La Dee-vina Comedia

So, someone quite different from Andrew Demetriou, then.

It's always interesting to consider the counter-factual. Remember that around the time Graeme Samuel joined the then VFL, the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs in Victoria had written to the VFL advising of his intention to wind up seven clubs who were all technically bankrupt making it illegal for them to trade. (There's an old thread on this somewhere.) If Samuel hadn't joined the VFL, perhaps there would be no Fitzroy and six other clubs - including ours - before the end of the 1980s.

I hope when the AFL Commission appoints the new CEO the incentive payment structure in the CEO's contract makes attendance numbers more important than TV ratings, revenue, and broadcast rights combined. That's the sort of incentive which might produce action.

The height difference suggests only one of them could look the AFL in the face.

I think the issue is that the heavy use of interchange keeps changing who is playing on whom. In the "olden days" when interchanges were far fewer (or even before interchange) most defenders would play on the same forwards for every minute of each game.

Mind you, I think half the people sitting near me at the football don't understand the game, either!

I'm a firm believer that it can work today. The new CEO just needs to ensure that s/he has people with the necessary experience working for her or him and that those people are listened to.

The best person ever involved in the AFL was Graeme Samuel who was the prime mover in turning the AFL (then the VFL) from an amateurish, bankrupt code to the professional business it is today. When he joined the VFL, he wouldn't have known one end of a football from the other.

Apologies if this is in another thread somewhere, but Sam Edmond today claims that Josh Frydenberg was encouraged by the AFL Commission to throw his hat into the ring for the CEO's job. I can't see it happening. I would have thought there were better opportunities for the former Treasurer than this job.

Didn't the graphic put up show that Richmond lost 4 in a row in 2017 before going on to win the flag? If so, it's not all doom and gloom should we lose Thursday...although it won't be a great feeling.

I have often wondered why the AFL doesn't copy other sports such as hockey and soccer, where a free kick is only awarded if an infringement restricts play. In these other games, the referee signals that an infringement has occurred but only stops play if it is needed to assist the team infringed against. It would effectively replace the current situation where it's very confusing, and often unfair, when teams take advantage.

You're probably right. However, for what it's worth, while the prices of food and drinks might deter some people, I suspect that issue isn't in the top 5 reasons why people aren't attending. I'd have all of scheduling (eg, Thursday nights, times of games, floating fixture, etc), availability on TV (especially now people have become used to paying for content on other services, such as Netflix), transport issues (cost, time, availability), ticketing issues, and health concerns associated with Covid all ahead of it.

I think you'll find it was club CEOs. The Age has been drip feeding results of its survey with club CEOs over the last few days. I'm curious as to why a club CEO would want to add Dustin Martin. Five years ago I suspect he would have been the dominant choice, but now he's too close to the end of what has been a wonderful career.

My basic school economics suggests to me that the link between food and beverage prices and crowds is a two-way issue. It's not just that expensive food and drinks may be deterring people from attending. It may also be that smaller crowds are increasing the prices. If more people attend, the fixed costs component of the food and beverage suppliers reduces thereby enabling prices to be lower. If that is correct, the AFL need to do more to get crowds back which should help reduce the pressure on prices.

The problem I have with this story is that there are 21 responses. That seems to suggest that the CEOs were given the opportunity to provide more than one reason...yet between them only came up with 21 responses.

Explains your name...

All teams in good form? I can think of one that's not right now...

I often wonder who's decision it is to play music. Is it the ground manager (ie, the MCC for MCG games), the home team or the AFL? We might be blaming the wrong person.

Time to resuscitate the Embarrassing Records thread?

While the head honchos at the 7 Network might be pleased with Thursday night football, I suspect the CEO of the Melbourne Cricket Club is not. Smaller crowds must be costing the MCG quite a bit in revenue foregone.

Winner, winner, Pickett's dinner.

The AFL has apparently determined to increase the soft cap by half a mil per annum. Because we're not on the inside, it's impossible for any of us to know where we should really spend the extra. I'll assume, though, that half will be consumed in pay rises for the staff already there. That leaves $250,000. Where would you spend the extra? Be as serious or amusing as you like. Do you want to see more skills coaches in specific areas (eg, goal kicking)? How about someone specialising in conflict management? Do we want to beef up recruitment? Or fitness? How about we buy Simon a thesaurus so he can find alternative words for "connection" and "learnings"? Any and all ideas welcome.

I never knew that. Good learnings here on Demonland.

I can live with a 1965 style result this year. But not the subsequent 55 years.

One could say it's a sliding Daw moment.