Rogue

This reinforces my view that a second board solely for Casey threads doesn't seem to be needed (and may be more of a hinderance than a help for users).

He'll be hitting 30 just as we hit our straps, so he wouldn't be high on my priority list on that basis alone.

I thought Jamar was labouring at times versus Richmond - a couple of times he'd try and follow a man and then give up and stand in the centre corridor catching his breath. While I'm sure he's happy enough as the sole ruckman, some help wouldn't hurt.

Green (until we decide which of the younger guys is the best long-term candidate).

Come off it - it's not even the most important game since round 1 this year! Putting in a stirring performance versus Collingwood was pretty important for the morale of players, the Club and even fans, given the smashing versus Hawthorn. It'll be nice to do well, but we're not a particularly good side at the moment and I hope fans aren't getting carried away by two wins.

Just like when Sylvia said he was likely to be ready for round 1, and definitely round 2? That seems like an oxymoron

While Bail didn't get a heap of the ball I though he used it pretty well yesterday. However, in terms of pressure it was a bit like a training drill at times, especially in the second half.

One thing I really like about MacDonald is that he reads the ball in the air pretty well. I'm sure he'll be really determined to play well against Brisbane, given the way they dropped and then delisted him. This sort of thing is the main problem with stats - it paints disposals as black or white when they're far from it. Even kicking to a one-on-one, there's a big difference between kicking it to your teammate's advantage or making it difficult for him.

Agreed. As for bringing in a second ruck, Martin > PJ. PJ isn't good enough as first ruck, and doesn't have a second string to his bow.

That was a pretty great play.

Just because it didn't occur doesn't mean the source wasn't decent. Bailey himself could have said Newton was a 90% chance of playing - it doesn't mean he definitely will. As for Frawley, I share your sentiments Jaded.

Haha :D

So Clubs wouldn't be likely to just blow the money I love your optimism but I don't share your opinion. Everything from crowd and membership numbers, proclamations from key personnel at the Club, and research conducted by professional polling companies suggests we have a small base when compared to other Clubs. Furthermore, on-field success doesn't necessarily lead to off-field success. As a Melbourne member, I would be very concerned if those running the Club were banking on some on-field success can have a significant impact (putting aside long-term considerations).

...and to think I had my hopes up! If that was your concern then the money could come with strings attached - and lets be realistic, it inevitably would!. If you wanted to take that a step further, the AFL could directly fund particular operations, TPPs, etc. There are various safeguards you could apply. As RR pointed out, there are various reasons why that isn't likely or even necessarily preferable. In short, it may lead to reduced revenue from TV, sponsors, corporates and the gate, but of course you might think that matters less than distributing exposure more fairly. However, acknowledgement of the financial disadvantage suffered by those Clubs that get a 'financially poor' fixture, and financial compensation for that, would go a long way.

It's not about North Melbourne, it's about whether Clubs should get a bigger piece of the pie. We're a Club that could do with more of the pie, given our financial predicament, so it's pretty relevant to our interests...I don't have a particular interest in North, per se Btw, what can I redeem with this 10 points?

You suggest that Clubs need 'sustainable' business models, which I assume is a nice way of saying they need more money, whether that be through membership revenue, gate takings, sponsorship, and non-footy related streams. A larger slice of the competition pie gives them more money - what difference does the source of that money make? Even excluding the Clubs that struggle to be viable in the current market, the 'bar' is already far higher for the richest Clubs than it is others. However, that doesn't mean all other Clubs are hitting the wall - they simply don't have some of the luxuries that a Collingwood has. Spending may increase, but after a certain point your spending is on non-essentials. In a discussion on the merits of my contention this is irrelevant. No one - certainly not I, anyway - are suggesting all Clubs are 'sustainable' now...if they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion! This seems like another strawman. My contention is suggesting all the money from the professional competition go to the Clubs. Another strawman? My contention is not that the AFL provide equity in the fixturing process (rather, that it recognise the financial inequalities inherent in the current approach to fixturing). The fact that GWS will eat up far more than the pledge of $100 million I referenced is something we agree on. This again puts in stark perspective the relatively small amount of sums that are forcing existing teams to the wall. First, every argument you've raised about poor Clubs still being poor, and increased revenue driving up costs, applies to whatever 'sustainable business model' you advocate, regardless of whether it includes a larger piece of the competition pie. Second, increased revenue from participating in the AFL competition - a larger share of the revenue that the teams, as 1/16th of the competition that generates AFL profit - would create that 'sustainable business model'!

