La Dee-vina Comedia

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.

No reason...other than we don't seem to be able to pummel any team into the ground. Even when we get 7 goals up with half a match to go.

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.

Here's why and also here

I'm not sure we an play Hannan and Fritsch in the same side at the moment. If Bugg is to go, I'd prefer that he's replaced with a forward with stronger defensive credentials.

Why do I think it was Tony Ongarello?

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.

Not today.

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?

Also relevantly, both Richmond (Hardwick) and Geelong (Thompson) stuck with coaches for longer than most other clubs would have done. Turned out well for them in the end.

How times have changed. That would have been the strongest argument earlier this decade. Thankfully, now it's the weakest.

I owe Harmes (and Werridee) an apology. I hadn't realised he had so much of the ball (equal 4th for disposals) as well as equal 4th for tackles. Maybe I didn't recognise him in his new number. Note: I've had to quote my own post as the "Edit" option seems to have disappeared. Edit: And now the "Edit" option is back.

I know this gets said a lot so obviously a lot of people agree with you. But I don't. I think he's played his best football for us in the back half. Every mistake he makes gets highlighted but all the good that he does seems to be ignored. I'm very comfortable with him playing as one of our seven defenders.

I suspect if Malthouse was put in charge of the umpires we'd pretty quickly have a severe shortage of umpires. Malthouse's approach is "do it my way or not at all". Given umpiring is part-time, why would someone with another job not take the option of quitting?

At the moment our team is still developing. Any amount of practice at training is not the same as match conditions. That means the coach has to give players the opportunity to develop particular skills or roles during games. My view of the drop off against Geelong was that it occurred when players such as Maynard and Hannan were the centre midfielders. That's not to say it was wrong to have them there, but with their lack of experience in that role, it was always going to increase the risk of a poorer team performance while they were there. I haven't looked closely enough at the Brisbane game to see if the run of goals against us coincided with any particular set-up. But I'm reasonably confident Salem was playing a different role (inside mid, if not run with player) all night as part of his education.

To answer the question posed, Oliver's first couple of years re not as good as Judd's. But I can't think of any other player in the last 50 years who had a better start than Judd. On the other hand, it's been a better start than Ablett Jr, Martin and Dangerfield, so I'm happy with that.

I wonder whether Salem was being asked to play as an inside mid. He seemed to have that role which robs us of one of his strengths (disposal execution) but perhaps is intended as part of his education to improve his overall game. I thought he didn't do enough, but what he did was executed very well. Goodwin (and Roos before him) usually seems to want to give players two games, rather than one, to prove themselves so although Bugg did not seem to offer much, I expect him to be given another game. I expect Frost to be picked, not just to "free Lever up" but because North's best forwards are Waite and Brown. A third tall defender is necessary to provide backup and Wagner and Hibberd who it can be argued "play tall" can't play tall enough. For Frost to come in, one of the smaller defenders has to be demoted or move up the ground. If it's a demotion, that would be Wagner; alternatively, Vince could move up the ground to replace a less effective onballer, such as Harmes who has only played in flashes and not really delivered much. I also can't understand why Brayshaw isn't in the side - perhaps he comes in for Harmes. So, assuming no forced changes: In: Frost, Brayshaw Out: Wagner, Harmes , both of whom could consider themselves unlucky.

Harmes? Really? I must have been watching a different game. When I get to the thread on changes for the North game, he's high on my list for consideration for demotion. 6. Hogan 5. Garlett 4. Oliver 3. Jones 2. Hibberd 1. Melksham (thought he provided the forwards with excellent delivery from outside 50. Something that's been too often lacking in the last few years, if not decades.)

I suspect you're right. If they had wanted him to play they could have picked him in the final 22 and withdrawn him if he wasn't right on Sunday.

I would have thought Brayshaw may have been left out last week because he'd only just had his wisdom teeth removed. Not only might that have left him with a sore mouth but he might have been on a limited diet, too, which may have weakened him enough not to be considered fit to play. Of course, if he's not picked this week, that won't have been the reason.

You seem to have a love-hate relationship with punctuation.