View Full Version : Paul Gardner is a fool
philhawk
10 Dec 2007, 00:12
Gardner: Help is normal for clubs
10 December 2007 Herald Sun
Jon Ralph
MELBOURNE president Paul Gardner says it is unrealistic to expect the AFL's poorer clubs - including the Demons - to ever be free of financial help from the league.
The Demons are one of three clubs that receive the AFL's annual special distribution.
While new Kangaroos chairman James Brayshaw hopes his club will soon be off the annual stipend, Gardner expects Melbourne, which receives $1 million a year, will always need funding from the AFL.
"Melbourne will always be in that situation," he said.
"It drives me crazy when people say there are three clubs on welfare. Every club relies on the AFL to survive in some way.
"Our home games are at a stadium that has 90,000 seats. You are never compelled to buy a reserved seat. We have a stadium where we can't sell the naming rights like Skilled Stadium.
"To pick out one part of the distribution (from the AFL) is a furphy. We are financially disadvantaged, and the special distribution is about making sides competitive."
While interstate clubs reap huge figures from reserved seating and high-profile clubs attract sponsors by regularly playing Friday night, Gardner said not all clubs were as lucky.
"Every club gets some form of distribution. It may well be in a better draw. It may be in allowing them to play four home games in Tasmania. It may well be a living-away allowance," he said.
I like the gentle dig at Hawthorn.
When will this idiot realise that our sponsorship arrangements with Tasmania are just that - a sponsorship.
Melbourne 'FC' as they now like to be called are one of the few clubs that genuinely depend on life support. There's no point him trying to come out and justify why they're on life support - the fact remains that they're the one club who, unlike clubs like the Kangaroos and the Bulldogs, aren't doing something about it.
delirious1
10 Dec 2007, 00:22
Thank god the AFL let us attract sponcership:rolleyes:
This just typifies the difference between the 2 clubs...according to the horses mouths;
http://hawthornfc.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/4742/Default.aspx?newsId=47947
“I will be focusing on continuing to offer members better value for their membership with some great initiatives that will bring the Hawthorn business and supporter communities closer together. We are a club that has in the vicinity of 350,000 supporters and we currently have only around 10 percent of them as members. We need to close that gap.”
http://www.melbournefc.com.au/Default.aspx?tabid=10382
In 2008 MELBOURNEfc will celebrate its 150th Birthday. There are over 220,000 people in Australia who barrack for MELBOURNEfc and we want every one of them to be part of our celebrations by joining the Red and Blue Army.
We're in a different league to them, yet apparently we're allowed to 'sell' games interstate and they can't - obviously because of their 'huge' drawing power :rolleyes:
I've been saying it for years, but the quicker the non viable clubs go, the better it will be for the game as a whole.
You can't prop up failure forever
Hawkamania!
10 Dec 2007, 00:50
Another dig at Hawthorn just because we have the flexibility to pursue viable sponsorship deals. Paul Gardner should complain to the mcc about naming rights, as they are the ones that control the ground. It's the mcc that is putting a strain on Melbourne's ability to raise money effectively.
On that note, the AFL should be an equal partner at the G as it is Football that earns the most money for the ground. If the ground relied on cricket as it's main breadwinner, the mcc would have a ground that looked like this:
http://www.ontheroadin.com/miscellasneouspictures/Photographs%20of%20Italy/slides/Inside%20the%20Coliseum.jpg
Robber Baron
10 Dec 2007, 06:24
Im getting sick of this Gardener bloke thas always winging and complaining that hes rubbish clubs no good and saying were taking money from the AFL. Hes wrong were not taking one cent of welfare form the AFL and Demetruio hates us. Were playing 5 games in Tassie and getting sponsership form The Tassie Government so we dont need to get welfare and be at risk to be forced to play games interstate. What doesnt he understand. I want Jeff to go around his place and smash him a good one right in his face and the boys to cut them a new one when we play them. There jealous of us and they can get stuffed.
Deenamite
10 Dec 2007, 06:32
Get over it.
philhawk
10 Dec 2007, 06:42
Get over it.
Tell that to your president.
Gardiner is a fool, and if he truly believes a club, that is named after the capital of the home of football, will always struggle while he is in charge then he should move on.
I guess if he thinks that that's how it is, and they don't have to try and better themselves then that's just how it will stay unless he gets turfed out.
A pretty poor attitude to have, especially coming from a president of a club with so much history. But I guess not much can be done, if he thinks they just have to sit on their arse and recieve handouts what else can be done?
Maybe the Melbourne members will wake up soon.
