Webber

No dispute on any of these points, but to say that one mode of equalisation (fixing admin) means the next mode is not needed, is conservative laziness I reckon. I understand your tv influence argument, and it's clearly a chicken and egg situation in part. My issue with it is different, and that is the effect exposure has on supporter development. It just doesn't fit with a policy aimed at developing equality to have certain clubs dominate that advantage, regardless of success. The other obvious issue is that certain clubs get disproportionate exposure based on their supporter numbers and NOT their ladder position, such as Collingwood. In fact this I would suggest is the prime driver to broadcast positioning. This is unsustainable to equalisation.

I agree with pretty much everything you say Baghdad Bob, and it's terrific to see our only Indigenous sport gaining a higher profile nationally and largely being a force for good in Australian life. Andrew Demetriou has undoubtedly helped to facilitate this. Any ultimate satisfaction with AD though, means that you agree with his governance in respect to balance and opportunity in the competition as it stands NOW, and how the future is shaping on those issues. To me, it's worrying. I could be accused of being unrealistic in my utopian ideals, but the AFL could push a lot harder for equalisation. The reason they are not is due to short term commercial pressures. So much revenue comes from TV broadcast rights now, that a rapid shift has occurred over the past few years in how clubs are advertised via the AFL. There is an inevitability to the AFL being dictated to by the free to air broadcasters, such that the exposure of lesser clubs to the public at large (those not having pay TV) is seriously diminished. Historically, members are everything to AFL clubs, and if you keep getting prime time exposure, it's an enormous gift of marketing. Equal exposure fixturing, the exclusive province of the AFL, can address this. It's not happening. The Swans 'Buddygate' of this week highlights problems with the way clubs are allowed list improvement opportunities. I think the game should be given ample assistance to develop further in NSW and Queensland, and I'm not even that fussed about the Swans salary cap bonuses, for that reason. (but FFS the AFL are fooling nobody by justifying it on COL increases. The SA clubs would have a lower salary cap on that rationale. As would Geelong. I wish they'd call it what it is.) However, if you're going to give them the power to buy stars and guns, which the poorer clubs can't, then you MUST give those clubs other opportunities to improve/maintain their list, and this means draft assistance, with extended periods of untouchability for those draftees. A superdraft, where for example the bottom six clubs share the first 18 draftees, should occasionally be implemented. Basically a mini version of the concessions given to GC and GWS in their inception. The AFL as lead by AD, don't have the long term vision or courage for this. Stadiums deals, such as those under which the Bulldogs, Kangas, and Saints have to suffer, are simply appalling. If you want an even competition, there is simply no justification for gate receipts to be anything but shared equally between clubs. NONE. In the age of saturation broadcasting, there are just too many variables affecting crowd numbers to have any club punished for poor crowd, for any reason. All of this would require a very clear vision of a competition that trots out 9 games each week with even odds on the winner of each. THAT should be the aspiration, the goal that would create more excitement and supporter participation than ever before. What we have instead is a competition where 4 to 6 teams become largely irrelevant after 6 rounds of the season, and the signs are that this trend is growing. AD, as the head of the AFL, is not addressing this trend, and the competition needs someone who will.

Great job Demonland bosses for allowing the chance for us all to purge and share our supporter angst in this annus horribilis yet hopus nextyearus.

I agree with that also, and wasn't necessarily disappointed when he wasn't picked. The specific difference was that our performances were so dire, particularly in the midfield, that to NOT give the best performing senior listed player in the 2's a go, was most definitely odd.

Agree. Odd lack of opportunity given to him, regardless of the predicted outcome.

Hawthorn will win because : Best team all year More pure talent and versatility. Grand Final/ big crowd experience Home ground experience There has been a very predictable romantic opinion swell for the Dockers coming from the newbie/underdog thing, but that won't make them any more likely to win. Hawks by 8 goals.

Your arguments seem very sound to me deanox, and highlight again the inequality that is becoming more entrenched in the ironically self professed pro-equalisation AFL. I think they will be loathe to address the inequity until it becomes obvious that it's only the rich clubs that are securing the big FA's over a period of years.....maybe 7-10. The gap will be wider by then, so addressing THAT amongst the other inequalities (stadium deals/fixturing/drafting) will likely create some squealing from the porkier pigs at the trough.

I think this idea that anybody gets to 'roam a lot easier' with other forward targets there to deflect pressure is pure fantasy. The game down back is now played as limiting space and thus allowing negation first and foremost. Jeremy Howe has been frankly very poor at shaking that negation when deep forward. He's an elite athlete and runner, a poor 'body' player, and ridiculously good mark. He needs space and a brief to run and run and run. Perfect for the MCG. Given that role he'll expose any opponent in the AFL I reckon, but a consistent inside 50 forward he is not, with the the exception of the last quarter if he's got the legs.

