Carlton at the MCG is great. 4x interstate away games, two of which are in Canberra and Tassie (vs North). Overall, solid fixture.

Bit harsh on Dunn. Was a stalwart for ten seasons, top bloke, works hard, and was a very solid defender in 2014 and 2015. Unfortunately his tenure at Melbourne was up but unsurprising the a team like the Pies took him on.