"Our home games are at a stadium that has 90,000 seats. You are never compelled to buy a reserved seat. We have a stadium where we can't sell the naming rights like Skilled Stadium".
Just like Richmond, Collingwood, Hawthorn and all the MGC tennants.
The big difference is other clubs get off their arses and sell the benifits of reserved seating. They put together packages (incl guarenteed GF tickets) as an incentive.
They push the match day corporate enterainment.
In short they are constantly looking to maximize the opportunities as distinct from never looking past the limitations.
For a guy heavily involved in marketing Gardiner's lack of imagination is astounding.
Statements like this just confirm the problems that exist at board level.
Far better to blame others than address the real issues.
Henry Jr
10 Dec 2007, 08:40
If the Tassie venture is a handout rather than a sponsorship as Gardiner keeps pointing out, then how come the Tasmania badge appears on our jumper!
And this coming from a bloke who sells home games to Brisbane!
Frankston Rover
10 Dec 2007, 09:05
Weak leadership will kill the Melbourne footy club.
Clubs nowdays must be proactive in promoting their brand and MFC just aren't interested. The reality is, every Victorian club must try to as much as they can to get support, sponsors and members.
Richmond are training in Craigieburn, St Kilda have moved to Frankston, North are fighting for their lives and are at least aiming to be handout free, all while Melbourne sit back with their beggers cap in hand.
At least TRY and improve yourselves, for God's sake.
But by the sounds of this article, it's more of the same I'm afraid....
Brown Blood
10 Dec 2007, 09:40
For a guy heavily involved in marketing Gardiner's lack of imagination is astounding.
I don't know how you can say doc, that they have done nothing - I'm sure their major initiative of dropping the demon off the clubs logo will ensure they never leave melbourne and will be a resounding success :rolleyes:.
On the other hand what have we done, not much, just:
-reinvigorated admin
-reinvigorated board
-reinvigorated footy staff
-reinvigorated footy personal
-found new sponsors
-launched new membership initiatives
-showed improving on field performances
-obtained new training facilities
-reinvested in income earning assets
and so stayed independent.
I actually think the best thing gardner could do is instead of making excuses look to model themselves on a club that is going somewhere or if not perhaps give james brayshaw a call!
RustyHawk
10 Dec 2007, 09:53
"Our home games are at a stadium that has 90,000 seats. You are never compelled to buy a reserved seat. We have a stadium where we can't sell the naming rights like Skilled Stadium".
Just like Richmond, Collingwood, Hawthorn and all the MGC tennants.
The big difference is other clubs get off their arses and sell the benifits of reserved seating. They put together packages (incl guarenteed GF tickets) as an incentive.
They push the match day corporate enterainment.
In short they are constantly looking to maximize the opportunities as distinct from never looking past the limitations.
For a guy heavily involved in marketing Gardiner's lack of imagination is astounding.
Statements like this just confirm the problems that exist at board level.
Far better to blame others than address the real issues.
Exactly :thumbsu:
No Melbourne based club has naming rights to MCG or Telstra Dome? Where all in the same boat.
Dr J. I thought Gardiner was an accountant, not a marketing person? Either way mostly irrelevant.
He would be better off finding another AFL club to merge with and getting out altogether, just seems so hard for the poor dear.
I think Gardner might be trying to take some pressure off Melb. as the AFL may now turn to 'another' weak club to persuade into relocation.
Problem is , he's showing how incompetent he is which may just add extra pressure.
He's a jealous man with no idea how to get out of the mess they are in.
Their biggest asset is their name , which may be the only thing that saves them.
I dont want to see any club fold , but to be realistic , someone has to merge or relocate.
DapperDon
10 Dec 2007, 11:05
I've been saying it for years, but the quicker the non viable clubs go, the better it will be for the game as a whole.
You can't prop up failure forever
saying it for years? so I guess you were saying it while your beloved Hawks were being proped up? or is it now that you're finally out of the red zone you want to act all high and mighty and not give the others the chance you got?
Also the Tasmanian deal is a sponsership yes, but without the AFL's permission you would not get it that's what Gardiner is saying, in effect the AFL allowed you to sell home games to Tasmania.
kimbopen
10 Dec 2007, 11:22
saying it for years? so I guess you were saying it while your beloved Hawks were being proped up? or is it now that you're finally out of the red zone you want to act all high and mighty and not give the others the chance you got?
Also the Tasmanian deal is a sponsership yes, but without the AFL's permission you would not get it that's what Gardiner is saying, in effect the AFL allowed you to sell home games to Tasmania.
