La Dee-vina Comedia

While I understand your point, I would rather those still working at the club spend their time securing its future rather than worrying about informing members of what they're doing. I know it might seem that preparing a bulletin for members and supporters should be a simple task that doesn't take much time, but given the shifting sands upon which we all stand, I don't think it is that easy at all. Would I like to be informed? Yes. Is it more important than doing everything else to protect the club's future? No.

I wouldn't be so sure. If some clubs have to go belly up, I suspect North and St Kilda are at greater risk. I could see North and Gold Coast merging and being based at the Gold Coast and similarly a combined St Kilda/ GWS operating out of Sydney. Purely from a business decision point of view it makes more sense to reduce the number of teams in Victoria, rather than NSW and Qld. (Especially if the NRL, which is reportedly in a worse position than the AFL, struggles to keep its teams afloat.)

Outstanding work, demonstone.

Tassie Johnson Big Bob Johnson Was Travis Johnstone 'Trapper'? And what about Alan, Paul or Chris Johnson? Or any other Johnson. Were they all the default "Johnno" in each case?

The most silver of silver linings

I'm going to be a bit contrary and say that I thought there were players who on their performances yesterday were far worse than ANB and OMac. However, whether OMac would stay in the side depends entirely on who we would be playing. If we need a third tall defender, he would stay in. If we don't, he'd go out for someone more suited to the team we're against. That might be Hore if we need some who's medium tall, or it might be a smaller defender. ANB would stay in the side because he did far more than Spargo and Bedford. It's always hard on TV to see what is happening off the ball, but it was clear to me yesterday that ANB was doing a lot more work than Spargo. Nevertheless, Bedford did enough to warrant another game. I assumed that Brown played because Weideman wasn't fit. But if, in this hypothetical one week break to Round 2, Weideman is still not right, I would play Jackson instead of Brown for two reasons. We need a better back-up ruckman than Tom McDonald (although it wouldn't have made any difference against Natinui yesterday) and because he's the future and needs to gain experience.

Don't we have 10 now?

Surely Demonland can turn this into a competition. Finish this sentence, "When people like Eddie McGuire, Peggy O’Neill and Brendan Gale can’t attend...." I'll start with, "the world is a better place"

The Age today has a graph showing the impact of the Spanish flu pandemic in 1919. Round 18 in 1919 would presumably have been held some time around July or August that year. It could very much explain why people weren't attending football matches.

I assume you mean it will the end of having 10 teams in Victoria. I initially read it as ending up with 10 teams in Victoria, which would be a geat result.

Particularly in the current environment.

Mind you, Red Bull might lack exposure now from their other sports sponsorships (F1, for example), so aligning with a professional, televised sport which is still functioning (at least for the time being) is smart. I admit I'd be surprised if such a decision could have been made that quickly, but if so, that's some stunning agility which I guess matches their brand.

I'm the opposite. Over the last 50 years I've been to too many games I wish I had missed.

Until I hear otherwise, I'll assume Weideman isn't playing because his ankle isn't 100%

A quick google search tells me that the Marylebone Cricket Club was founded in 1787. I don't think we can claim to be the world's oldest sporting club. Oldest football club? Possibly Oldest professional sporting club? Possibly

Perhaps the club meant to say "oldest football club" rather than "oldest sporting club"

So, just on this statement, doesn't this mean the Melbourne Cricket Club is 20 years older than the Melbourne Football Club? And surely the Marylebone Cricket Club is older still.

In an email last night, the club made the following statement: But is this correct? I thought there had been discussion about this on Demonland previously where it was suggested that we might be the third-oldest still functioning sporting club with one of the English soccer clubs (Sheffield?) being the oldest. I wouldn't expect the club to knowingly misrepresent the facts...but on the other hand, we know that everyone in the AFL can be economical with the truth when it suits. Is the club correct?

Interesting. I don't know what the average crowds were back then, but I wonder whether the Spanish Flu pandemic which was about in 1919 had anything to do with the low number?

Emergencies for when we're Running on Empty.

You're more of a masochist than I thought! 5 weeks of the BBC World Service. True, it's great for 30 minutes, then they just keep repeating the same stories, over and over. Bit like some Demonland posters, actually.

I assume one of Hore and Lockhart will play as the seventh dewfender, depending on whether we need a mid-sized or small defender. With Bedford and pickett already announced, that would seem to leave a fight between Weideman, Brown and Jackson for the final tall foward spot, probably in that order, subject to Weideman's ankle being OK. That would leave Brown, Jackson, Sparrow and either Hore or Lockhart as the real emergencies.

While I haven't actually seen any information that the millenials are the ones who don't have the attention span for a longer game, I suspect you are correct. And it's not just AFL. Cricket has the same problem, hence the emphasis on shorter formats of the game.

Actually, before the Covid-19 issues arose, TV networks were asking for shorter games and shorter breaks because the broadcasts were too long to hold people's attention. Therefore, I doubt the broadcasters are going to complain about shorter matches. Fewer matches, though, might be more problematic. I sense lots of work for lawyers in the next months or years interpreting 'Force Majeur' clauses in various contracts.

I disagree. I think social disruption caused by individuals being unemployed, underemployed, socially isolated and restricted from going about their normal daily affairs may lead to various negative consequences varying from mental health issues to marauding gangs going on a rampage just for something to do. People need to be kept occupied and entertained. If the AFL can help by entertaining people, it should do so. If it's forced to stop because Covid-19 affects players or officials, they should stop. But while eveyone is healthy, let them play. Not only will it entertain people, it still provides work for people in various industries, including media, transport, stadium management, healthcare, etc, albeit at a far lower level than we would all like.