Macca

I was being a little sarcastic, Smithy ... not sure there's too many t20 fans on this thread! I'm just a little stunned that the national team is now going to play the shortest form of the game just 2 days after finishing a test match .. do Warner, Smith, Maxwell, Johnson and Marsh play in these games? ... ordinarily, they might be selected to play. Haddin too, if he was fit.

... and this series was originally meant to be played over 3 tests Comprehensively beaten and I'm not sure we can take anything out of the series other than Mitch Marsh showed a bit. It's going to be interesting to see the make-up of the 11 for the first Test against India. Question marks surround the 2 seamers to support Johnson and ... the make up of the batting - who bats at no.3? Does Rogers stay as an opener? Marsh over Watson or maybe both play? I'd go with one of them only but we need to find a no.3. Not sure Doolan is the answer but he might be persevered with. Anyway, you'll all be "pleased" to see that the t20 internationals are next - in 2 days time!! Yep, that's right, we play South Africa on Wednesday night in the first of 3 x t20 games. Then it's 5 ODI's against the Proteas before India arrive for 4 Tests.

The Steelers & Ravens really don't like each other, do they? Stand out moments today ... 49ers losing - that's gotta hurt The Pats are right back in business and maybe Denver aren't that good The Eagles,KC, Cinci & Arizona all had vital wins Miami might be a good team and are the Vikes back in it? Seattle win in unimpressive fashion but Pittsburgh continue to impress. And Dappa, picking those division winners, Conference match-ups and wild-cards is going to be hard work - I'll have a go in a day or so.

Yep, there's some reasonable talent that can be picked up later in the draft. This is where I believe a good recruiter can earn his money (the top end of the draft is much more transparent although as most would now acknowledge, there are no guarantees at the top end of the draft) Kent 48, Garland 46, McDonald 53, Bail 64, Matt Jones 52 & Terlich 68 are all reasonable to solid contributors with 2 or 3 of those 6 players having a fair bit of upside.

Now Misbah has equalled the record for the fastest hundred - he now shares the record with Viv Richards ... 100 off 56 balls. It's all happening Chasing 603 to win are the Aussies

We can never get tired of this clip can we ...

Misbah just hit the fastest 50 in the history of test cricket - 52 off 21 balls in 24 minutes.

We've played poorly and the conditions whilst not in our favour, can't be the sole reason. A lack of concentration against good quality spinners stands out for a few of our blokes. Credit to Pakistan - they've completely outplayed us. They've always been a capable opponent who often haven't performed up to expectations but in this series, they've been very very good - I like their leggie (Yasir Shar) ... he looks to have a bright future.

I can't see him playing but they're saying he might - hasn't practiced all week so he'd have to be doubtful - you'd think. Romo Has Fractures In Back; Might Play Sunday

What's also interesting is the number of home fans that turn up to games when all the criteria is factored in. I've got friends and acquaintances who are a lot less likely to attend games against poorly performed interstate teams or nondescript interstate teams but when it comes to a traditional foe, they're itching to get there. Of course, if the home team is having a poor season, attendances can drop for that team right across the board. One exception to that rule is the QB clash - Demon fans often turn up in their droves and I've attended many QB clashes where we've at least had as many fans at the game as they have. Let's imagine for a minute that we're a 10 win team (as difficult as that may be to imagine) ... given those circumstances, would we rather attend home games against the Dons, Tigers, Blues & Pies or attend home games against GWS, Lions, Suns or the Eagles? In my view, there's a lot more pleasure derived from beating our traditional foes on our home ground. That reasoning largely explains why those type of games turn into blockbusters. Maybe not for us in recent years but previously, games against our traditional foes have been well attended. Of course, many here go to all our games in Victoria and good on 'em for doing so ... I'm more looking at this from a practical viewpoint.

But we are going to be a good side next year and we are going to be "around the eight" Haven't you heard? Quite seriously, I wouldn't be posting the way I have on this thread if I didn't believe we were going to win 8+ games next season ... and 8 wins is not much of an ambition. I believe we would have achieved 8+ wins this season if Hogan & Clark had have played the whole season (uninterrupted) If I thought we were going to only win 3 or 4 wins again I probably wouldn't be saying very much at all ... I'm not going to let the MFCSS attach itself until half time of round 1

GWS will continue to be heavily subsidised whilst the big money keeps rolling in from the AFL's broadcast partners. And whilst GWS continues to be heavily subsidised, they'll continue to operate without any real ongoing issues. I can't see that big money subsiding anytime soon and in fact, the broadcast rights money could be increasing quite substantially ... Channel Ten expresses interest in 10-year AFL broadcast deal I compare the GWS "deal" to all 6 of the Sheffield Shield sides in cricket ... all 6 shield teams have been heavily subsidised for 40 years now (the money comes from ODI's, Tests, money derived from overseas tours and more recently, t20 cricket) The AFL needs another presence in Sydney and they'll keep GWS as a going concern for as long as it takes ... at this stage, that's an indefinite number of years. GWS's income streams would be quite small compared to other clubs and that won't be changing in a hurry ... there biggest income stream would come from the AFL's annual dividend ... nearly all clubs receive a dividend from the league of 10 million plus. Personally, I'd spend the money in other areas and would be looking at the overall health of the league in general.