I think you'll find that we've NEVER been propped up by the AFL.
We have never received any funding via the CBF. We never received ANY handouts from the AFL. Ian Dicker may have stuck his hands in his pockets to assist the club financially over the years, but the AFL - no.
The compensation we were paid for OUR HOME GROUND being closed down was money that we were legally entitled to (as we had a legally binding agreement to play games at Waverley for 20-30 years). IIRC, we could have sued for a heck of a lot more than what we received.
Hawthorn supporters also dug deep back in 1996, when we were struggling off the field. Our membership more than DOUBLED in 1997 as a direct result of the merger issue, and supporters never wanting that to happen to us again.
We had the temerity to do things our way, go out and look for alternatives in the way of sponsorship and membership among others.
As for this comment:
"Also the Tasmanian deal is a sponsership yes, but without the AFL's permission you would not get it that's what Gardiner is saying, in effect the AFL allowed you to sell home games to Tasmania."
The same way that the AFL gave permission to Melbourne to sell a HOME game to Brisbane?
That's what we are talking about here - the complete and utter hypocrisy of the man who purports to be Melbourne's president.
And has the gall to say that they have a right to be continually propped up financially by the AFL, when others in the same position (Roos, Dogs) clearly don't want to stay on that path.
Robber Baron
10 Dec 2007, 11:22
I think Gardner might be trying to take some pressure off Melb. as the AFL may now turn to 'another' weak club to persuade into relocation.
Problem is , he's showing how incompetent he is which may just add extra pressure.
He's a jealous man with no idea how to get out of the mess they are in.
Their biggest asset is their name , which may be the only thing that saves them.
I dont want to see any club fold , but to be realistic , someone has to merge or relocate.
your right mate.
He doenst know how to run a club and hes jealous of us and there name Melbourne doesnt mean anything look at South Melbourne there now Sydney. May be with all them rubbish clubs making losses all the time in Melbourne North Richmond Bulldogs, may be the money from the TV deal wasnt enough may be Chanel 7 needs to pay more.
Mitchell Madness
10 Dec 2007, 11:24
perhaps this man was one of those who voted for the merger in 1996? if so, i can see why he would be jealous. How would it feel knowing your club would be getting this money if they other one had said yes.
saying it for years? so I guess you were saying it while your beloved Hawks were being proped up? or is it now that you're finally out of the red zone you want to act all high and mighty and not give the others the chance you got?
We've been out of the 'red zone' since 1999 - when we got out of debt...and yes I was saying it back then as well, if we couldn't survive on our own 2 feet I would have no problem relocating.
Also the Tasmanian deal is a sponsership yes, but without the AFL's permission you would not get it that's what Gardiner is saying, in effect the AFL allowed you to sell home games to Tasmania.
Yet the AFL refuse to allow Melbourne to 'sell' home games because they want to capitalize on their huge drawing power :rolleyes:
Its well known that if we could play 11 home games at the MCG we probably wouldn't be playing 4 games in Tasmania.
Paul Gardner is an absolute knob head!
I like Melbourne but, they are always going to bottom feeders, the club has no direction, no one is prepared to get off there arse and create some substantial moneys for the club, ffs they have one of the most marketable names of all the Victorian clubs due to it's named after our capital city
all i can say is Gardner should stop his winging and help his club remove the lifelines and stand on its own two feet. lifelines are ok for short term fixes but not on the never never.
think outside the box Gardner and from those great words "DO SOMETHING" just "DO SOMETHING"
or shut your mouth..............
While we have so many teams in Melb a club that is 'always' on special funding will be the first to go. He just stamped his club 'Here at the mercy of the other clubs'.
We've been out of the 'red zone' since 1999 - when we got out of debt...and yes I was saying it back then as well, if we couldn't survive on our own 2 feet I would have no problem relocating.
I'm guessing you don't speak for all Hawthorn supporters. Be disappointing if you voted yourself out of existence just because you were running low on money.
I'm guessing you don't speak for all Hawthorn supporters. Be disappointing if you voted yourself out of existence just because you were running low on money.
If we had no chance of ever being financially competitive, what's the point of drifting into a state of non competitiveness - ie. Fitzroy in the early 1990's, and just prolong the inevitable anyway?
Having a debt is different to not having the capacity to ever be financially competitive.
I've been saying it for years, but the quicker the non viable clubs go, the better it will be for the game as a whole.
