The Chazz

Don't panic Moon, that's his alternate coffee cup.

WYL, I know I have probably bored you, but I'm not suggesting shipping the merged team to Tasmania FFS. I'm saying 2 Victorian teams could merge to create 1 Victorian team, this would make 17 teams. Then, create a new Tasmanian team to become the 18th team (nothing to do with the 2 merged teams). The Melbourne/North team would still be based in Melbourne, play its home games at the MCG. As I have frequently said, I hope it doesn't happen. I'm not expecting it to happen, but I don't think it's the silly idea that some do.

No offence WYL, but you are "informed by 2 seperate sources"? Mate, we don't need sources to tell us this sort of information. Businesses are shutting down all over the place in EVERY state, blind Freddy can see that. It didn't stop them investing in to the Gold Coast region, which is doing it very, very tough at the present. If the AFL had that mentality the game would never grow.

Ease up WYL. For a start, it's not about merging a team and sending them to Tasmania. Secondly, I had concerns, I rasied them, some (like yourself) are very confident that everything will be fine. It's a forum. If I'm challenged, or if someone twists what I post, I will respond. Bex. Lie. Down.

I have no doubt that Bailey's game plan came at the wrong time. He was implementing something that was different to most other clubs, and when worked, we all saw how impressive it was. The problem was that the industry standard game plan at the time, when executed well (see Hawthorn), would highlight the areas that needed fixing (ie fitness, 2-way running). I will never be disappointed with someone who tried to make his own path, rather than follow the masses. Everything that was going on around the club (in particular offield) didn't give him the greatest base to work from either.

(Disclaimer: please turn your sarcasim meter on prior to reading) B59, I swear you have a book of one-liners that you bring out during the first preseason of a new coach. I'm sure I read similar comments from you during Neeld's first preseason, and I think they were the same ones that were posted during Bailey's first preseason.

Water off a duck's back, BB. RPFC is a poor man's Ben Hur. Edit - I hope to see the last line as RP's signature for the next season at least!

Given your desire to trade Fitzy, you have provided basic stats to try and prove your point, which in the grand scheme of things, failed to support your case. You implied, by the use of these stats, that Dawes is ahead of Fitzy at the same time of their careers, failing to highlight "real world" points which would've revealed the many holes in your opinion. When challenged and made aware of your shortcomings, you tried to put the blame on someone else (Jaberwocky) for bringing it up, while trying to coat yourself in teflon by stating "I think direct comparisons like that are fraught too". When you knew how you were starting to look, you come out swinging with the personal comments. No disrespect to anyone that this may apply to, but I'm imagining you are a school teacher RPFC, am I right? Either that or someone who spent the last three years at university getting an Arts degree.

Again, RP, your stats aren't worth a pinch of shite for me. Fitzy, in 2013, was played often (in the 2nd half of the year) as the number 1 key forward, with a midfield that was "bereft of talent" providing him with minimal opportunites. Not to mention he played for a team that finished 17th. Compare that to Dawes' 2010, playing 2nd or 3rd KPF alongside Travis Cloke and Leigh Brown, being delivered the football from midfielders such as Dane Swan, Scott Pendlebury, Dale Thomas and Luke Ball. His team in 2010 finished 1st. Under the circumstances, it would be hard to argue that Fitzy's 4th year wasn't any less impressive. Your fetish for stats has clouded your implied judgement again.

