La Dee-vina Comedia

Err...didn't you say "With all due respect to past administrators much of their time was consumed dealing with political or religious agenda pushers"? You must have had a reason for saying that. It's a bit rich to resile from that statement now you've been called out on it.

Did we actually try to argue that we shouldn't play on Sundays for religious reasons?

Can you give an example of a religious agenda which was being pushed? I don't remember any.

Can you give an example of a religious agenda which was being pushed? I don't remember any.

In the last year or so we've seen clubs such as Collingwood, Geelong and Hawthorn talk about poker machines, some for and others against. Yet I don't recall our club engaging in the debate publicly. We've become the first (since North Melbourne quite some time ago now) to take an active step to remove them. I like that we've become a club of action rather than words.

Whether we like it or not, the AFL operates a form of socialism (via the draft, salary cap and distributions from HQ). To do otherwise would see the competition fail with the strongest clubs eventually preventing the weakest clubs from ever improving their position. If that were to occur, the competition would inevitably die. Nevertheless, within this framework clubs need to be accountable for their actions, including financial strength and good governance. We should not, however, confuse real-world economic practice with the needs of a sport like AFL.

I agree. In fact, apart from jealousy, why do people care if the rich get richer? Surely what really matters is that the poor get richer. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

Let's clarify. The $11 million figure is what the players who play pokies at the MFC venues lose each year. It's not what the club makes. Out of that $11 million comes state tax, GST, payments to staff, equipment costs and a licence fee to the State Government for an entitlement for each poker machine used. According to the club (as reported in the media today), the club makes about $2 million a year from the pokies. That's still a significant amount of money, but to break even we're not talking about having to find a new source of $11 million per year. Edit: I appreciate Cards13 might have been talking about the $11 million that it is reported we might get from selling the Leighoak, not the $11 million per annum lost on the pokies.

I seem to recall State and/or Federal money was provided to the Western Bulldogs to redevelop Whitten Oval on condition that the old poker machine venue there was removed. And maybe something similar down at Kardinia Park, too. It wouldn't surprise me that the decision announced today may be followed by a sequel which announces a new training venue with a significant State and/or Federal financial contribution.

I like it when people unwittingly or not use a betting term when discussing gambling.

According to the gaming regulator's website, the Leighoak has 92 pokies entitlements (and therefore 92 poker machines) and the Bentleigh Club has 88. Pokies revenue (which means player losses and is before tax and other operating costs) was $7.7 million in 2016/17. At the Bentleigh Club, revenue was just over $2.5 million. You can find all that data here. A side note of interest is that one of our Directors is Mohan Jesudasson, who used to run the pokies business for Tabcorp. If anyone knows the value of the entitlements and hopefully what the future holds for that business, he should be as well informed as anyone.

Do we own (and therefore are we selling) the LeighOak freehold or just the leasehold?

I get what you're saying...except the AFL still has to take responsibility for what it's media unit publishes. For example, if the content is defamatory and the defamed party sues, it's the AFL which pays up. Hence, also, my point about OH&S.

Not sure what this post is doing here. It's far too sensible.

Interesting approach. I'm not sure how old you are now, but if you've already reached adulthood, did you argue that once you'd turned 17 you should be allowed into pubs because you were into your 18th year? If so, how did that work out for you?

This is the most interesting post on this thread. It's the first time I've seen any reference to Weideman doing some ruck training. (Perhaps he's been doing this training for some time and maybe it has previously been reported, but it is certainly the first time I have become aware of it.) Unless he can pinch hit in the ruck, he's never going to fill in for Tom McDonald. Broadening his skill set gives him the best chance to get picked. His second best chance is if Hogan is unavailable.

Does money received from the tooth fairy get included in the salary cap?

They'd have to beat some Demonland posters first.

I hope that's not the sound of a balloon bursting.

There's a lot to unpack in this sentence. Possibly the most original piece of writing on Demonland ever.

I'm fascinated that the AFL's own website can be this critical of a current player. On the one hand, it's to be admired for its honesty; on the other it's hardly helpful to one of its contracted players. (I wonder also about the AFL's OH&S liability if a player it criticises like this subsequently suffers from depression). On balance, I think the AFL shouldn't be publishing these sorts of stories. That's what the media is for.

As what "panned out"? All your comments about JW are about his onfield performance yet there's adequate evidence circulating, although perhaps not formally confirmed, that the club chose to move JW on because of his off-field commitment (such as to injury rehab). Furthermore, nothing onfield has actually "panned out" given he hasn't played a game for premiership points with Port and we haven't played one without him.

Not sure whether a sore toe would be more painful in the foot kicking the ball or planted on the ground thereby taking the full weight. Presumably others on Demonland have experience and can advise.

Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood and thought that the 7,000 new members were part of the 35K. My point, though, that holding on to old members should be easier than recruiting new ones still stands. It's customer service 101.

So, on the other side of that same coin, if we're pretty close to last year's figure, that also means we must have about 7,000 new members. And that's about 20% of the current membership. That's impressive, although the non-renewal rate is equally unimpressive. The club needs to identify better ways to hold on to members - it should be easier to keep what you've got than continually finding new people to sign up.