You can't prop up failure forever
Could please explain to me how the game will be better with less traditional clubs. What benefit is it to rid ourselves of the less fortunate, how does it improve our chances of survival or success? If we make the game a contest financial prowess and profitability the game will be dominated by the big interstate clubs, Collingwood and Essendon. How can this be considered a good thing?
I'll gladly concede that there are some advantages to having a fiscally vibrant competition: the Auskick concept is a tremendous boon to game development. The international development of the sport in South Africa is also encouraging, but really should the AFL be spending Melbourne, North Melbourne and Footscray's hard earned money on a different continent when the aforementioned clubs are struggling to pay the power bill without "special" assistance.
Demetriou has recently purchased a Toorak mansion for $7 million dollars thanks largely to his million dollar a year salary from the AFL. Meanwhile on the other side of the Yarra, a 1/16 stakeholder of the competition that pays Demetriou's salary cannot afford to rebuild their clubhouse without council assistance. I hope Vlad sleeps well in his manse knowing that 25 thousand members of the club he formerly represented are sick with worry that they may lose 138 years of history and tradition.
The AFLPA received a dispensation of over $6 million dollars in 2006 from the AFL's coffers. The AFLPA's members have an average salary of around $200k per year, yet they are taking money out of the clubs pockets to support those who have lost the desire or talent to play the game. Why are these individuals more entitled to "special" assistance than the very clubs who provided them the opportunity to play the game in the first place? While I love to watch Buddy and Hodge, they are but temporary representatives of what I love most about footy -the Hawthorn football club. I have no doubt that followers of struggling clubs feel the same way, why should these players be paid exorbitant amounts of money at the expense of what the revenue base (we fans) truly love about the sport.
Isn't the $100K that Joel Selwood earned in his first year out of high school enough to encourage fellow talented young sportsman to consider an AFL career. To my way of thinking if a young lad loves the game he will be just as likely to play for beer money as he is for a 6 figure income. Players should be duly rewarded for their efforts but fans don't come to the game primarily to follow players, fans come to watch their team. When are the clubs and members going to be rewarded for their efforts?
To suggest that NMFC, Footscray or Melbourne have "failed" is a presumption based on the false premise that these clubs have received their due dispensation and reward the contributions they have made to the competition, when patently this is not the case. Bear in mind that our own club grabbed the competition by the throat and bitchslapped its way to 7 consecutive GF's in the 80's yet had you applied your own standards on what makes a club "viable" to our club in 96 then we would be a merged non-entity. I wonder if you took such a cold hearted and soulless stance on financial responsibility in the 90's when we were about to be sodomised by Oakley and his cronies.
If the AFL was in such a dire financial position that the growth and existence of the sport was in danger then I could understand the willingness to unburden itself of clubs that didnt make a positive financial contribution to the cause, but this is not the case. The AFL is awash with cash with every pig having it's snout in the trough except for the clubs who are forced to find non-football related income streams to survive.
While I do have more respect for our poorer and less fortunate western neighbored clubs NMFC and FFC than the seemingly defeatist merger muppets at MFC, it doesn't alter the fact that they are the competitions oldest and earliest power houses, rich with tradition and a quaint golf clapping culture. They have every right to have a whinge about not receiving their due allotment of AFL funding. If our club were less fortunate and less well managed we may well be in the same circumstance. A little empathy for supporters of struggling clubs is in order, of all supporters, Hawthorn fans should be the last to take the boot to clubs that are down.
FOOOOTY
10 Dec 2007, 15:53
Could please explain to me how the game will be better with less traditional clubs. What benefit is it to rid ourselves of the less fortunate, how does it improve our chances of survival or success? If we make the game a contest financial prowess and profitability the game will be dominated by the big interstate clubs, Collingwood and Essendon. How can this be considered a good thing?
I'll gladly concede that there are some advantages to having a fiscally vibrant competition: the Auskick concept is a tremendous boon to game development. The international development of the sport in South Africa is also encouraging, but really should the AFL be spending Melbourne, North Melbourne and Footscray's hard earned money on a different continent when the aforementioned clubs are struggling to pay the power bill without "special" assistance.
Demetriou has recently purchased a Toorak mansion for $7 million dollars thanks largely to his million dollar a year salary from the AFL. Meanwhile on the other side of the Yarra, a 1/16 stakeholder of the competition that pays Demetriou's salary cannot afford to rebuild their clubhouse without council assistance. I hope Vlad sleeps well in his manse knowing that 25 thousand members of the club he formerly represented are sick with worry that they may lose 138 years of history and tradition.
