Diamond_Jim

the partial refund includes an element of club support being maintained. It does not give the dollar difference if any to the Club between that option and the full membership component. If you elect to continue as is (full membership) you get a sweetener of "your choice of AFL member pack" up to a potential value of $250 (no idea what that really means) and 30% off my 2021 membership. I think they are fair offers but the perhaps cancellation of membership is over the top.

AFL just sent an email offering 3 choices in relation to AFL memberships and the 2020 season. No refund Partial refund Full refund The sting is that in asking for a full refund your AFL membership will be cancelled. The other two offers are reasonable and provide discounts for 2021. Fair enough but the cancellation of membership and back on the waiting list etc is perhaps a little too far. Will be interesting to see what MFC and MCC come up with.

released 1966 ... close

Qld are already allowing NRL teams to criss cross borders so I would expect it to be no different for AFL teams. Another interesting question is who will be required to travel to Sydney in the first four weeks?

some of us just see another group of decent players being squandered fascinating concept... definitely something in that

There were lots of reasons but Richmond becoming a co tenant was definitely a factor. You have to understand that for every teams followers their game at the MCG against the MFC was a must attend simply because of the luxury of a family day out being seated at a football game in comfort. By comparison the other suburban grounds were literal hellholes with few seats and standing room where going to the toilet was often done in a beer can or at a public toilet where the run off was... (well you can imagine). When Richmond joined we lost that natural advantage and were no longer special.

Crows and Port want to defer their "derby" until the end of the season just in case they are allowed to play in front of crowds in Adelaide. I expect the two WA clubs would argue for the same. Gil should tell them where to go imo. Source: Port director of football on 3aw last night.

Not sure that the AFL really listen to him anymore. He's been blowing hot air for so long now most would know his agenda. Big difference to when the footy show was top of the ratings and he was Eddie everywhere. His reputation took a deserved beating over the Goodes affair, He's good for a newspaper headline in the tabloids but Collingwood have marked time financially for a while now. Mind you by comparison to the MFC they aren't doing badly but if you put them up against the interstate power houses of Adelaide and WCE they are falling behind. In a perverse way the lesser clubs could do okay this season if they are given decent TV exposure because they have the least to lose from crowd receipts not to mention membership refunds.

Interesting that no player has returned a positive result (does that mean they never had it as well). I'm interested in the concept of random sampling and AFL players are a good random cross section of the young population

Lets be honest, fans would watch the two proverbial flies crawling up the wall but no the inherent bias comes naturally to the fore. Hawks and Bombers must be upset... the rest of us.....we know our place as do our sponsors MFC... Sunday arvo game ??

who won? thanks

wow Gil ... such a communicator

the zones have killed that style not to mention packing the fifty metre area. Can't see a reduction in coach numbers fundamentally changing the style of play

in reality probably not. To go to five states while you were working out the detail plus potentially Tasmania and NT would have been a nightmare. Sure they would have been working with Victoria on a model protocol which they would have then shared with the other states.They would have also been guided by the agreed NRL protocol.

What a mess... can't even get the training protocols in line let alone playing matches. AFL must be tempted to say.. everyone in Melbourne for the foreseeable future and we will review after six weeks. Otherwise it's a hub in Melbourne and a hub in Sydney or Brisbane for all interstate teams. That gets you seven weeks of matches before any team is required to move. Time to solve this fiasco. Gil... you are paid to lead.. there comes a time when consultation has to stop

The AFL are so hooked on the compromised draw they just think its natural. If ever there was a season where you could have a random draw this is it. As to when each match is played I concede that TV ratings have a say but there is no reason why they can't be announced say five weeks out. Logistics re stadiums and crowds etc are massively simplified so the usual arguments against forward notice don't apply

will be interesting if when list numbers are cut for next year clubs are allowed to pay out contracted players in a manner that does not impact the salary cap. Seems sensible save that it would let Sydney out of the Buddy clause

Interesting concept of donation. If followed through the club will need to offer a clear choice between donation or refund/credit. Careful what you wish for is my suggestion.

WA clubs have said they prefer to hub in Southern Qld and not travel. (Caroline Wilson on 3aw)

well looks as though it wont be Collingwood or Richmond. I wouldn't mind the Swans or Hawthorn.Both are 50/50 games if we are going to be any good and a win would give the team and supporters a confidence boost. Going 0-2 not to mention 0-3 would just kill my interest for the year and given there isn't much to do on perpetual lockdown that would not be good.

surely the AFL would not allow that ? Seriously though with the WA and SA govt positions this is starting to look like a real mess. Like many the AFL assumed they would roll over as NSW and Qld did for rugby league but it's proving a little tougher

North want the money...that's the main reason. It's worth around 2M to them but if I was the Tas Gov I'd be offering them around 500k. What is the economic benefit to the state of having crowd free matches on a fifo basis. Ground advertising and a bit of brand awareness at most. As to us in Alice... I'm neutral as long as the travel is reasonable. Who we play is irrelevant as there will be no crowds. If the NT allow crowds the team would be mad to play there.... so wrong to have crowds this year Remember also most teams will probably need to charter and pay for aircraft.

The AFL is understood to be contemplating alternative playing arrangements after telling clubs on Tuesday that no AFL footballers will be permitted to play in second-tier competitions in 2020. https://www.afl.com.au/news/433234/state-league-ban-scratch-matches-an-option-for-non-selected-players

See that North are asking to play four games in Hobart (for the money) and Hawks will probably push for a few. What tells me that we will draw the short straw yet again. TBH not sure why Tas Govt would want to pay for crowd free games. Media companies are asking the EPL for a refund of 345 M (not sure if its pounds or US dollars)

there's a bit of confusion over the ten player limit. My understanding is that the Victorian protocol for professional teams allows for the full team (Community teams are limited to ten) OTOH other states such as WA are limiting numbers to ten so,,,,,, who knows