Dr. Gonzo

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.

What about the cheers for a point? That was pretty funny too, of course the sound tech guy still a bit rusty just like the players ?

Exactly, too many players on the field. It's been obvious for a decade.

What red-blooded 20-something male doesn't love that?

From what I heard on fox earlier he was on his front verandah for the interview with the tv crew outside. Hardly seems like a massive issue.

Great post. Objectively reviewing a game seems to be akin to appeasement for some Melbourne supporters.

Fitness isn't the issue it's the boring defensive stacks on football that's the problem. If this is emblematic of footy in the 20s I reckon we get Ross Lyon on the phone. It's his time to shine.

Generally, yes.

After 55 years what's another week or two between friends?

https://mobile.twitter.com/aamer_rahman/status/1270515143529697281 https://mobile.twitter.com/aamer_rahman/status/1270515147828858882

Sorry my fault. I'll send a sternly worded email to the club to let them know how poor round 1 was so we can win the flag this year. I didn't realise I was to blame for our lack of success since 1964 (and I wasn't even been for a couple of decades after that!)

I have no doubt the Collingwood players, Buckley and even McGuire mean no ill will to anyone based on their race. I also have no doubt that Lumumba's allegations are true (particularly as some like the nickname he was given "chimp" were backed up by several players including 3 indigenous players). It's the culture that needs to change to make sure it is understood why someone would have a negative reaction when being subjected to those comments and/or experiences. The culture is what makes it seem ok to make racist comments etc because we have a culture of taking the [censored] out of each other and people just need to toughen up if they can't hack it. But it is wreckless to assume that your experience is everyone's and that singling people out particularly when they belong to a minority with a history of oppression is going to have no ill effects. I would be horrified if this happened at MFC and I assume many Collingwood supporters are too As to why the Project swept it under the rug back in 2017 when the Lumumba doco came out - well Aly and Hellier are part of the infotainment industry in Melbourne a huge part of which is the AFL and the biggest club is Collingwood with a President with multiple media platforms. Do you really need to dig too far to figure out why they may not have made an issue of it?

Unsubscribe Balls. Getting rid of Foxtel once Kayo was available was a great move. Saving almost $100 a month too. I know Kayo funds go to NewsCorp but at least it's only $15 a month (once I split a subscription with my dad and sister) instead of $120.

There's no "dislike" but so I just had to settle with the laughing emoji instead. Agree to disagree I guess.

You have a right to your own opinions/beliefs but you do not have a right to your own facts

"Today a young man on acid realised that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Waleed with an opinionated rant."

To be honest I don't watch any of these infotainment channels but I assume it would be the same as a "lefty" given a right of response on one of the Sky news programs. All of these are privately owned networks so there is no compulsion for anyone to give equal time to the "other" side. That's why it is so important to keep publicly funded independent services and not gut them like the LNP is doing with the ABC.

What's the difference if the interview takes place at the club or at home? I assume the club may have additional screening/precautions but it isn't specified in the article.

I guess my perception is based on a scale of past experience. Thinking back to the "putrid" performances in 2012/13 I can't put round 1 in the same boat. But it's semantics really, it was disappointing - if we lose on Saturday that will be the season done as far as I'm concerned. We should be putting the Blues away by 5 goals.