The AFLPA received a dispensation of over $6 million dollars in 2006 from the AFL's coffers. The AFLPA's members have an average salary of around $200k per year, yet they are taking money out of the clubs pockets to support those who have lost the desire or talent to play the game. Why are these individuals more entitled to "special" assistance than the very clubs who provided them the opportunity to play the game in the first place? While I love to watch Buddy and Hodge, they are but temporary representatives of what I love most about footy -the Hawthorn football club. I have no doubt that followers of struggling clubs feel the same way, why should these players be paid exorbitant amounts of money at the expense of what the revenue base (we fans) truly love about the sport.
Isn't the $100K that Joel Selwood earned in his first year out of high school enough to encourage fellow talented young sportsman to consider an AFL career. To my way of thinking if a young lad loves the game he will be just as likely to play for beer money as he is for a 6 figure income. Players should be duly rewarded for their efforts but fans don't come to the game primarily to follow players, fans come to watch their team. When are the clubs and members going to be rewarded for their efforts?
To suggest that NMFC, Footscray or Melbourne have "failed" is a presumption based on the false premise that these clubs have received their due dispensation and reward the contributions they have made to the competition, when patently this is not the case. Bear in mind that our own club grabbed the competition by the throat and bitchslapped its way to 7 consecutive GF's in the 80's yet had you applied your own standards on what makes a club "viable" to our club in 96 then we would be a merged non-entity. I wonder if you took such a cold hearted and soulless stance on financial responsibility in the 90's when we were about to be sodomised by Oakley and his cronies.
If the AFL was in such a dire financial position that the growth and existence of the sport was in danger then I could understand the willingness to unburden itself of clubs that didnt make a positive financial contribution to the cause, but this is not the case. The AFL is awash with cash with every pig having it's snout in the trough except for the clubs who are forced to find non-football related income streams to survive.
While I do have more respect for our poorer and less fortunate western neighbored clubs NMFC and FFC than the merger muppets at MFC, it doesn't alter the fact that they are the competitions oldest and earliest power houses, rich with tradition and a quaint golf clapping culture. They have every right to have a whinge about not receiving their due allotment of AFL funding. If our club were less fortunate and less well managed we may well be in the same circumstance. A little empathy for supporters of struggling clubs is in order, of all supporters, Hawthorn fans should be the last to take the boot to clubs that are down.
Well said.. :thumbsu:
For a middle road club thats had somany problems in the past, the self righteous attitude of some of its supporters and its president are really a little hard to stomach sometimes.
I think i read in this thread about 6 times Hawks supporters saying they have 'never received a cent of assistance' now come on. I can understand you guys not knowing everything about my club, and making many incorrect statements., but lack of knowledge of your own is unforgiveable.
We had a bad year this year, no body will disagree with you, but you know bad years happen to us all.
In 2006 our profit was $791k and in 2005 our profit was over $1million. We have reduced our debt by 3million dollars in 3 years, and are targetting new markets, without leaving Melbourne, and are infact making a success of the Chinese community, an area Hawthorn targetted some time ago, yet still managed to leave the door open for us to kick you out of the way.
I make jokes about Tassie, but as long as your all comfortable with it, then that is great for your club, personally i think that selling your home games to another state to turn a profit is very dangerous. One day a government change might come in, and your football department is already used to running with a lot more cash that suddenly it doesn't have anymore. Suddenly you can't pay coaches, you have to sack staff, etc etc.
I look at it this way...
The AFL is committed to an equitable competition, therefore the Salary Cap etc. will prevent bidding wars developing amongst the bigger clubs.
Where expansion benefits the league (and by extension us) is the growth of the code and therefore the media rights for the code. As it stands we have 3 Melbourne based clubs that haved recieved additional funding for many years over and above the normal distribution.These clubs, thanks to their small market shares, contribute little to the competitions overall revenue - and therefore argue that the funding should be a permanent fix. If we retained the 16 club competition, but based clubs in Western Sydney and SEQ instead of in Melbourne, the coverage of the game will increase dramatically and with that sponsorship and media rights - in theory, will also go through the roof = higher dividend for the existing clubs.
On top of that, you've got sponsorship opportunities opening up in WS and SEQ for non QLD and NSW based clubs thanks to the increased presense in the areas and it obviously eases the squeeze for Victorian based clubs in Melbourne.
With that said, if these clubs can stand on their own 2 feet and we can go back to an even distribution of revenue and coverage, I'm all for that as well. If the AFL was true to form we would have got the highest cut of ASD last year thanks to our pitful 8 FTA games.
kolchak
10 Dec 2007, 16:01
Agree %100 Mick, no Melbourne club should be forced to relocate. The AFL just made over $700 million based on the existence of Melbourne's clubs.
