Diamond_Jim

they mooted this several months ago. The devil will be in the detail. I suspect that the second team will travel with the senior team thus saving on costs. When we play an SA or WA team the second team has a bye. Port and Williamstown etc will have to align or leave the comp as I can't see the AFL funding a non aligned club.

God luck to him but I can't get excited anymore by individual honours. We've had a few over the years (noticeably missing the top goalkicker award) but team wise such little success. When was the last time a middle of the road team had three contenders??

The AFL must be workshopping how they can get Clarkson to GWS.

lot's of merit in that but the present clubs own the comp so they won't vote for their elimination PS by now we'd be third if not fourth division

Collingwood managed it against us in 2017

Horrible thing to say but the Tigers win was ok Perhaps rub Vaustin out for acting !! PS... Darwin doesn't seem to miss us for all those years we invested

22 games = same revenue The challenge is to grow the revenue Your system is great/interesting if we are looking at maintaining the momentum Keep up the thought process... there may be a compromise

Can't do us much harm

Makes sense but MFC would be screwed by it as the TV would demand the power teams play each other twice.The AFL would want that as well as it would maximise gate revenue etc. Of course if punters are charged another $30 per game on their membership for additional games the power clubs will love it as they make the most. Geelong and Adelaide as mentioned would be delirious. Just getting rid of the practice games gets you to 25 games without doing anything. Adelaide would be a lot worse with a smaller list as you couldn't even ring the changes to keep up minimum interest. Bear in mind we had already reached the top of the media rights payments on the present system and we are now facing a downturn. To improve the dollar return change may be required.

2019 was a loss of $2m which we met from cash at bank from the sale of fixed assets. 2020 is anyone's guess as we don't know what expenses were being met by the AFL and what the AFL distribution will be ($16M last year). The impact of reduced membership is unknown as we have been told what class of membership we lost. (I suspect thay were low game memberships that were last year purchased by the NT Govt as contra for our game in Darwin. If so the impact may not be that great.) In simple terms we have around $20M in assets thanks to our past and present bricks and mortar investment. In a perfect world we need to get that figure to around $50M and drive a year on year 6-9% return. (That's about what most balanced super funds deliver). This gives us around $2.5M per year to invest in discretionary improvements while adjusting the $50M base for inflation. Operating losses like 2019 will set us back badly.(the 2019 loss was due to one factor...low attendances ie on field performance). It's a good position but investing in a non realisable asset such as a training facility may not be sound. This is effectively what North has done.Contrast them with the Hawks who have substantially relied on external funding from Government and Foundation support.

Agree but as stats go it's interesting and we are way on the wrong side of that stat. Seems to me we could be better on the first goal of the match stat

You had me until Preuss as a forward ? Boy I'm missing Jackson... even if it was only his haircut T Mac is a worry ( starting to sing the old abberation blues)

But what answer do you have to the now massive debt of the AFL which will increase in 2021 assuming limits on crowds until July /August? One alternative is lower salary caps, smaller lists, no VFL and an even more contrived season where revenues are maximised by so called blockbusters plus of course teams like MFC selling games to the non footballing states.. If you can drive revenue up by around 25% by moving to 34 games it seems a lot more sensible. Living in Victoria we think there is too much football.To an Adelaide or Eagles supporter they presently get to see their team 12 times a year at most. By playing Mondays and Thursdays the 34 round season would not be much longer than now(eliminate the practice games and that gets you three weeks extra anyway).

We don't see the scratch matches or training so it's really hard to tell if there's anything there. Tempted to play Brown in place of T mac assuming Gawn plays and use Tomlinson for relief if needed in the ruck. Not sure on Pickett or Spargo but if we are to challenge this year they need to play. Hannan Melksham and AVB are all on the edge but is there anybody better? No use just trying in hope (Of course lose next week and we may as well experiment.) Bennell is the quandary but my guess is not yet and maybe not this year.

Could well play finals and even win one but this team at its best is 7-12 ranking Strangely enough I think the short breaks may help us as it slows down the game

We don't get much drive off the backline. Salem can give you an accurate kick but he doesn't damage unless he finds a player in space. May has a big kick which occasionally befits the rebound. Tomlinson needs to do more if CHB is his position.

after that game and for those who still believe in Santa Claus Tigers,Swans and Roos to win please

Wallis has had a very good season of recent times. Shows bad oppo prep by you know who

Did post during the week that Wallis is often their most dangerous forward. Plays in front, marks on the chest and kicks accurately

playing like a 8-12th ranked team against a similar team. Need to bring the lesser players into the game if we are going to win it. Goodwin playing the usual gameplan

rule changed 2 years ago It's a smart tactic which we never use

17 games = pay cuts for players and smaller lists so it's a non starter. The power clubs drive gate attendances and this (34 game season) will mean the lesser clubs get a home game against every one of the power clubs

not to an insatiable media. It's all about content. 34 games would be a dream for streaming services. Remember FTA pay below 50% of the broadcast rights for around 70% of the ratings (better games)

More games = more money so I doubt they would go for it. The marginal cost of an additional game is not high as the salaries etc are fixed costs. There would be issues with stadiums running below break even but the power clubs would do well. They could charge more for 17 home games than the usual 10-11.

There is discussion of a 34 game season with 4-5 day breaks as the norm. The rationale is higher media revenue. It would allow the retention of the same/similar list numbers thus permitting rotations. Lot to be said for it. A few initial thoughts: MFCSS warns me that it could lead to a long season once you become irrelevant. Suspect you would need 20 wins to make the eight. Is it too much of a home advantage for teams such as the Eagles. Crows would make a fortune from 17 sellout matches and Geelong would be fine as well.