Macca

It's almost getting to a point where the teams with the least amount of injuries will prevail. The Packers and Bengals are still doing well in their respective divisions despite all our injuries. Sorry to hear about Atkins - an incident like that often produces an all clear. Just really unlucky. When I watch the Packers I just hope like hell Rodgers doesn't get hurt. It's not a great way to view a sporting contest but even though our offensive line has improved, they still can't be relied upon! (thank goodness we don't have to visit Seattle in the regular season - he got sacked 8 times there last season in that "Infamous" game )

Yep, it's always a good idea to know where you stand with someone when a debate arises. In the back of my mind, I'm almost convinced that we'll make some good strides next year - so I want the club to be able to cash in on those "Strides". But I can see the other side of the argument too - we need some winnable games if a more conservative view is taken with regards to our improvement. I agree that the AFL will look after us for the time being so all is not lost. It would just be nice to be able to post a healthy profit after next season (without the AFL's help) and ... be a reasonably well performed team on the field. I reckon only the latter can definitely happen next season (and that's with a big dose of wishful thinking) However, Jackson didn't seem all that perturbed so maybe he knows something This is what PJ said ...

The Canucks are hangin' in there but pantaloons and Cards' teams are flying (Sharks and Avs) Pittsburgh are dominating in the "Metro" league. (Queen C's team) The Sens need to get a move on for Mickey 'O' ... but overall, not a bad result (so far) for the regular posters on this thread 'GTG'! Your blokes are in Vancouver tomorrow (our time) As always, may the better team win! (as long as it's the Canucks )

And are Port Adelaide financially secure? It's all about the money and the last I heard, they received a grant of 9 million over 3 years (at the end of 2011?) We're going to need a similar amount (ongoing) unless we start making a lot more money from our home fixtures. But aren't we going to be a better performed team next year? Your argument seems to be based on us remaining a basket case. If we don't improve on field, they may as well wind the joint up. My argument has a bit of "Blue sky" behind it because it has to. I believe we have to get better - and if we do get better, we could therefore "Cash in" on some good drawing fixtures (but not next year) Get set for the club to post a significant loss after next season (the AFL may well make up the shortfall) We need to stand on our own 2 feet but we need the opportunity to stand on our own 2 feet. By June/July next year we may well be starting to travel well on the field but there's a good chance the money won't be rolling in at the same time. Handouts and welfare have an expiry date.

Agree with your side To have a chance of winning the first Test, we're probably going to need England to be off their game a bit unless ... the batting clicks and the bowling the same. If Harris and Clarke have big games, we've got a much better chance. I wonder if Clarke might drop down to no.5 as you've suggested? Big ask for Smith but maybe Bailey could bat at no.4. Lyon deserves a decent go at it after his last performance (I hope they don't discard him again after only one Test) I can see a vastly different line-up by the time we revisit England in 2015 (that'll come up quick!) It's obviously a team for "Right now" but because it's the biggest series, that stands to reason.

One more vital part of the fixture to consider are the "Blockbuster" games (for want of a better word) There are all sorts of levels of blockbuster games ... these games come under the banner of having ... 1) Good match-up or rivalry status 2) Good free-to-air TV ratings 3) Good crowd puller 4) Good levels of interest from the general public 5) One or both teams having high supporter numbers 6) Derby status 7) A well performed team or both teams being well performed It's important to note that a lot of these blockbuster games are not all screened on free-to-air during prime time. We can't hope to be on free-to-air during prime time until we become a good team (a finals team?) It's the other games where the concern lies (in relation to our club in particular) Apart from the Queens birthday clash, we really don't have enough to offer to come into any of the blockbuster categories. And we are all well aware that this particular clash has come under pressure in recent years. ... so by the time the AFL have finished working out and "rubber stamping" all these blockbuster type games, there are only so many games left over. We are therefore primarily involved in the "leftover" games. The smaller clubs are always going to be at a disadvantage due to the way the fixture is organised. Even GWS have more "locked in" games than us (the 2 games against the Swans) A small way out of this is for the club to identify how we can get into the Blockbuster "club" without being a great team. If we're a team involved in the finals on a regular basis, we will create some opportunities for ourselves but even if that happened, we still don't tick all the boxes. The Bulldogs won 8 games this past season and only received 2 free-to-air prime time TV games for the 2014 season. Carlton won 11 games this past season and only made the finals on default - they have received 11 free-to-air prime time TV games for the 2014 season. In summary, the manic desire for the AFL to maximise crowd numbers, TV viewers and gate receipts is nearly always going put the smaller clubs at a big disadvantage. Over a decent period of time, the "arranged" fixture effectively creates a bigger division between the rich and the poor. The Draft and the salary cap now only equalise things to a certain extent. My argument focuses on those "Potential" games where the club can make some real money (not a complaint about our lack of free-to-air prime time TV games - that's a commercial decision made by channel 7)