Let's be clear here ... I haven't seen one person here argue for more prime time free-to-air games. If there are 1 or 2 people arguing that way they should be seen as the small minority view or aberrations. This argument is about our fixture in general ... strangely enough, if we had home fixtures next season against Essendon, Carlton & Richmond (specifically) then that could/would increase our chances of winning more games. We just happened to defeat Essendon, Richmond & Carlton this past season so if we were given home fixtures against those sides next season we could (in theory) be in a win/win situation ... smash those teams and pick up a total of 6 wins against those teams alone and ... make a killing at the gate to boot

Good points rjay Of course, as well as Carlton getting a free ride they also blatantly tanked on numerous occasions and will never be investigated - Mike will make sure of that. What a joke of a league this is - it could be run so much better if we had better custodians. Their main "modus operandi" is to make money - so much so that they feed the greedy clubs to those clubs heart's content - all the while pointed the finger at the teams with smaller supporter numbers saying ... "it's all your fault" The sad part is that many supporters fall for their propaganda. The media fall into line because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Our sporting media is at an all time low with regards to standards - I rarely, if ever, bother to read anything they've got to say anymore.

We look a completely different team, Smithy. The saving grace is we're not going to revisit these type of wickets for quite a while.

We can no doubt make money from games against the interstate teams if we were "flying."... but, just think about how much more money we can make if we were drawn to play against all the bigger drawing clubs (if we were "flying") I fully expect the club to come good at some stage and I'd like us to be in the position to take advantage of that when that happens. Not the year after or 2 years later - immediately.

In a nutshell I don't believe a fixture should be based on popularity or winning - ever. Prime time TV games is a totally different matter Collingwood will be getting at least a 5-6 million dollar head start on us next season before a ball is even bounced - that's the stark reality. They will play only 3 home games against interstate sides next year. Plus, they will have home games against the Cats, Hawks, Blues, Tigers, Bombers, Saints & us. Also, they get 9 prime time games and 15 free-to-air games. They finished 11th last season. I outlined a possible solution in this post ... the club needs to be proactive re the fixture and it wouldn't surprise me if Jackson ends up selling another game or 2 off. A crowd of around about 25,000 - 27,000 is break even at the MCG whilst selling another game off could net the club 350-400k. The club wouldn't be expecting a cheque from our round 23 game against the Giants at Docklands but I've heard that we do receive a minimum 100k for any given home game at the MCG ... so, with home games against the Doggies, Suns, Freo, Lions & North we might only expect to make a total of 500k from 6 of our home games. Many clubs are now turning over 50 million dollars plus these days (the Pies turned over 75 million dollars last year) so a total of 500k from 6 home games is a frighteningly small number when comparing that figure to the turnover that clubs have these days. Jackson would be tearing his hair out if he had any

I can't be bothered arguing my point anymore other than to say that I don't agree with your take on things. I've posted my views previously on this thread. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion - let's agree to disagree.

By the way, the clubs bottom line sits at $3,272,495 (in the black) That number is from the 2013 annual report. Take out the 1.4 million "grant" that we received from the AFL and that bottom line would sit at $1,872,495. Hardly panic stations, all things considered. Our pokies venues provide very good income for the club and if we had a much more favourable fixture, we'd be posting excellent profits. The fixture is stifling our growth.

We were given 1.4 million ... that's it. For proof do your own research - you'll find I'm right. You're making stuff up and making unfounded accusations to suit your own argument. As for agreed allocations to the new clubs ... you've played that down. Hundreds of millions of dollars "allocated" and you want to bleat and moan about 1.4 million. And what have you got to say about the 9 million that Port received? I noticed that you conveniently failed to address that in your reply. You need to provide the proof for your accusations about the bailing out of the Neeld & Schwab contracts and the other "executive" contracts. Also, where's the proof that the AFL put Jackson in charge. Our board appointed him ... again, get your facts right. Try reading the annual reports - all the info is there if you can be bothered. 1.4 million - that's all we got ... and the money we received came with no specific purpose other than to help us out ... unless you're calling Jackson a liar ... are you? You strike me as just another supporter who wants the club to be punished further because you feel personally let down.