God you can be painful RP. You mention "secret, behind-the-scenes machinations". I call it the AFL going about their business and not making every single thing they are working on public. I doubt your employer publishes everything they are discussing, and I'm bloody sure the AFL are the same. Is it secret stuff? Not really, it's them doing their job. Reply to what's there and not something you change to suit your point. Of course I believe that's why they put Jackson there - to get us back on track. Ever heard of a contingency plan? If the job is too big for a non-MFC person, where do we go to next? Jackson has made it clear that it's a fairly easy job but will take time. The concern (given we have been burnt many times in the past 2 decades minimum), is that PJ could come in, set us on our way, for us to then need to replace him ourselves. Our decision making for key personnel has been terrible, hopefully we have learnt our lesson and don't need to rely on the AFL to shortlist and arrange interviews on our behalf. Who knows what will happen if we f**k up another appointment after PJ departs. The Tassie market has more to give, simple as that. It's an income stream already, but it is waiting to explode. As I have previously stated, a large number of those 3 or 4 game club memberships they buy down there would turn in to 11+ game memberships. That's a considerable rise in income, as well as the locals being able to see more live games, and so on. Our work down at Casey should prove that while there can be income from a region, there is always potential to get more. You provided a link trying to show that Tassie is "not growing". Technically, and because you're the type that would do it to someone else, they are growing, the article states clearly that they had a population growth, albeit minimal. I'm not like that though so I'll let it slide. I will acknowledge your efforts for trying to use this as part of your "evidence" but it doesn't stand up. For a national "empire" such as the AFL to start up a team in a state like Tasmania will have massive benefits for the state, and the state government would know this too. Those reported 20 year olds that are leaving, now some of them will have more incentive to stay, given the introduction of an AFL team will provide so many more opportunities. It's a ripple effect - there'll be 40+ players living down there, new coaches, football departments, administration, etc. Then there will be the increase in employment opportunities from not only game day operations but in general day to day business. Tourism/hospitality markets will increase during the year as more visitors will go to games, again increasing the labour market opportunities. All of a sudden the future isn't looking as dull as you think for them. Given that their government are pouring in good money to Hawthron and North shows that they are willing to spend if they can see the benefits. And the potential merger of 2 teams (ie MFC/NMFC), and the creation of a "new" team in Tassie is not swapping struggling clubs at all. To be honest, I'm not surprised you would try and add that to prove your point. Onfield it (merger) would be a success within 3 years (disclaimer: I'm not talking about a premiership). Offield you are combining 2 income streams to support 1 club, rather than supporting 2 clubs. A number of supporters/members will drop off from both teams, but I'd imagine they'd still have well over 40k members, potentially 50k+. A new team in Tassie is obviously going to struggle initially, just like GC/GWS. The AFL will give them draft concessions, extra salary cap room, all the bells and whistles required to make it a success. It wouldn't take long to see results. Your second last paragraph is a joke. You say "I'm wrong"? It's not a case of being right or wrong. You have show nothing in your posts to prove you're "right". The only thing you try and claim as significant is that you have inside knowledge from the marketing trainee that you know. The above may happen, it may not. I've given reasons for why I have this "idea" in my head, and to date, nothing that you've said has changed that. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. Then to top it off, your last paragraph is a beauty, and really supports my view. "...the AFL knows that getting all clubs in a position to compete for a flag on a stable footing is the mark of a good and profitable league". We haven't won a flag for 50 years, we've played in 2 grand finals since our last one, and been spanked both times, we haven't played finals in the past 7 years, and you yourself aren't expecting miracles for the next season at least. North have won 4 flags in their history, and haven't played in a Grand Final since 1999. Something has to change with these two clubs for them to be considered equal contributors to a "good and profitable league". The only thing that is "right" at the moment is that there is currently no merger between the MFC/NMFC, and no new team on the horizon for Tasmania. I will review my thoughts around 2016, when the TV rights are up, when the Hawthorn/Tasmania contract is up, when Roos has the option of taking up his third year with us. If things are looking better than they are today, then I'll be more than happy to put it down as a "simple" idea. I hope that day comes.

RPFC, we don't know what is going on as we currently speak. When the AFL offered North a relocation package, do you think that was something that happened overnight? They would've worked on that for quite a while. What's to say that this (a Melbourne/North merger) isn't something that they have thrown around behind closed doors? I am still in no doubt that Peter Jackson's appointment is a make or break for the club. His potential to fix our problems has been supported by the AFL, but it's not something they will fund/support forever. We have a history of getting things right to then make mistakes and put us behind the 8 ball again. I don't know how many lives we wil lhave left after PJ departs. The one thing Tasmania has over an area like the Gold Coast is that it's a solid income stream. I can tell you (as I live in SEQ), that while the Gold Coast improove, and no doubt become quite a powerful side in the not to distant future, they will have supporters everywhere. All it takes is a couple of poor years, and the crowds will drop, members will drop, the club will start losing money. The exact thing has happened to their big brother up the road. The peaks and troughs of support levels for AFL in SEQ is all based on success. At it's peaks, AFL will challenge any code in mainstream media. In its trough, it is 3rd or 4th on the pecking order. This is an issue that somewhere like Tasmania doesn't have. So, in a long-winded answer to your point about converts increasing revenue, yes, they can, but they can drop off just as quick. You talk of potential funding cutbacks opening the AFL for court action? Good luck winning it (no-one has to date have they?). They will have things in place that will ensure nothing of the like can happen. Perhaps a standard $5m of funding per year per club. I don't know, but I'm sure if the AFL want something, their legal team will ensure it happens. Also, where have I said about renegging on a government deal? The Hawthorn/Tasmania contract ends in 2016, which, coincidentally, is when the TV rights are up, which as a further coincidence, is in 3 years time which is the timeframe I have made clear that we need to get a [censored] sorted. And finally, I'm not sure what is funny about my comments regarding the costs not being important now. If Melbourne and North don't change for the next decade, how much is it going to cost the AFL? The 10's of millions of dollars already for the funding (as per your opening post), plus any cap-in-hand requests similar to what we experienced in 2013, as well as continued poor crowd numbers, etc. PJ said we were an impediment on the league, would the AFL want this for another 10 years? How much would it cost to start up a merged team, who between them have a home ground (MCG), three quality training facilities, coaches already in place, a playing list that would need to be trimmed back (as opposed to a new team being brought in), etc, etc. Not to mention the smaller costs (as opposed to the Gold Coast or GWS) of starting up a "new" team in Tasmania, where they have 2 sufficient home grounds, would have a full team of players left over from the MFC/NMFC merge, a captured audience who will by full season memberships as opposed to the current 3 or 4 game ones they can get with Hawthorn or North. I could be totally wrong, and I hope I am. I hope we can get our stuff sorted off and onfield, and that there will be forever a Melbourne Demons Football Club. I do have concerns with where the AFL is heading, how it's getting harder and harder for the "poor" clubs to compete against the power clubs, and how the AFL have shown that they can and will be ruthless in anything they desire, and have no respect for the toes they step on along the way. They have shown in the last 12 months that some clubs get far better treatment than others - just look at our sanctions from the tanking saga compared to the supplement issues with Essendon.