What a way to lose a game Strafford, you must be annoyed at losing that game with a walk off safety. It was a reasonably entertaining game all the same with a couple of exciting TD's. Wasn't sure on the rules - is there a 2nd overtime these days? The game had close finish written all over it but maybe the Bengals should have attempted that 57 yard field goal. Nugent had nailed a 54 yard field goal a little earlier. Hope the news on Atkins isn't too bad.

I'll take your word for it on Dom. I don't watch as much footy as many here so I rely on other posters opinions re the new players. Vince could be a very handy acquisition if he can reach his best form with us. Toumpas has a got a skill that is noticeable though - he seems to create a bit of time for himself when he's got the ball. And in our team last year that would have been a difficult thing to do. Just some glimpses but there's something there. But we've all been guilty of making rash predictions on players so my opinion on Jimmy is .... I'll wait and see! (is that an opinion?) Obviously we'd all like to see him do well.

I haven't seen Bailey's efforts in the ODI's but I've heard about them. Sounds like he's a shoo-in to bat at no.6 in Brisbane. ... re Clarke - that troublesome back injury is not going away in a hurry. It must be debilitating for the bloke and a constant frustration. I'm surprised it doesn't flare up during the Test matches - maybe it does and we just don't hear about it. We desperately need him to be healthy for this Ashes series so fingers crossed. I'm assuming Pattinson, Starc and Cummins won't be available for the summer and is it true that Mitch Johnson could play in the opening Test? Nice to see Ahmed get some wickets but it could be assumed that Lyon will start off (at least for the first couple of Tests) Is Warner in the mix for the 1st Test? You'd reckon that Rogers, Watson, Clarke (if fit) and Smith will start.

Way too early to tell when you factor in ... 1) He was in his 1st year 2) He was playing in a team which was almost devoid of any proper teamwork 3) He may or may not have been used properly when he did play 4) We're not sure whether he should have played more games in the seniors or at Casey From what I saw he was one of few players who was trying to do something practical with the ball - and he has quite neat disposal. Lets judge him after a full injury free season under Roos. And even then he won't be at full maturity until he's around 21-23 years old. However, if he's going to be a very good player for us, he'll need to show us a bit next season. All things considered I believe he's progressing well.

It never effected Carlton's fixturing when they were a basket case. Essendon were poor for a few years but they've had that Docklands deal locked in for a number of years now. They've always had good fixturing anyway. As for Collingwood, they've got their own set of rules. 9 prime time TV games in 2006 after finishing 15th with 5 wins in 2005. They've got all those supporters to be catered for! That very same year (2006) we received 3 prime time TV games after playing finals (again) in 2005. Miraculously, we only had 5 home games against interstate sides that season (there were only 6 interstate sides going around in those days!)

We won 8.5 games in 2010 and we were starting to make some real strides. 2011 was predicted by many here as a year where we'd make some real progress. In the 2011 fixture we received 7 home fixtures against interstate sides. 7 ... 7 games where turning a decent profit from any of these games was an awfully difficult exercise. So those who think we'll get more home games against Victorian sides as a matter of course should temper their optimism. We've been fixtured 27 home games against interstate teams in the last 4 years (including next year)

There's definitely 2 camps here and sometimes it's best to just agree to disagree. For what's it's worth I can see the other side of the argument but can't agree with it. We all want what's best for the club but there's nearly always going to be a difference of opinion on how to best get there. I see yours and my view as a long term one but the counter argument sees it as short term. I also see this as going into bat for the club and wanting what's best for the club rather than anything disruptive or destructive. I don't necessarily see the AFL as trying to kill us off either. By continually matching up the better performed Victorian sides, there's always some fallout. But the bottom line is that the club needs to fight tooth and nail for any benefit that might come our way.

