Dr. Gonzo

But would it be GC/GWS in the gun or North/Saints/Demons? And where does Tassie sit in that? Perhaps kill off or merge one of the 3 with GC, one with GWS and send the 3rd to Tas is their thinking? I don't really see the AFL giving up on the northern expansion - and I don't really think they should either. GWS definitely has a place in the league, GC long term is a good investment too but perhaps they need to split games between GC and Townsville/Darwin or something?

I don't disagree having people like Collins and Fitzpatrick on the commission helped them for years. But it is our clubs duty to stand up and fight for ourselves and make the case as to how the AFLs policies have unfairly impeded our ability to stand on our own feet financially. This goes even moreso for Saints, Kangas and Doggies

Again you're rebutting a point I did not make. Regardless of on field performance, when Melbourne plays Carlton on a Sunday afternoon at the MCG why does Carlton get to host 9 times out of 10? This gives them a game to make money off while we have to make do with hosting Freo, Subs, GWS etc every year. That has nothing to do with success or lack thereof, it's about AFL policies propping up some clubs at the expense of others.

The product the AFL puts out these days is terrible, most would stop watching if not for their club allegiance. If Melbourne gets killed off that's it for me with the AFL. Local footy could we a resurgence which would be one benefit

Maybe if they stopped producing such absolutely rubbish content they wouldn't be in such a position.

Exactly right OD. And you kill off 4 Vic clubs that's half a million people now disenfranchised from the game. What impact would that have on the TV rights deals in 5-10 years time?

You say I keep repeating myself, well that's because I'm asking for some examples or studies to prove your assertions of bias and they aren't forthcoming. You say the right has little opportunity, anytime I've watched the ABC News or current affairs programs they always have guests on from a broad spectrum. LNP members of parliament and Ministers are often interviewed or form part of panels. ALP guests are often grilled as much as their LNP counterparts. The bias you claim isn't my experience of the ABC; if this bias is so fundamentally evident as you claim it should be easy enough to point out some examples or studies showing this. I distrust agendas more than anything and when I look at the agenda being pushed to destroy the ABC it is clear this is being pushed by special interest groups such as the IPA who have a vested interest in shutting down critical journalism of their far-right policies to sell off public assets, subsidise multi-billion dollar corporations, destroy local industries, enact neo-liberal laissez faire ideologies to put more cash in the pockets of their far-right lobbyists etc etc I see that as far more dangerous to a healthy democracy than any perceived bias of the ABC, which has not been demonstrated to date.

We still have to play Carlton and Essendon so why are we the away team 9 times out of 10? You're conflating two separate issues, our onfield performance is unrelated to the inequities in the competition

Despite the margin tonight's game was far better than last night's.

Giving airtime to any fruit loop with an agenda (especially those pushing agendas of far right lobby groups like the IPA) isn't being impartial. Opinions, agendas and ideologies don't automatically have a right to be taken seriously otherwise you end up with airtime being given to those neo-nazi [censored] like Blair Cottrell

If you think the ABC is decidedly and systematically biased you need to provide examples. You can't expect to just state it and think it is taken as fact.

Wait you think Sky News is is impartial? I assume you're being deliberately provocative, no sane person would make that statement seriously

So we get rid of the ABC. And then the public discourse in Australia is left to Murdoch, Stokes and..... Yeah I can't see that ending badly.

Absolute rubbish. When the LNP has gone so far to the right those in the centre are seen as far left. What sort of examples are you talking about to show the "far left" agenda of the ABC?

It's not free money. It's the money they are entitled to as an equal member of the competition. How long have perennial losers Carlton been propped up with good draws? This isn't just about timeslots either, it's about who has home game rights when playing certain clubs. How often do we get to host Carlton or Essendon? That's as big an issue as who whether we play on Friday night or not.

They didn't borrow the $600m they were given a line of credit. If the club does not agitate for a fairer go from the AFL when their very existence is being threatened then those in charge are being negligent and we are on borrowed time. There is no reason clubs like ours, north, Saints etc shouldn't be trying to drive the agenda but you never hear boo out of any of them on issues like this. Are they all too scared to rock the boat? This is why I loved Gutnick when he was in charge - not to open up that can of worms but for all his faults at least he spoke out for the club and gave us a public voice on issues like this.

The current structures do not have to change due to covid. But those with agendas to push will never waste a crisis.