Robinson or Morton?

You're making it sound a lot more difficult than what it is, and at the same time, forgetting the power that is the AFL. If they want it to work, it will happen, and I can see it'd be a lot easier than what you're making out. For this reason alone, the cost you think it will involve to make such changes is irrelvant if this is what the AFL want. Also, getting two seperate boards and members to agree is as simple as scaling back the amount of funding the AFL provide both clubs. If we don't change our operations, the next stage we go to is palliative. North are probably worse off than us. The AFL won't care too much about the Hawthorn relationship. They didn't care about the clubs "selling" home games to the Gold Coast when the introduced the Suns. I'm equally sure that the Tasmanian government will be very interested in having a "home" team that will play a regular 11 games there a season, as well as the potential of picking up another 2 or 3 from Hawthorn. A live game in Tasmania for 14 weeks a season? Many of the "locals" on the Gold Coast jumped on board their "home" team, even though a large amount are ex-pats that would've grown up supporting a different club. I know a number of people located on the Gold Coast that are Suns members even though their number 1 team is someone different. As LDVC stated, the ball is in our court. I strongly believe the next 3 years will be the most important period of time for the Melbourne Demons Football Club.

People are not critical of Liam because of the colour of his skin, people are critical of the offences. Liam's is a well broadcasted case, and has a connection to the MFC, which creates further interest. I do believe there was a thread recently about Nathan Carroll being arrested, and many strong views were published in that. Bloody near every thread on Demonland turns in to an attack (of varying degrees) or strong criticism of an individual or individuals. Watts cops it. Neeld cops it. Caroline Wilson cops it. Steven Milne cops it. Bill Vlahos is copping it. But as soon as an indigenous player cops it all of a sudden it's a racial attack? Justifiably or unjustifiably, everyone will have an opinion on a topic. I would strongly doubt that anyone on here would have different opinions on a topic because of the background of the individual/s in said topic.

With our poor crowd pulling ability (and North's too), I would imagine the food & bev stalls wouldn't be out of pocket much, if at all. As far as the venue goes, I'm of the understanding (and happy to be corrected) that they get their money regardless of crowd size. With a MFC home game bringing a crowd of 15k, by the time the venue takes their cut, I wouldn't think there'd be much left for the AFL to take their cut, which is why we lose money on certain games because there aint a thing left for our cut. The AFL could see it as taking a step backwards to be able to take two steps forward. If they are too proud to do that (or as you say, this being seen as a massive failure), then they would look at options like Tassie to become the "18th" team. Trying to create a 5th "Power Club" by merging and help funding a Melbourne/North venture would potentially see the North push in to Tasmania become redundant, opening the door for a standalone Tassie club. While your marketing company mate is a handy source of information for all things AFL Tasmania, it'd only take a phone call from Vlad tomorrow for that whole scenario to change. It could happen, it might not. As you say, at the moment nothing's happening, but I'd never say never while TBO is in charge, and even when his mini-me takes over he won't want to maintain what TBO has created, he'll want to stamp his own footprint on the game.

Congratulations for taking this thread to a place that it didn't need to go anywhere near.

Thanks RPFC. So based on the current TV rights deal, the AFL would stand to lose a total maximum of $130m for the total duration of the rights should there be 8 games as opposed to 9. That's on the basis that all games are equal of value, which I would be amazed if that were the case. Given that the AFL in 2012 have given Melbourne and North around $25m in funding, and nearly $20m in 2011, I don't think it would take them long to recoup any income losses from the potential of a lost 9th game in the fixture. Every year that passes and Melbourne and North haven't made the finals, haven't made a profit, etc, my levels of concern rise from the previous year - and I'm not running the league! The fact that North rejected the "bail out package" a couple of years ago should they relocate to the Gold Coast is already a slap across Vlad's face, and I don't think he's the type that would forget in a hurry.