I still dislike a lot about Melbourne, espicially their attitude. They used to be a blue collar club, now they pretend to be some kind of boy's club institution.
kolchak
10 Dec 2007, 16:09
I look at it this way...
The AFL is committed to an equitable competition, therefore the Salary Cap etc. will prevent bidding wars developing amongst the bigger clubs.
Where expansion benefits the league (and by extension us) is the growth of the code and therefore the media rights for the code. If we retained the 16 club competition, but based clubs in Western Sydney and SEQ instead of in Melbourne, the coverage of the game will increase dramatically and with that sponsorship and media rights - in theory, will also go through the roof = higher dividend for the existing clubs.
On top of that, you've got sponsorship opportunities opening up in WS and SEQ for non QLD and NSW based clubs thanks to the increased presense in the areas and it obviously eases the squeeze for Victorian based clubs in Melbourne.
With that said, if these clubs can stand on their own 2 feet and we can go back to an even distribution of revenue and coverage, I'm all for that as well.
So every time a Melbourne club is struggling they are in danger of being forced into a relocation or merge? IMO the league has no right to decide which clubs survive.
melbourne150
10 Dec 2007, 16:11
I still dislike a lot about Melbourne, espicially their attitude. They used to be a blue collar club, now they pretend to be some kind of boy's club institution.
boy's club institution? what are u talking about? and what does that even mean?
So every time a Melbourne club is struggling they are in danger of being forced into a relocation or merge? IMO the league has no right to decide which clubs survive.
No.
The league should have no right to dictate the future of any club, by the same token they shouldn't consistantly foot the bill for clubs whos future would otherwise be suspect.
At the end of the day it should be up to the clubs to decide whether they stay in the AFL, relegate back down to the VFL, SANFL, WAFL etc. or take the AFL's money and relocate and/or merge with another club.
I look at it this way...
Where expansion benefits the league (and by extension us) is the growth of the code and therefore the media rights for the code. As it stands we have 3 Melbourne based clubs that at this stage don't have the capacity to stand on their own 2 feet - Melbourne, Kangaroos and the W Bulldogs (although the Bulldogs do have the benefit of a large catchment area to target the next generation of supporters which could see them leap above the Dees and Roos) These clubs, thanks to their small market shares, contribute little to the competitions overall revenue. If we retained the 16 club competition, but based clubs in Western Sydney and SEQ instead of in Melbourne, the coverage of the game will increase dramatically and with that sponsorship and media rights - in theory, will also go through the roof = higher dividend for the existing clubs.
.
What is the advantage of existing clubs having a higher dividend? Don't you think the players are paid enough?
Aren't the 60 thousand members of the previously mentioned disenfranchised supporters owed something from the AFL. Make no mistake if Hawthorn folded, I doubt I'd be contributing 400 bucks a year to the AFL coffers in membership dues, wouldn't NMFC,FFC and MFC supports just be casual observers or lost to the game?
If the AFL cannot distribute 780 million dollars from the current media deal so that its stakeholders can exist without non-football related income streams, what makes you think they will be able to do it with a billion dollar media deal?
Wouldn't you rather spank the merger monkeys twice a year than play yet another franchise team that has no real tradition?
I just don't understand your point of view, what good is it to bring even more money into the game (even Hawthorn's coffers) if it means that less supporters will be able to follow thier traditional teams?
How has our club having $10 million in assets made it more enjoyable to support Hawthorn? All it buys is peace of mind that we will be here in 5 years, I wish all clubs supporters had the same sense of security. I'd certainly rather play our traditional rivals for the next ten years rather than add more unneeded dollars to our bank balance.
kolchak
10 Dec 2007, 16:22
No.
The league should have no right to dictate the future of any club, by the same token they shouldn't consistantly foot the bill for clubs whos future would otherwise be suspect.
At the end of the day it should be up to the clubs to decide whether they stay in the AFL, relegate back down to the VFL, SANFL, WAFL etc. or take the AFL's money and relocate and/or merge with another club.
That's a nice idea, but it wouldn't happen anytime soon. I just don't think the league is any kind of financial crisis and they do owe it to teams like North, Carlton and that to help them pull through, within reason of course, but a couple million a year I think is well within reason.
What is the advantage of existing clubs having a higher dividend? Don't you think the players are paid enough?