I'm not saying they will change the draw. I'm saying they should change the financial distributions to clubs.

They use the draw to maximise their TV rights deals through higher ratings. Fair enough all clubs are signing on to these policies for the benefit of the whole competition. But the AFL then need to have a revenue sharing model to ensure that these policies don't disadvantage those clubs who are making the most sacrifices for the competition.

While they've got the pokies they're fine. I think they profit the most out of any club and it's in the 10s of millions every year https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/afl-clubs-fill-boots-with-pokies-cash-as-losses-hit-2-7bn-20190726-p52b1z.html

A better draw (with the financial implications that entails) shouldn't be something that can be used as a carrot/stick incentive for clubs. The draw should be as equitable and fair as possible - it should be randomised and not a tool to reward or punish. I agree clubs need to get better at administering their affairs. They also need to be working on a level playing field. Collingwood for example has benefited from the AFLs revenue maximisation policies for 3 decades. This is not in a vacuum, their advantage has come at the disadvantage of others. There's other issues too like the zoning history going back to the 50s-80s which adversely impacted some clubs, the ground rationalisation policies etc If it's going to come down to clubs surviving or dying then the AFL needs to get fair dinkum about appropriate compensation for these decades of inequitable policies and rectifying them moving forward. You can't expect clubs to become financially sustainable while hamstringing with inequitable policies. And you can't expect them to turnaround decades of disadvantage in 3 years. I also disagree that Melbourne can't support 9 clubs. It DOES support 9 clubs. Clubs have a minimum of 35k members these days and this will only keep rising over the coming decades. It will get to a stage where you won't get into games unless you hold a season ticket and clubs will benefit financially once that happens. Killing off 3 or 4 Vic clubs will alienage 100s of thousands from the game. The AFL can't afford to lose that support particularly not now.

Peter Gordon's current stance is disappointing. I've thought for a long time the weaker clubs should be forming a bloc to support each other and fight the AFLs inequitable policies. Doesn't have to be solely Vic teams either, Port and Freo could easily be included.

Bulldogs are in a good financial position at the moment on the back of their 2016 flag. But how sustainable it is long term is questionable. If they continue to be treated as a second class team fixture wise and continue to get minimal returns from home games at Docklands it won't be long before they're fighting to keep their heads above water again

Hawks did a great job after 1996 - noone can deny that. But there also needs to be some acknowledgment of the impossible task some clubs have in trying to get themselves out of the financial hole. Clubs do need to do better. But the AFL also needs to support them to get better when their policies over decades have contributed to those clubs being in the position they are in. I'm [censored] off about it as a Melbourne supporter, if I were a North, Saints or Doggies supporter I would probably be 10x as furious.

They had Kennett on SEN before to discuss the letter he had written to Hawks members this afternoon. https://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/704788/jeff-s-letter-to-members The critical part of it was he has put the death of clubs back on the table; This is the guy who tried to destroy the state and now he is trying to destroy the competition with his economic rationalist views. I hope our club defends itself in no uncertain terms as it is clear we are one of 4 clubs (along with North, Saints and Dogs despite their current financial position) whose necks are on the chopping block. You could say it's just a blowhard but the fact he is on the competitions coronavirus committee means his position holds more weight than most and it would be unlikely if he has gone out and said this publicly without similar discussions being had privately. He has given clubs 3 years to get their finances in order. 3 years despite not knowing how the next season or two will play out. 3 years to try and overcome decades of financial inequities in the competition. If the competition were serious and the clubs had a backbone they would demand a revenue sharing model as compensation for the AFL's crowd/revenue maximisation policies. Of course the AFL has crippled most clubs so that they are reliant on the AFL and dare not speak out against city hall lest they be punished with poor fixtures and stadium deals and any other decisions the AFL decides on a whim. Look at the way they punished Sydney for daring to steal Buddy Franklin from under the noses of the Giants! Could you imagine if Collingwood or Hawthorn were banned from trading for two trade periods? Average supporters do not understand the long-term financial ramifications of competition policies over several decades dating back to the impact of the player zoning system and then over more recent decades revenue/crowd maximisation policies and ground rationalisation policies. Clubs need to start standing up for themselves otherwise at some point in the (near?) future the AFL and big clubs will decide it is no longer in their interest to keep clubs on life support and will let them fold despite being victims of AFL policies and the fact their weak financial position was manufactured to balloon the financial positions of the bigger clubs and the AFL executives.