Thanks for your reply RPFC. You are in a far better position than me regarding the Tasmania landscape for the AFL (from memory you have a friend that is invovled in the marketing department for AFL Tas?). Would just like you to clarify my response in regards to your comment about the AFL needing 9 games, and how you claim that if a merger between Melbourn and North were to happen, that the AFL would lose 1/9 of their TV rights income. My response being that by saying this, you are implying that a Melbourne game is equal to a Collingwood game in terms of income generated from TV stations. TIA.

DC - this is as much evidence I need to confirm that Nash Rawiller is NOT a sportsman. The amount of times he has sat down on a horse that I've invested in makes me sick just thinkng about it.

Sure, take the betting component out of racing to change the landscape. How would AFL today look if we didn't pay players? And again, the true definition of a sport is about an activity (ie a race), involving physical exertion and skill (ie jockey fitness, horsemanship, horses being trained via exercise to reach full fitness) in which a team or individual competes against anoth (ie the other 23 horses in the Cup field) for others entertainment (ie the 100k+ that attend the track to watch the Cup run). Given the cheer when the barriers open for the start of the race, the cheer when the horses go past the post the first time, and the cheer as the winner crosses the line, I'm tipping a large number of those that go to Flemington go to watch at least the main race. I consider myself a "true racing man". I don't fully agree that they day has been hijacked for the reasons I have stated in the previous paragraph. Sure, most of those 100k won't attend another meeting during the year, but the fact that there is the possibility of them seeing something special will keep this industry strong. Ask anyone who was there the day Oliver won the cup days after his brothers death, ask anyone who saw 1, 2 or 3 of Makybe's wins, anyone that saw any of Black Caviar's 25 wins. Sure, the 100k+ "only" saw Gai win her first Melbourne Cup this year, but there wouldn't have been many in the crowd that didn't know who trained the winner. Answer us this... Why isn't horse racing a sport?

In TV rights deals, is a Melbourne vs GWS game worth the same as a Carlton vs Collingwood game? By saying that the AFL have to "give back" 1/9 in the next TV rights if they only had 17 teams playing is not right. Not all games are valued the same - some are worth a bloody sight more than others. I'm hopeful it won't need to be an issue and that your confidence is justified. There is ample "left to get" in Tassie. I'd imagine a true Tassie team would attract more members and create/convert a sustainable amount of supporters and members. If North can get acceptable crowds down that should be proof enough for the AFL that it would work when they decide to press the button. Don't get me wrong RP, I'm not jumping at shadows, I'm just watching the Roos Reign with multiple interest levels, and I don't think I'm alone.

Ah, so now there's a disclaimer... "Ban betting and no-one will turn up to the Melbourne Cup*" (*Must also ban drinking at said race meeting to prove our point) We've already provided you with the definition of sport, horse racing clearly fits in this category.

RPFC, you comment often about the AFL needing to be an 18 team entity. I admire your confidence, but I just can't share the same. Sure, the AFL are "locked in" for the duration of the current TV rights to have an 18 league competition, but there's nothing stopping them from changing that after 2016. I know one thing, we need to pull our finger out and improve (both off and onfield), as we will become a "nothing" team in terms of negotiating future TV rights. Why would the big networks want to pay to televise our games? I am aware the AFL have stated (on numerous times) that the competition needs a Melbourne Football Club. I've said it often in response - I have never once heard them say they need a Melbourne Demons Football Club. It wouldn't be hard for them to merge us with North, then get a team up and running in Tasmania. Now, I know you have connections in that area, but the AFL are a rich and powerful club. They generally get what they want, and if they rang your mate today and said that there will be a team playing out of Tassie as of 2015, it will happen. The next 5 years will be an interesting landscape, and for me, it's a big "watch this space".

I'd be curious to know how many people attend the Melbourne Cup and NOT bet. Take the punting away and I have no doubt there will be another 100k+ turn up the next year, and the year after, and so on.

That's rubbish. I can tell you one thing, your "bread and butter" owners, those that get invovled in syndication as it's their most realistic way of experiencing racehorse ownership, they could own 1% of a horse, but if their horse won the Melbourne Cup, it would feel just as much their's as the other 99 owners. I couldn't give a stuff about it being in the public eye, for me, it's about the photo on the wall. When you're financially invovled in racehorse ownership, there isn't many greater feelings than watching your horse win a race. Generally it's only the wives that ask about the prizemoney, and if I do bet on my own horse, I usually use the winnings to pay the $150 for the framed photo (which I would pay for even if I couldn't bet). WYL, you would find that I am in the majority, and not the minority group that you think exists. Ask any of them. Go to the winners circle after a race, find out what they are happiest about. Tehre will be a common theme - they had the fastest horse over a particular distance on the day. Nothing about the odds, nothing about the prizemoney. You would be surprised, but I don't expect you to believe me as you have a very firm view on it, and that's your right!