Macca

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

We've probably had about 35 first round draft picks since '86 (if you add on 3 priority picks and other picks that we've traded for - Grimes/TJ, McLean/Gysberts, Thompson/Moloney etc etc) Then if you add on all the picks near the end of the 1st round the number would exceed 40. Might even be closer to 45. But you're right, our strike rate has been appallingly bad. Not one A grade elite player out of all those picks. The curse lives on in the draft. Hopefully it all changes in the near future.

There's mistakes and then there's deliberate mistakes. We just can't take a trick with our drafting. Natural ball winners with good vision who are reasonably quick have to be high on the agenda - and they need to be able to kick properly, make good decisions and be a natural leader. Can we just have one of these types please? What's astonishing is that we've yet to unearth a genuine A grade elite player since the advent of the draft (27 years ago) A player who without hesitation could be included in a team of a decade (or such like) Jimmy and Garry were pre the '86 draft so that leaves Neitz who goes awfully close. The Ox as well if not for injuries. Tingay was a terrific player as well. We are due a healthy slice of luck going forward. Hogan and/or Viney could get there. Other clubs unearth absolute stars from way outside the top 10 picks. Goodes (43) Black (31) and Hird (92) are just 3 examples. Cale just never got any better than his under 18 year - impossible to predict.

Gutsy effort by the Rams - thought they were going to get that TD but not to be. A Rams win would have helped a few other teams in the conference (especially San Francisco) Good tight game though and if that Rams 50 yard field goal attempt was successful, we might be re-evaluating the Seahawks going forward. (they've got Tampa at home next week so we can mark them down as 8-1 already!) Points table in the comp ... 4 - cowboy from hell 2 - Strafford, Macca 1 - pantaloons 0 - Gorgoroth, DemonDave, 45HG, Norm Smith's Curse, bananas, Demon Land 7 2 points on offer for week 9 (the 2nd bonus round) ... it's a tough week to find 3 definite road winners though ... week 9 games The BS Report (Cousin Sal not happy with his Cowboys - again)

Freo received our pick (which would have been pick 5) Jeff White and our breaches of the salary cap were the broad reasons. The Dockers ended up with 3 picks in the top 5 (Hasleby 2, Pavlich 4, Leigh Brown 5) That included a priority pick of course ('apparently' there weren't any shenanigans involved!) Fiora went at pick 3 1999 AFL Draft

Thanks 'tm' By adding Sylvia to the 'outs' that means 9 out and 6 on to the primary list ... so we have 3 spots vacant on the primary list (plus however many rookies (4?) - we currently have none) We've now got picks 9,40 and 58 to use (or picks 9, 40 and a PSD pick) If we delist 2 more players we'd then have to use a pick somewhere past pick 75 or so, as well as using picks 9, 40, 58 and a possible PSD pick. What is confirmed is that 12 players are gone (all up) and the number might go as high as 14. Think it was 15 last year so that makes 27-29 gone in 2 years (including rookies) We may well be targeting an experienced player or 2 from the SANFL or WAFL (or maybe even the VFL) This is just an educated guess as picking an 18 year old or 2 with late picks can be risky.

Atlanta should be much better than what they're showing. Biggest disappointment of the season - they've gone backwards at a rate of knots. All teams have injuries and lose players in the off season but the good teams can still win despite all that. Ryan is a notch below the very best but I see your point. It's amazing to think that they were so close to making the Superbowl last season. The teams in the NFC East might still remain dangerous even though they're not performing well (right now) The Giants have been known to get on a roll and Dallas are capable of winning any game on their day. Whoever wins that division might still be hard to beat in the playoffs (and they'll get a home final first up) It's quite conceivably that either San Francisco or Seattle will be at Dallas in week 1 of the playoffs. (the 4 seed plays the 5 seed) The NFL playoff system has it's quirks. Winning your division has some huge advantages ... it was a 7/9 Seattle who hosted the 11/5 Saints in the 2010 post season wild-card game. Fairly sure the Seahawks won that game as well. The 12th man might have helped! For mine, Seattle are the team to beat in our conference - if they win your division they could get home field advantage all the way to the Superbowl. Your game against them in 5 weeks or so could have a lot riding on it. Agree with you re Carolina. I think they can get to 9/7 and that might be enough. Detroit are dangerous whilst the Packers have some tough games coming up. Chicago losing Cutler for a few weeks could hurt them. Even so, there's still a lot to play out.

And hopefully we're already planning our succession plan - Roos style I'm absolutely convinced that if you've got an A grade QB, you can't help but get into contention. Not many top QB's switch camps though so you nearly always need to draft one. Rodgers went at pick 36 from memory and Wilson 73 (?) And we all know the Brady story hey! The Packers are developing a good all round game (Lacy and Starks were good again today) Rodgers is throwing a lot less and thus his sacks are way down (50+ last season) Great win by your blokes though - a statement game? Not a lot of upsets but the Detroit/Dallas game had an amazing finish. Arizona might be a team to watch and the NFC East is up for grabs - the Giants are only 2 games back! The Saints would have their eye on the 1 or 2 seed. They're at Seattle in a little over a month (that's a MNF game) The juggernaut otherwise known as the Kansas City Chiefs just keep marching along. A road tip for next week? And are Seattle going to get up for a few of us tomorrow? A point is like a gold ingot! Wasn't televised. The games played in London haven't exactly been top billing but that hasn't stopped them being well attended. I read somewhere that the other game played there a few weeks ago was sold out (Pittsburgh/Minnesota) Your 49ers are 'travelling' quite nicely though. 6 and 2 but with a few tough games coming up in the next month or so (@ New Orleans, @ Washington and then 2 weeks after that you host Seattle) Most of your rivals have similar schedules though.