Howe's real value is his marketing value, and it's HUGE, particularly with kids. His value as a contributing player is below average. Trading him is a dilemma therefore. If his ridiculous physical talent can be better directed toward being a consistent competitive presence (Roos/Stone), his value goes through the roof, but at the moment he remains a frustration, and tradable. Maybe.

haha, relax Billy. I mean that he'll be good to go for the bulk of preseason, won't miss the fitness work, and will get the ball work when it matters. The rest I have NFI about.

He won't miss preseason because of his shoulder surgery.

Nice idea, but I reckon having a PRIVATE training oval in MELBOURNE, the city our club REPRESENTS!!! might be a higher priority.

George Stone has an extraordinary record for development, and is a huge bonus for the MFC. He IS a lock for the MFC, and my source is the only person in his world who is a little unsure how they'll cope with him being back home full time.

Good speculative topic. We'll be somewhere between the Doggies and Suns of this year I reckon. A HUGE amount depends on total games lost to injuries through the list. Another reason we need more players in the mid to late 20's age wise. If we have one out of the box for keeping players out there, history tells that we'll push for the 8. But the reverse situation would see us similar to this year, but not devoid of hope.

Ironically, in his second or third last year at the MFC he was top 5 in he AFL for set shot conversion. Couldn't take a contested mark for **** though. Was always one of the fittest on the list, and clearly had a great work ethic.

Demonland has reached new heights of cross cultural quality, comparing the Stanislavski 'method' to Brad Miller's appointment as a coach. I LOVE IT!

What am I missing? The salary cap we are underpaying is not for lack of funds, but for lack of deserving personnel. Sponsorship $$$ are extraneous to this.

No doubt, but how does that help us recruit/attract better players, get a better list?

Yep, there's a whole city full of nongs out there, but they have VERY short term memories, and will ONLY hear what suits their world view, which is largely what the scandal mongering, rubbish peddling, bullying media want them to hear. We know that the AFL is 'unequal', and that largely short term commercial imperatives drive their governance, but the ONLY way to become a beneficiary rather than a victim, is to win games. The problem is that in that scenario, it's becoming harder and harder to make the transition. There is a growing gap between the top and bottom of the ladder, and the MFC are at the bottom. However ruthless we like to fashion ourselves, not being given the obvious opportunity to improve our list will reinforce the gap rather than close it.Given this, the contradiction in policies by the AFL is stark. They state that it is in EVERYBODY'S best interests that making the finals remains a possibility for as many clubs as possible, as late into the season as possible. And it is. They then fail on so many levels to create this scenario. That is their raison d'être, and they're NOT living to it. I put this simple question......if the first 18 picks at this years draft were given to the bottom 6 teams ONLY at this years draft, would the AFL home and away competition be more even over the next 5 years than keeping the draft order as it is?

Rousing stuff Belzebubsy, and great in principle, but you're talking about a club that actually HAS a hammer to swing. There are so many reasons why we can't play the ruthless power game as you describe that I don't know where to begin.

How is a non-marking, non-kicking, non-mobile, single figure possession winning ruckman of any value, other than to the opposition? The modern game sadly is one that has passed Jamar by. He is an on-field liability, tapping abilities or not.

Continue to be amazed that anybody imagines Mark Jamar has ANY trade value. AMAZED!

Obviously Mr. Newbold spoke too soon, forgetting his obligation to undermine any other club when given the chance. There's a power club status quo developing, and we can all watch them use any means at their disposal to protect it. "Whatever it takes".

We'll never know Deanox, until the AFL in their 'make it up as we go along' fashion tell us.

Unfortunately, they aren't painting themselves anywhere. That we didn't get a PP this year will be utterly irrelevant when it comes to awarding them in the future to other clubs. Forgotten, except by the MFC. The AFL don't arbitrate objectively, they arbitrate as a reflection of how they want to be perceived.......by the public at large, and by the other clubs, particularly the cash cows. Put more simply, they make it up as they go along. That they have been spruiking the 'future' of equalisation makes a mockery of this decision, but on its own, it's very very small bananas. And you won't hear any mainstream media to the contrary. Where the AFL is going to strike resistance however is if they don't equalise substantially in other ways as per their up til now vague chatter. The combined voice (in the public and administratively) of the 'disadvantaged' clubs, or shall we say the 'unequal' clubs (us, North, Saints, Dogs,) will be substantial and game changing if the powerhouse clubs are allowed to grow richer in their advantage over the next few years. A groundswell of unhappy football supporters in Melbourne is not something Andrew Demetriou will want to face.