What, for the grand total of 1.4 million? Port Adelaide were bailed out to the tune of 9 million at the end of 2011 - all because they couldn't make enough out of their home games at footy park. GWS and the GCS are being subsided to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars - fact. The AFL are not paying for Jackson & Roos - we are. If you believe the AFL are - prove it.

The AFL are interested in making money - they're not great custodians. Maximising crowds has always been high on the agenda for the league and because of that thinking, the footy public often end up thinking the same way. 'hardtack' mentioned in an earlier post that the AFL will/might get on board with us if there's a quid in it for them ... that about sums things up. hardtack is on the money (so to speak) Unfortunately I don't see things changing in a hurry but ... the now annual game against Richmond on Anzac eve is a step in the right direction. We need to be the proactive ones here and I'm sure the club and indeed many people here could come up with some good ideas about annual games against the better supported clubs ... at least if we had those games written in stone we'd be assured of a good return for those particular games on a biennial basis. And if we're going to be drawn to play home games against North & the Doggies every year we should try and maximise our returns in those games. Some sort of theme or those games being played on certain days shouldn't be too hard to think up. It just needs some creative thinking.

Popularity first and ... then performance is how the fixture is arranged, Dr. G. However, a fixture should never be built on either criteria. It should be as fair as possible as it is with any other sport. If someone can come up with another league that practices the same hairbrain way of doings things as the AFL does, I'd be very surprised. The "deserving" part has grown legs over the years - for the life of me, I don't know why people fall for that rot. The league would know full well that our fixture won't be giving us much of a financial return. People are concerned about the league becoming about 'the haves" vs "the have nots" should look no further than the fixture - it's an absolute joke. Jackson's reaction was similar to last year (being diplomatic?) however, about a month or so after the fixture came out last year, he sounded off about how our fixture was really going to hurt us in a financial sense (can't find a link unfortunately) I don't necessarily want hand-outs to equal things up either ... it gives those with an agenda a chance to point the finger at our club. Equalisation should be practised as a matter of course by the league not as a measure of squaring things up after disadvantaging certain clubs. We just need a fair crack at things. Give us that and we have no reason to complain.

Popularity reigns supreme when it comes to the fixture. I've long felt that the league first of all makes sure that they have enough blockbuster games involving the Victorian teams - by the time they get through with all of those games (of which we more recently receive the grand total of 1 - the QB clash) they're then left with the task of working out the rest of the fixture. Then there's all the derbies to consider and all the other marquee games involving various clubs. That has the effect of certain clubs being left with the "leftovers" People here need to realise that we've been disadvantaged over a long period of time ... any given year may not hurt us too badly but it's the cumulative effect over a number of years that can really hurt. It would be nice if we could throw a bit of money towards Casey but I doubt whether we're in any position to do so ... teams like the Pies can afford to spend 3 weeks in Arizona whilst right now, we'd have no chance of being able to do something like that. How long do we go to Darwin for - 3/4 days? Before that we used to spend a few days up in the highlands

I went and checked all the years after the years when we played finals ('99, '01, '03, '05, '06 & '07) and discovered that on each occasion we were "drawn" to play 5 of the 6 interstate teams at home in every year except 2001 (when we played 4 of the 6 interstate teams at home) Now of course we've slotted in to that 7/8 bracket (we've been drawn to play 27 home games against interstate opposition in the last 4 years - including next year) Prime time TV games were of interest too ... did a comparison with Collingwood because of their "popularity" It was difficult to figure out which of the Saturday night games were on free-to-air so I counted both Saturday night games. In each of the years there were approximately 132 spots available. Melbourne ...... 1999 - 7 "spots" (Prelim finalists in 1998) Collingwood ... 1999 - 6 (14th in 1998) Melbourne ...... 2001 - 6 (Grand Finalists in 2000) Collingwood ... 2001 - 9 (15th in 2000) Melbourne ...... 2003 - 6 (2 finals in 2002) Collingwood ... 2003 - 14 (Grand finalists in 2002) Melbourne ...... 2005 - 8 (finished 5th in 2004) Collingwood ... 2005 - 9 (finished 13th in 2004) Melbourne ...... 2006 - 4 (played 1 final in 2005) Collingwood ... 2006 - 10 (finished 15th in 2005) Melbourne ...... 2007 - 7 (played 2 finals in 2006) Collingwood ... 2007 - 11 (played 1 final in 2006) The Pies seem to get plenty of prime time games regardless of where they finish on the ladder - we did "ok" although 2006 stands out as a year when we weren't "rewarded."