Dr. Gonzo

https://youtu.be/MSPGDAYM71Y

I mean, if it will make you feel better go ahead and let them know people aren't re-signing because of round 23. I'm sure they know that will happen already anyway. I just don't know what you think the benefit/outcome of emailing them would be? Do you think next time they're playing a crucial game they'll be thinking "we cant lose this otherwise we will have more members drop off"?

Won't achieve anything

What's the point of these academies if we don't get priority access to the players like the northern state clubs do?

The Weideman one is interesting. I hope we're at the stage where we are focusing on wins now instead of a continual preparation for the future. If Weideman earns his spot through good performances at Casey and maintains it through good performances at senior level, great. But if not I would have Pedersen ahead of him until he can prove otherwise and I hope the FD learnt their lesson after the early part of lasts season where Weideman was a liability and Pedersen looked like he was on the outer until being forced into the side through injuries. Of course neither of them may be in our "best 22" come round 1 (injuries not withstanding). Weideman will be coming from a fair way back considering his form in 2017 and his late start to preseason following ankle surgery.

Why would the AFL build a 3rd stadium in Vic especially now that they own docklands? The stadium issue is a matter of economics rather than demand exceeding supply, they would only be spending a fortune to have games down the road at the expense of Docklands to save a handful of clubs a few dollars. Doesn't make any sense. Also AFL was not happy Hawks didn't leave Tassie a couple of years back when they wanted to shaft north and send them south (ironic South ended up going north and now AFL wants to send North south). Don't know if this had changed but I think AFL still has a long game there. As for the expansion clubs I don't have a problem with the AFL continuing to fund then to ensure they succeed as long as they have the funds to do so. If revenue dries up they would be stupid to continue doing so at the expense of foundation clubs. You can argue whether they should have created these clubs but now that they're there I think the AFL is obliged to see it through. If the locals see that the AFL is in for the long haul rather than cutting and bailing as others have in the past (particularly on GC) I think that will help. It may take decades but in the long run I think it's in the AFL's interest to ensure the northerb expansion succeeds. And I think it will - eventually. As for the academies they are a farce. They should be gone yesterday. Father son picks should probably go too, or at least if they keep Father son picks let the clubs have their academy picks until they have been around long enough to generate FS prospects.

Have the last two years taught you nothing?

Nah Lakers

It's not a "petty little issue", its deliberate policies of the AFL that provide specific advantages and disadvantages to certain teams, ours being one that is consistently disadvantaged. This impacts us in both the short term (less revenue each year through gate receipts, sponsorships etc) and long term (inability to generate and consolidate a supporter base, inability to sign long term sponsorship deals etc). This wouldn't be so bad if it was acknowledged and AFL revenues pooled and distributed amongst the clubs equally however every few years the topic of finances comes up and clubs like ours are asked the question "why can't you make money, increase membership, increase crowds, increase sponsorship revenue etc?" North, Saints and Dogs are in the same boat, continually shafted by the AFL and they have the double whammy of Docklands agreements that they don't want but are forced in to due to AFL contracts to play a set number of games there each year (up until they bought it out last year). And it's got nothing to do with performance. Carlton has been as inept as us for longer (15 years) yet still get numerous prime time and high revenue games. We were one of the better performed sides over the AFL era until 2006 and still got shafted every year. Yeah we were pathetic from 2007-2013 but that's a separate issue, these AFL policies have been in place long before that.

Was gonna say this exactly. It depends on the 22 playing each week, having Colin Garland sitting in the stands last year was irrelevant even though he bumped up our averages.

Plus non-Vic clubs have every game beamed into their home state on FTA (I think the SA/WA teams had 3 that were Foxtel only this year and they spoked about it).

Jetta looks in career best condition

Thought he was gonna mention Viney and TMac instead creates phantom injuries to Hogan and Lever

But in the other game absolutely smashed it against Port

It was common practice for quite some time in the early days of the league, not sure when it stopped maybe in the 60's. Anyhow the point is wanting to negotiate media rights individually is a recipe for disaster not just for us but the entire league. Will end up destroying more than a couple of clubs. Theres a reason Collingwood raised this as a (idle) threat several years back and Melbourne never have.

We have to worry about other clubs, we exist in a competition not a vacuum and if we are competing against them for media dollars it will be a TKO/no contest. Media rights must be negotiated collectively, in fact all AFL revenue should be pooled and distributed equally.

I don't think you understand the implications of MFC trying to negotiate media rights with 40k members, 200k supporters and poor quality fixture vs a Collingwood trying to negotiate with 80k members, 1m supporters and a heavily favoured fixture. How much do expect streaming companies to pay for each product?

Siphoning off media rights would he worse. And we still wouldn't get to choose who and when we play so the sponsorship exposure would not improve.

How much do we stand to gain from this compared to Collingwood?

Exactly, just a PR move. The AFL would have no legs to stand on on this one and I doubt they'd want to try.

The redback jumper is perfect when playing the Blues and Saints. Front on you can easily distinguish players but from the back the two dark back jumpers are difficult to differentiate.

Goodwin sticks it up the doubters and haters By midseason everyone realises losing Watts was neither here nor there Premiership or GTFO

I agree with your premise re: FTA TV, although most tv channels are realising streaming is the future and already trying to shift their product to streaming devices such as AppleTV, Chromecast, Roku etc. I just don't understand how we could do better negotiating for a media rights deal on our own. If we were negotiating our own media rights and so were Collingwood who would get more? It would widen the gap between the haves and have nots and probably kill off a third (or more) of clubs. The current media rights are fine, it is the distribution of funds by the AFL and their unfair fixturing that is the issue.

Off topic, but I hope we're already in Andy Brayshaws ear about coming home in a couple of years. Give Freo a taste of their own medicine.

The sooner clubs start siphoning off media rights to sell individually the sooner we die. I assume this package would include media rights to games? How would our package compare to the rest of the competition? The media rights must be negotiated collectively and must be distributed equitably. The NFL model is the one we should be following, not the EPL.