La Dee-vina Comedia

Perhaps Hawthorn and the Bulldogs haven't received direct financial support from the AFL. But the management of the competition by the AFL Commission, particularly going national in 1987, is what brought in the TV rights revenue and increased sponsorship income which have benefitted all clubs, incuding Hawthorn and the Bulldogs. Sustained onfield success is not, in itself, a magic panacea. North Melbourne was extremely successful onfield during the Carey/Archer/Longmire era and were unable to benefit from it.

I suspect Covid will be the excuse for various changes on the commercial side of the competition. The night Grand Final this year is one. (I'm not opposed to it this year, but would like it back in its traditional timeslot next year, although I suspect a night GF is here to stay.) The fluid fixturing will be another. To be fair, when revenue has taken as large a hit as it has, I can understand the AFL's interest in exploring options with greater financial reward. What I don't understand, though, is how fluid fixturing helps financially when the AFL has two TV broadcasters. Boosting ratings on one (7 network) will be to the detriment of the other (Fox/Kayo). Perhaps it's more about the next TV rights deal and creating a more attractive proposition for potential bidders.

For months I have been dead against having Hogan back on the basis that he appears to require the use of too many club resources, particulalry to help him with his off-field behaviour. Yet, the moment I heard that Fremantle has confirmed that they would be interested in trading him, my brain's first thought was that I hope he comes back to us. This is why passionate Melbourne supporters should not make list decisions! And now that the adrenaline or dopamine or whatever it was that triggered that emotional response has gone, I'm once again of the view that his future is not with us. I just hope that he can be happy within himself whatever happens from here.

I wouldn't have thought having "ruck skills" is the same thing as being a "skilled footballer". That would be like saying Addam Maric was an elite kick. In other words, there's more to it than having one string to the bow.

Am I reading you correctly? You've said that teams should select skilled footballers rather than athletes and in the next post said Nic Naitinui should have been selected instead of Watts. Isn't that a bit inconsistent?

Does it matter? If he put them on correctly, it looks funny; if he got them back-to-front it's even funnier.

He saved the VFL from itself. I know someone who worked with the Government at the time. If it hadn't been for Samuel and the work he did with the Government, the old VFL would have collapsed taking our club with it.

My view had always been the opposite. I believed Malthouse couldn't get the best out of individuals which is why so many players left under his watch. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. That is, Malthouse was able to get the best out of those individuals, but only those who could tolerate him and vice versa.

Nice tongue twister. I struggled just reading it without even trying to say it out loud.

I'm not sure that this statement is correct. I recall The Age ran a story a few years ago about 7 Victorian clubs almost being wound up in the early 1990s (or, perhaps, late 1980s) by the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs because they were technically insolvent. I realise that's 30 or so years ago, rather than 25, but I think the AFL has worked hard over the last quarter century to reduce the differential betwen rich and poor.

You're a hard marker. You don't think Petracca is a top ten player based on Brownlow and Coaches' Association votes?

Even if we'd drafted Neale we would probably have stuffed up his development and eventually traded him for someone else who was equally disappointing.

I think the reason why all clubs are required to pay 97% (or whatever the figure is) of the salary cap is so that players who are drafted to a poor team have the same reward opportunity as players drafted to a good team. In other words, why should a player who has no choice as to which team he plays for get paid less because he plays for the bottom team on the ladder than a player who just happens to be lucky enough to have been drafted to a top four team?

I've been in favour of this idea for some time. The longer a player stays at a club, the more the club gets to discount that player's salary from cap calculations.

I'm not sure I agree. Players are still free to move if they can find a club that wants them. The club that wants them has a penalty imposed. The concept of the player getting to the club of their choice without requiring a trade to be done still survives.

If you want to go down this path, it would be hard to justify a player from any Victorian team winning the medal in future. All the interstate clubs travel much more than all the Victorian teams in a "normal" season.

Another way to "penalise" clubs who receive free agents would be to add a loading to the free agent's salary for cap calculation purposes. For example, a free agent's salary might be included in the club's cap at 125% of its true value.

I don't understand why the AFLPA would want this. How does it help the players, given around 60-70% of them would be in the 12-14 teams that won't be regularly finishing in the top 4? I understand why free agency exists for the players. I understand the concept of the team which loses the free agent receiving some sort of compensation. What I don't understand is why the clubs who benefit from receiving a free agent aren't required to give up something in return, such as an automatic drop down the draft order. For example, and using Cameron to Geelong as an example, why shouldn't Geelong's first draft pick be moved down (say) 18 spots?

Quite right, Old dee. Lang was indeed Premier of NSW. In my defence, all NSW politicians think they're more important than any Federal parliamentarian. Many even think they're above the law.

Too obtuse for me. Who was this "best young player from Kybybolite" whose career we stuffed up?

I think you are right to be sceptical. If I recall correctly, the self-interest of clubs and individuals was a major stumbling block when Crawford did his review and, further back, when the Commission model was first mooted. As Paul Keating once said, ‘In the race of life, always back self-interest — at least you know it's trying’. (While Keating did say this, he was repeating what had been said about 50 years earlier by one of his heroes, Prime Minister, Jack Lang)

We also have to remember that David Koch has a conflict of interest given his major employer is a broadcast "partner" of the AFL. That doesn't mean his views as stated are wrong, but his conflicts (and, similarly those of Eddie McGuire, who is employed by both Nine and Foxtel) need to be appreciated.

That dual role should be looked at by this proposed review. If it is indeed unique to our game, there must be reasons why other codes aren't following it. That's not to say the current arrangement is wrong, but the Commission should at least look to see whether the governance model is optimal.

If our clubs each got $260 million every year, they'd have NFI what to do with it.

I heard Andrew Pridham interviewed over the weeked. His proposal is much more than the number of teams in the competition. He wants everything looked at - governance, structure, rules, revenue streams, etc. And I think he's right. The last comprehensive review of this type was done 27 years ago by David Crawford. A lot has changed since, and not just in the AFL. There are different technologies (streaming, social media); there's more competition for people's time (does game time need to be shortened? for example); the big cities have grown at the expense of rural areas (what impact has this had on grass roots football?), AFL now has significant competition from other codes (such as NRL and soccer in Melbourne) which didn't exist 27 years ago, the game style has changed so much in the last 27 years to the extent that many claim it is unwatchable, the second-tier competition chops and changes all the time, etc. And all that is before the financial effects of Covid-19. A proper review needs to look at all these things and more to ensure a wholistic approach is taken to the next 25 years of the AFL. The AFL can't sit on its hands and say that all wisdom resides within the current Commission.