Aren't the 60 thousand members of the previously mentioned disenfranchised supporters owed something from the AFL. Make no mistake if Hawthorn folded, I doubt I'd be contributing 400 bucks a year to the AFL coffers in membership dues, wouldn't NMFC,FFC and MFC supports just be casual observers or lost to the game?
If the AFL cannot distribute 780 million dollars from the current media deal so that its stakeholders can exist without non-football related income streams, what makes you think they will be able to do it with a billion dollar media deal?
Wouldn't you rather spank the merger monkeys twice a year than play yet another franchise team that has no real tradition?
I just don't understand your point of view, what good is it to bring even more money into the game (even Hawthorn's coffers) if it means that less supporters will be able to follow thier traditional teams?
How has our club having $10 million in assets made it more enjoyable to support Hawthorn? All it buys is peace of mind that we will be here in 5 years, I wish all clubs supporters had the same sense of security. I'd certainly rather play our traditional rivals for the next ten years rather than add more unneeded dollars to our bank balance.
I'm just looking at it from our point of view.
Expansion = More money from the TV dividend, more coverage around Australia and more breathing room in Melbourne. Emotions aside, it would benefit us if clubs were to leave Melbourne.
HOWEVER I've got no issues with the 10 Victorian club set up as long as all clubs are sustainable in Melbourne, as it stands all clubs are not sustainable, and from a $$$ point of view we are probably the type of club that loses out the most from the current situation.
What I'd love to see is the existing 16 clubs strong with equality across the draw and distributions from the AFL but its just not going to happen.
I'm just looking at it from our point of view.
Expansion = More money from the TV dividend, more coverage around Australia and more breathing room in Melbourne.
What does more breathing room in Melbourne mean? Would you prefer that we play even more games interstate? That is your prerogative but I want to see as many games live as I can. Having more teams in Melbourne-even subsidised ones- means Hawthorn fans get to see their club more often. I'd rather that than add another million to our bottom line.
HOWEVER I've got no issues with the 10 Victorian club set up as long as all clubs are sustainable in Melbourne, as it stands all clubs are not sustainable,
How aren't all ten clubs sustainable?, you say it like it is a fact, when all of the evidence actually indicates the contrary. The AFL has more money than ever before, the players are being paid more than at any time in history, there are more Victorian members and more Victorian attendances than previously recorded. Why should any club, let alone a founding member be in danger of eradication?
Be careful in believing that every word out of an ex politicians mouth is Gospel, even if he is our president.
and from a $$$ point of view we are probably the type of club that loses out the most from the current situation.
Unfathomable, we have just posted a league record annual profit of over 3 million dollars, yet you think we are losing out by throwing a bit of spare change to clubs in need.
While we shouldn't encourage a "welfare" state, showing compassion to those clubs and supporters in need isn't just charity, it is the only decent thing to do.
How aren't all ten clubs sustainable?, you say it like it is a fact, when all of the evidence actually indicates the contrary. The AFL has more money than ever before, the players are being paid more than at any time in history, there are more Victorian members and more Victorian attendances than previously recorded. Why should any club, let alone a founding member be in danger of eradication?
In most codes around the world, most clubs are left to run their trade independent of the controlling body. If they are not up to the task of competing with the bigger clubs, they cut their cloth and pay their players less and as a result drop back to a division more suited to their club.
Why should any club have the right to receive additional revenue coming out of the pockets of competing clubs at the expense of other clubs. According to Gardiner its Melbourne's right to get ASD permanently in much the same way its our 'right' to play games in Tasmania. If Gardiner is on the money, why bother playing games in Tasmania when if we get into trouble we can just go cap in hand to the AFL?
Unfathomable, we have just posted a league record annual profit of over 3 million dollars, yet you think we are losing out by throwing a bit of spare change to clubs in need.
That came as a result of very difficult choices being made. How many other clubs would relocate 4 home games away from its supporters, relocate the club to a suburb 20km away from the clubs heartland and basically mark down 2005 and 2006 as 'right offs' from an on field success perspective?
Why should we make the difficult decisions when no one else is willing to make them?
While we shouldn't encourage a "welfare" state, showing compassion to those clubs and supporters in need isn't just charity, it is the only decent thing to do.
I've got no problems with the AFL helping out clubs that have a very real possiblity of suriving on their own in the short to medium term...I have however got a problem with the AFL delaying the inevitable at the expense of other clubs.
Hawkk In most codes around the world, most clubs are left to run their trade independent of the controlling body.
In most codes around the world have fixtures which are based on fairness and providing all its competitors an equal chance of winning the competition. The AFL's fixture is engineered to maximise revenue. Because of this the smaller clubs will always be disadvantaged. Gardiner is simply wanting redress for this inequality, we are entitled to the same compensation, fortunately we do not need it.
