Dr. Gonzo

Good luck with that

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/why-there-are-doubts-over-an-18-team-afl-competition-20200529-p54xoi.html "But given that two powerful club presidents emerging from the inner sanctum are prepared to publicly entertain the prospect, it underlines the mutterings across the competition that are becoming louder. There are two lines of thought, with one targeting the expansion clubs that created the ninth game and still cost the competition close to $70 million a year. The second focuses upon Victoria and the increasingly vulnerable North Melbourne, the debt-ridden Saints and even Melbourne. Once the AFL settles on a new radically reduced football department budget figure for every club beyond this emergency phase - and a soft cap albeit with new tough conditions is expected to prevail - the expectation is that the wealthier clubs will see their league distribution heavily reduced in a new financial structure. Clubs like West Coast, Hawthorn, Richmond and Collingwood will not be thrilled at the prospect of effectively being taxed and by extension watching their organisations reduced to support the survival of unsuccessful clubs."

There's no way they can reduce lists that dramatically - clubs have contracts with players which will make that impossible. If anything they'll have to stagger it over 3-5 years.

I don't see how it would add sponsorship value. Wouldn't it just become the "top tier" sponsorship with the other front of jumper sponsor being relegated to a second tier sponsor? Would sponsors be willing to pay more than they currently are for the jumper sponsorship for a larger logo? IE would Zurich pay us an extra million (?) a year for that and then we get another sponsor for the normal front of jumper logo at the rate previously paid by Zurich?

Why? The AFL says we can't have 20 minute quarters because we need consistency across the season but then say they are considering increasing the interchange? I have seen no rationale offered for why they would increase the bench. It was originally floated when they were looking at a compressed season but now with a normal fixture going ahead (no mid week games) there is absolutely no reason for it The game is run by absolute buffoons, shorter quarters plus an increased interchange equals low scoring snoozefests

If they can make it work great. It's a "nice to have" though, main thing we need is facilities for players and staff

Fritsch to me is a good "icing" player, he'll do well when the team's going well but I can't see him grabbing a game and imposing himself on it when things aren't going our way. Maybe just my perception because of his size but I haven't seen it yet. Not saying get rid of him by any means but I don't see him getting a podium finish in the B&F so his salary needs to be commensurate with his abilities

Yuck no thanks

Unfortunately Fritsch may have to make way so we can re-sign the Wagner brothers

social clubs and cafes I don't care about I agree we should have some kind of Hall of Fame/museum - it should be housed in the MCG though

As long as it's not fenced off behind the MCC gates and is accessible to all supporters. I've been opposed to Casey but really the only reason is that I don't want it to be a disincentive for players thinking of coming to us or players wanting to leave. Having a base around the MCG would be great but if we can't find something optimal we have to be pragmatic. Casey offers the space to work in but is it too far out to expect players to travel? Let's assume most live around the Brighton/Toorak area suburbs, whats the travel time out to Casey? We don't want a Saints/Seaford situation on our hands.

It says we're the biggest loser but then goes on to say Freo & Sydney had easier ranked draws initially so it's a rubbish article. Also the only reason we're the "biggest loser" is based on our double-ups in the initial draw which are not going ahead. I'd say escaping a trip to Geelong is a tick for the win column.

It would need a car park to be a success, foot traffic there would be minimal wouldn't it?

2x 2hr games is better than 2x 3hr games - it would allow them to have all games over the weekend with no overlapping. Would also mean games on Thurs/Mon nights are more lucrative as they will finish earlier on tv

They want games to fit in a 2hr tv segment

Channel 7 wants it is the answer

This should be the norm, especially for geelong games. I get why north/Hawks don't want to host bigger clubs (same reason we wouldn't want to host Collingwood in Darwin) but there is no reason why the shouldn't go to Geelong. Geelong wants to play them there it's the AFL forcing these games to be played at the MCG.

and you should be able to plug your PC/laptop into your TV with a HDMI cable to watch on your TV

out in the boondocks

Get a chromecast, telstra TV or apple tv? Does your TV have bluetooth? If so you might even be able to stream it from your phone to your TV. What brand/model of TV do you have?

It's only to round 5 though, still 12 rounds to go

How would that work? So west coast plays Adelaide in Brisbane and it's a Crows home game? They play all other interstate sides and they are always the away team so the other teams get lumped with home games at away venues? I don't see how that could work, they will be playing home games at neutral venues just like us in NT and Hawks/North in Tas.

"For neutral venues" - Adelaide and Port for example can play 8 home, 8 away and 1 neutral game. We could play 7 home, 7 away and 3 neutral (MCG games vs Richmond, Collingwood and Hawthorn). Home & away doesn't really matter except for interstate travel (or games in Geelong).

What is the difference between home and away for neutral venues with no crowds and no gates? NSW, QLD, SA & WA teams will get 8 home, 8 away and 1 neutral game. Vic clubs will be different but they can figure it out, Geelong really the only outlier.

Kangaroos have our 1st round pick this year