I wonder how Balme felt about the comments.

It's hardly semantics or nitpicking - it's a fundamentally important issue, because if the Clubs are the reason the AFL is getting much of its revenue then they surely deserve a significant amount of the pie, don't they? However, you seem to disagree with my assertion that the majority of AFL revenue is essentially earned by the professional competition, of which each team makes up (atm) 1/16th. I'll put it to you that the Clubs - and through them, the players - are the ones putting on the show. If it were the music industry, the AFL's the promoter and the Clubs are the star act. This analogy ignores the role the AFL plays as the governing body of the sport, and - as I said in my initial post - there are various programs that the AFL do and should be funding. However, there's a very large pie and the existing Clubs aren't exactly getting a large slice. you seem to suggest that the Clubs would not bother seeking alternative sources of revenue if they were given a larger share of the pie: However, you state that the AFL chooses not to give the Clubs more in revenue in order to encourage (coerce?) them to bring in other revenue ('sustainable business models'). You go on to state that it makes sense for the AFL to increase the diversity of revenue streams, which seems to imply that this would not be the case if the Clubs could cover costs with revenue they earn via their participation in the competition that garners TV rights money etc. (An alternative could be that you're just talking about the AFL increasing revenue sources, but they already do that with various sponsorships, corporate packages, and there's no reason they'd stop doing that if they gave a bigger share to the Clubs (in fact, the opposite may be true) so that doesn't seem to make any sense.) ...and this is the reason that the Clubs would not simply be happy to take a bigger share of revenue generated by the competition as a whole - competiton TV rights, sponsorships, etc - and not generate their own income. Every Club is attempting to get or increase their competitive advantage, no matter how much revenue they have. The motivation to increase revenue streams doesn't go away if you get a larger share of the competition revenue. I know what 'hand to mouth' means, I simply can't understand why you'd throw out the cliche - I'm certainly not suggesting they should (or would) live 'hand to mouth'. Clubs would not be living hand-to-mouth if they received a greater percentage of the competition revenues, of which they make up (atm) 1/16th each. Bottom line - the next TV rights alone, let alone other AFL revenues, are being mooted to provide up to $200M p/year, and yet we're talking about Clubs in dire trouble with relatively small losses or debts! Oh, and the struggling Clubs typically get a financially pathetic fixture - with significant impact on sponsorships, corporate packages and gate takings - and are then slammed because their 'business models' aren't as 'sustainable' as the Clubs that receive a fixture with significant financial benefits. What would it take to provide financial security - and, dare I say it, some fairness - to Clubs? Less than 5% of TV rights (not AFL revenue, just TV rights!) p/year, distributed based on a model that took into account the [financial] inequity of the draw? To put it into perspective, the AFL has pledged $100M to GWS, and I imagine that doesn't take into account the various NSW marketing and grassroots programs that will indirectly benefit GWS.

I think there are a couple of problems with this - Okay, so we seem to agree with regards premise 1 of my argument - that the AFL has significant revenue (and that it's significant enough to operate the comp and fund Clubs etc). You seem to be separating 'AFL' revenue from revenue earned by the Clubs. I suggest that a football club's sustainable business model could be, in large part, to participate in an Australian football league and thus create many millions of dollars in revenue by having a national professional league! My second premise was that the AFL revenue is essentially earned by the competing Clubs. Where do you stand on that? These two points seem to contradict with one another. On one hand, you seem to imply that Clubs would be happy to live off TV rights and would not seek out other revenue streams (you seem to be putting aside the fact the AFL itself has revenue streams other than TV, but that's beside the point). However, this is incorrect and your second point explains why. Your second point states that Clubs with increased revenue gain a competitive advantage. I think your second point is correct, and that's why there would always be motivation for Clubs to seek alternative revenue sources. I completely agree that it's good business sense to increase the amount and diversity of income streams. Nowhere in my argument is it necessary or even desirable for the diversity of streams to decrease, so if you're implying that it's the case I think you're presenting a strawman. NB: You also suggest that Clubs that were funded by a reasonable share of the league which exists because they and the other sides compete in it would be living 'hand to mouth', which is IMO a distraction from the issue. (Why would that be 'hand to mouth'? Are people who have a single employer necessarily living 'hand to mouth'?).