Most, if not all, are buoyant about the new season with a new coach, new Admin, new players and a revamped board. I'm extremely hopeful myself and have said as much in a few other threads. In another thread I said the following ... I'm not intending to dampen the mood - on the contrary, I see this fixture debate as largely an off field issue with only a few connections to the football side of things. To me it's all about the dollars with regards to this fixture - I would rather see us play against the big clubs at the MCG. If Roos gets us playing good footy (which is everyone's hope) we will want to take on the big boys. Let's not shy away from the contest. I'm willing to wager that not many Victorian teams are interested in playing against us in home games. It effects their bottom line as well. They would most probably prefer to be playing against the bigger drawing teams (the exact same thing that a few here are advocating for our club) So why not use that attitude to our advantage? So, in a nutshell ... 1) Victorian teams would most probably have us as a non preferred home fixture 2) These same teams probably wouldn't mind at all if they were drawn against us in games 3) We might prefer to play against these Victorian teams in our home games (there are a number of posters who are against this idea) 4) We would probably rather not play against these Victorian teams in away games (mostly connected to point 3) Win, win, win, win.

I've put my argument forward. Only time will tell. I believe my solution involves a long term fix. Lets agree to disagree

Ha! - yeah, I'm whinging all right. And with good reason 'ad' If you remember, back when we were playing finals, we were bemoaning the fact that we weren't receiving enough Friday night games and we were always a team that travelled interstate a lot (as opposed to the Pies for instance) But back then we probably weren't as concerned at our revenue making opportunities (we should have been) So the truth is we've been receiving these types of fixtures for quite some time. It just stifles opportunity and we're continually under pressure. I get the "Let's just win games and it all comes good" people. I don't reckon it necessarily works that way.

Yeah, I see your point there. However, how does one explain Carlton getting to play at least 8 home games against Victorian clubs during that 6 year horror stretch they had? (I've checked the records ) The same rules didn't apply to them. I know Carlton are a bigger club but that's precisely my point. I'm just a stickler for a reasonable level of fairness (wherever possible) At some stage next season this whole thing is possibly going to rear it's ugly head. It might be Bartlett or PJ saying something or maybe even Roos (I hope they do say something) One last point re selling the advertising space ... we do indeed play the Hawks, Tigers, Blues, Bombers and Saints - but we are the away team on every occasion (those games are going to be telecast by Foxtel or ch7 regardless of who is the home team) Could we not play 3 of those 5 as home fixtures and play 3 less 'interstate' teams at the MCG?

I accept the consequences of being a poorly performed team - we need to get better. What I can't accept is a governing body making it even more difficult for a poorly performed team to extract itself from the quagmire. Here's the bottom line Wyl ... 1) Poorly performed team gets a fixture where it's darn near impossible to make any real money 2) That team then struggles to stave off posting a substantial loss. 3) That same team needs to cut back on spending in the FD 4) Attracting free agents is off the table as the club is struggling just to get up to paying 95% of the salary cap 5) The club ends up going cap in hand to the AFL so it can pay it's bills 6) If that club performs poorly again, the whole process gets repeated. I also accept that there is a way out - we win a number of our early games, the fans flock back, membership skyrockets and even the lousy fixtures might become profitable. We then might end up with a better fixture. Do the big clubs ever get a lousy fixture if they have a poor year? I've had a bit of a look and it doesn't ever appear to happen (well not with the Blues, Dons and Pies anyway - they always seem to get a number of highly profitable home fixtures no matter how badly they're travelling) Remembering that the Blues had that horror stretch from 2002 - 2007 - they still kept getting those prime home fixtures.

In previous years I reckon many of us were looking at the fixture to see how many games were "winnable" (picking out the weaker teams for those winnable games) It's not necessarily the best way to attack a season. Bring on the tough games now I say. We've got ourselves a top notch experienced coach and there's a stack of players who can improve out of sight. If Roos can instil belief and confidence then we should make some big improvements (not all our players will respond so there might be some early casualties) I'd be astonished if Roos can't get this group up in the early rounds. Most good coaches have an immediate impact. During the Northey and Daniher era's we couldn't care less who we played. Every game was just another test. We may not win a lot of games in 2014 but in year one of Roos, I'm expecting us to take it up to every team. Weak and half hearted performances must be off the table. More than anything else, we need to learn how to put in our best efforts against the best sides. Everything has to be geared around winning games of football. Having said all that, it would be great if we could beat the Saints in round one!