I'm with you on preferring the NFL but I know we could all enjoy AFL so much more if our own team was up there again. The footy club needs to learn how to win again. Winning cures just about everything. My main hope is that Roos, PJ and Bartlett set us up for the future (and no more bottoming out again please) Used to watch 5 or 6 whole games of NFL but I'm down to 3 or 4 now (all on delay so as to FF through the numerous adverts and breaks in play) Avoiding the results is an artform though - I go to extraordinary lengths!

Yeah, over the years and by wading through all the various forms of media on the NFL, you learn what to discard and what to look out for. I must say I still prefer to just gain an overview of what's going on so my standards aren't as high as others. The technicalities of the sport I find to be a bit too daunting. I enjoy reading those who contribute that sort of stuff on this thread though. Just discovered MMQB and TMQ (thanks to 'tm' and 't_u') so looking forward to doing a fair bit more reading on the sport. I think what the Americans have over our sports journalism is quantity (which makes it just a matter of finding the quality) For instance, there's very few writers on the AFL that I'll seek out. Connolly is good and obviously Flanagan can be exceptional. There's one or 2 others but 'land provides quite a bit of information really! Many of our journo's have a need to make the story about themselves. The cricket writers are often in the same boat. We just need to find out what is going on without any lies, embellishment or bias. That's a big ask these days! And yeah, as you can tell, I'm an unabashed Brett Favre fan!

Once again, the TV games ... Monday 4.00am Buffalo at New Orleans (OneHD) 7.05am NY Jets at Cincinnati (Fox1) 7.25am Washington at Denver (OneHD) 11.30am Green Bay at Minnesota (OneHD & ESPN) Tuesday 11.30am Seattle at St. Louis (ESPN) ... all the other week 8 games

I guess we're at least trying to learn from the best (we need to try a lot harder!) Anyway, for those who are interested, here's Bill Simmons' latest column from 'Grantland' ... 'Don't Call It a Comeback' Also, 'NFL Kickoff' is an excellent preview show ... Trey Wingo, Mark Schlereth and (often) Tedy Bruschi go through all the upcoming games (shown at around about 5pm, Saturdays on ESPN (our time) From Bill's column ...

Tony Kornheiser doesn't like it because it reminds him of Mel Gibson! (Tony is a Washington fan and has a radio show based from the City)

Favre specifically talks about his memory loss being caused by receiving big hits during his career. Not even a hint that he was an absent father. From what I know about Favre he could never be accused of being an absent father. Quite the contrary in fact. Brett makes mention of only one particular year when his daughter played soccer. His daughter also played multiple years at other sports. The headline is quite misleading (as is the story in all honesty) I get that people got a bit frustrated by Favre's retirement/comeback stuff but seriously, this story and the reaction to it is way over the top. He may indeed have some ongoing issues health wise but hopefully only in relation to his joints etc (which he could be able to recover from with rest, time and the right treatment) Favre absorbed an enormous amount of punishment in one of his last games - the 2010 NFC Championship game against the Saints (classed as the 2009 post season) He took a lot of late hits that day and he'd already played out nearly his entire career. Gutsy performance and I had nothing but admiration for the bloke for continuing to get up (even though he was at the Vikes!) The following is another classic example of our how a headline can be so misleading ... 'I can't remember my daughter's childhood' NFL legend Brett Favre reveals memory loss caused by football career.

This, from Sports Illustrated's 'MMQB'* ... ... Where the Game is Headed

That could work. However, the AFL aren't interested. They are more interested in being a large corporation that makes lots of money. As custodians of the sport, they fail in my book. It's all about the dollars and maximising crowd numbers and TV viewers - that's their main aim. Hogan will have to run up and down the ground all day - that's a given.

Yep, there's nearly always a flow on effect with any rule change in any sport. I wonder sometimes if any forethought is given when rules are changed. However, who could have foreseen the explosion in the amount of rotations in the AFL in the last few years? The 'continuous flow' in the AFL was 'supposed' to make players more tired but the coaches just increased the amount of rotations as a counter measure. The only way to go back to positional play is to get rid of the interchange altogether and just have 'reserves' on the bench (IMO) But you now what? ... there's probably a way to overcome that as well ! Btw, back in the day, as you're no doubt aware Strafford, ducking your head was frowned upon and the umpires would nearly always ping you for it. But of course, we've had the 'Geish' for 15 years now - a more clueless administrator I've never seen! What was this thread about again?