Last year I predicted that Jamar and his agent would/should be happy to take a one-year deal at the end of 2009, given he'd had a pretty torrid, injury-hit year. Sure, it's early days, but my prediction's looking the goods.

It's not clear to me which of my points you disagree with (if any), or what your contention is. To be clear, I didn't argue that Clubs already receive a slice of the cake that allows them to prosper. Are you arguing that the AFL doesn't have the means to reasonably provide more of the revenue to the Club? Surely not. Are you arguing that the Clubs don't deserve more of the cake? Maybe. Are you arguing that the AFL can reasonably give more to the Clubs but simply doesn't want to? That's essentially what my point boils down to. I tried to break my argument down into discrete premises so it'd be easy to reply to There could be stipulations that the money be spent in particular ways (a la tied grants from the Commonwealth to the States). Alternatively, the AFL could just fund some of the operations directly (ie. salary cap payments). A reasonable argument could be made that money sitting in the AFL warchest could have been used to prevent Clubs getting into the trouble they found themselves in. Clubs like ours fall into dire financial situations that are significantly impacted by interest on debt, rather than the initial sum itself. It the debt had been paid earlier the total amount repaid would be far less. Of course, you can take this even further and suggest that if Clubs had seen more of the revenue initially, they wouldn't have needed to take on debt in the first place. I agree that having no money in the kitty would be a significant problem. However, Clubs drown in what are small amounts of debt relative to the billions in AFL revenues. Given the amount of money the AFL keeps in the kitty, it's not hard to mount the argument that we're not at the happy medium now. Absolutely.

I thought that was an odd ommission. As for the guy providing ruck relief needing two strings to his bow, I think this is pretty self-evident. (It's why I've argued that I don't think PJ can make it as a second ruck.) However, I guess that the 'slant' is turning from a ruckman who can, say, go forward to a forward who can ruck.

Oh, it wasn't meant to be angsty at all I just wanted to outline my suggestion, as clearly as possible, so that RR could see what I was saying (and hopefully give me/us his opinion). Where the money goes is a great question. Media reports have suggested the AFL is sitting on a 'war chest' so it seems a significant amount of money is in the AFL kitty. As I said, my 1/16th comment was flippant, but I think there's more than enough to 'support the game' and support the Clubs. In theory I like it. That said, we're already receiving support from the MCC - and other Clubs don't, as far as I know - so I imagine it's based primarily on the fact we have many MCC members. I can't recall the figures, but I wonder what it works out to per MFC-supporting MCC member. No doubt our historical connection plays a part, but if there were no MFC-supporting MCC members I doubt they'd be couching up. If the MCC didn't currently exist and we were deciding, right now, whether to create one that would mirror what the MCC is today, then I could side with you. However, the MCC exists, they offer MCC memberships and a significant number of MFC-supporting members purchase MCC memberships. We need to deal with that, and I think that the best way of benefiting from this situation is working with the MCC.

It was pretty clear that the concessions were set in stone, and everyone knew what they were. I agree that they don't fairly compensate Clubs in some circumstances, but either you have the objective rules or you have a panel make subjective assessments for each players (perhaps with a range they can choose from, a la judges and sentence guidelines).

I think you've side-stepped my argument, which essentially boils down to this: First, that the AFL has significant revenue. Second, that the AFL primarily generates revenue based on the 16 (atm) professional teams. Third, that the Clubs are entitled to a reasonable slice of the cake. Fourth, that this slice would be large enough to not only sustain a Club, but allow it to prosper. Given the AFL's sitting on so much coin, it's interesting that there isn't more debate about how the money is used.