Never been better JR. The point of my post was that many other clubs are getting a real helping hand with regards to their fixture. We're getting stuff all. I get your point that we're a poorly performed club but I see this as a purely financial issue (not based on how good a team we are) Saturday or Sunday arvo games against big drawing teams is what the issue is. It's the only organised League in the World where it happens. Even Crystal Palace get to play home games against all the big clubs. The fixture is a joke and we're starting off way behind the 8 ball and we're still in October. If you were the CEO you'd be extremely concerned about where the money is going to come from. As I previously stated, if we're going to continually get handouts, we'll survive. But it's far from an ideal way to run a footy club. How about Collingwood getting our type of "draw" for the next 15 years (and we'll have their "draw") That's fair. Once again, the above comments are not in relation to prime time TV games. We'll have to be a good team to get those games (although we never got a lot of prime time TV games even when we were playing finals - IIRC!)

An ideal fixture could be as follows ... Home games against Victorian clubs at the MCG - Collingwood, Carlton*, Essendon*, Richmond*, Hawthorn*, Geelong, St Kilda* Home games against interstate clubs at the MCG - Sydney, Brisbane Home games in Darwin/Alice Springs - Port Adelaide and Fremantle If we got that fixture just once, the extra revenue would be in the millions of dollars. Multiply that by 5 years and we're talking 10-15 million dollars (at least) Back in the day, we always got this sort of fixture. Since the advent of all the interstate clubs coming into the comp, it's as if we've been designated to play many of our home fixtures against them. This is a real truth. Just go back over any fixture in the last how many years. * We don't play any of these teams as a home fixture next season.

Do we not want our club to have a fair chance? Where does it say in the rules that the big clubs must be advantaged to make a truckload more money than the smaller clubs? If it becomes a survival of the fittest, eventually certain clubs will come under the microscope. The gap between the big clubs and the smaller clubs will eventually reach a tipping point. It stands to reason. Whilst we're continuing to get handouts, we'll survive. But for how long? I can see the club needing to sell off more games interstate if this keeps up. Home games against the Eagles, Suns, Swans, Dogs, North, Lions and the Giants would only attract poor to average crowds even if we were travelling well. That leaves the Pies game and maybe the Geelong game. Like last year, we have 7 "home" games against interstate clubs (it was 6 in 2012 and 7 in 2011) Any home game where you're not making at least $300,000 could be construed as a loss. Take out the Queens birthday game and it would be a complete financial disaster. As it is, it's far from ideal. If the AFL truly wants us to stand on our own 2 feet, they'd give us a leg up with 4 or 5 home games (every year) against the bigger drawing Victorian clubs. But we get the opposite - it's as if they want us to get into a financial mess. I'm not making any references to prime time TV games - that's a separate issue and a Channel 7 decision (we have no say in that area but our governing body is not helping us in the other main area of the fixture - big revenue drawing games) Good teams win games no matter who they play. Another soft draw is really not in our best interests. We might get a couple more wins against the weaker teams but where's the satisfaction in that? Sure, we need wins, but we need to balance the books as well. The manic desire of the AFL to maximise crowds, gate revenue's and TV viewers comes at a price. The salary cap and the draft was meant to "equalise" things. Those 2 areas are being whittled away at in the whole scheme of things.

TV games ... 7 games this week! Friday 11.25am Cincinnati at Miami (OneHD & ESPN) Monday 5.00am New Orleans at NY Jets (Fox2) 5.00am Kansas City at Buffalo (OneHD) 8.25am Baltimore at Cleveland (Fox2) 8.25am Pittsburgh at New England (OneHD) 12.30pm Indianapolis at Houston (OneHD & ESPN) Tuesday 12.30pm Chicago at Green Bay (ESPN) All the week 9 games Tips ... New Orleans Baltimore Indianapolis

Opening games today and the Lakers beat the Clippers without Kobe. For a lot of years that wouldn't have been a story but big things have been predicted for the Clippers this year whilst the Lakers have been marked down in the preseason predictions. Miami did it reasonably easy over the Bulls at home (Chicago did get within 8 points late in the 4th quarter) Derrick Rose returned with 12 points in 34 minutes. ... Lakers/Clippers highlights

Yep, you're right. From Favre to Rodgers is an almost perfect changeover. Favre the gunslinger whilst Aaron is a bit like Brady (Tom is the best I've seen in recent years - obviously a number of past greats are in that League as well) Peyton is just a marvel. What if the Saints go all the way? They're really capable and they've only lost one game. Brees would have to be a big player if that happened and he then might have to be viewed as a great (?) It's fascinating seeing Eli and Big Ben in struggling sides. A pair of Superbowls each and when either of them are on their games, they are very very good. There's a stack of good QB's in the League right now. Anyway ... here's the 'New York Daily News' power rankings for this week ... ... NFL Power Rankings: Detroit Lions claw their way into the Top 10; NY Jets tumble ... again