Hawkk
Why should any club have the right to receive additional revenue coming out of the pockets of competing clubs at the expense of other clubs.
The "additional" revenue is not being supplied by competing clubs, it is simply compensation from the media deal to compensate for lack of FTA exposure and "Blockbuster" game fixturing.
None of MFC, NMFC or Footscray have received over $8.5 million dollars in annual funding from the AFL, given that the AFL had a $140 million dollar operating surplus in 06, then they have only received money that they would otherwise be entitled to.
Hawkk
If Gardiner is on the money, why bother playing games in Tasmania when if we get into trouble we can just go cap in hand to the AFL?
Because, by our own clubs admission, we want to emulate the Green Bay Packers who play games in Milwaulkee to expand the fan base. If and when Melbourne clubs do start receiving more of the media dollar pie than they earn, then we can start talking about clubs not pulling their weight. Or perhaps we should consider revisiting the CBA which entitles players to exorbitant salaries irrespective of how many revenue dollars they produce for the competition.
Hawkk
Why should we make the difficult decisions when no one else is willing to make them?
It may have been a difficult decision but it has been a windfall, three other vic clubs would give their left knacker to have our sponsorship deal. We don't have to play a home game Darwin, GC,Sydney or sell a home game to the Lions. We are in front of the pack thanks to the Tassie deal, just be grateful it is us who have some green rather than be in the invidious position of having the Tassie Kangaroos laughing at our poor financial state and wish us out of the league.
Hawkk In most codes around the world have fixtures which are based on fairness and providing all its competitors an equal chance of winning the competition. The AFL's fixture is engineered to maximise revenue. Because of this the smaller clubs will always be disadvantaged. Gardiner is simply wanting redress for this inequality, we are entitled to the same compensation, fortunately we do not need it.
We should be though, Gardiner was trying to put the Tasmanian sponsorship and Geelong Skilled Stadium deal on the same level as the CBF...which is laughable. Not withstanding which club hosts an annual 'blockbuster' on Queens Birthday?
The "additional" revenue is not being supplied by competing clubs, it is simply compensation from the media deal to compensate for lack of FTA exposure and "Blockbuster" game fixturing.
None of MFC, NMFC or Footscray have received over $8.5 million dollars in annual funding from the AFL, given that the AFL had a $140 million dollar operating surplus in 06, then they have only received money that they would otherwise be entitled to.
We had the LOWEST FTA exposure in the league last year, yet only Collingwood out of Victoria recieved less from the AFL in terms of 'compensation'
It may have been a difficult decision but it has been a windfall, three other vic clubs would give their left knacker to have our sponsorship deal. We don't have to play a home game Darwin, GC,Sydney or sell a home game to the Lions. We are in front of the pack thanks to the Tassie deal, just be grateful it is us who have some green rather than be in the invidious position of having the Tassie Kangaroos laughing at our poor financial state and wish us out of the league.
I'd argue St Kilda, Richmond and Carlton are also envious of the deal, but that's beside the point. What is gained out of 'selling' games to Tasmania if we are guaranteed $$$ from the AFL regardless.
There is no incentive to thrive.
medusala
10 Dec 2007, 18:24
The AFL's fixture is engineered to maximise revenue. Because of this the smaller clubs will always be disadvantaged. Gardiner is simply wanting redress for this inequality, we are entitled to the same compensation, fortunately we do not need it.
How is it that Hawthorn are forced to play interstate games because of their allocation of MCG games? The club wouldnt play in Tas if it could get Melbourne's draw (including their blockbuster)
Melbourne gets PAID by the AFL to play in Melbourne.
Hawthorn has to PAY to play 4 games in Melbourne.
Fair? I dont think so.
medusala
10 Dec 2007, 18:26
I'd argue St Kilda, Richmond and Carlton are also envious of the deal,
Dont think so. Saints walked away and the other two have shown very little interest in selling games other than perhaps one per year. Hawthorn is the only club that thinks its a good idea to sell 4 home games.
whelan=legend
10 Dec 2007, 20:03
Well said.. :thumbsu:
For a middle road club thats had somany problems in the past, the self righteous attitude of some of its supporters and its president are really a little hard to stomach sometimes.
I think i read in this thread about 6 times Hawks supporters saying they have 'never received a cent of assistance' now come on. I can understand you guys not knowing everything about my club, and making many incorrect statements., but lack of knowledge of your own is unforgiveable.
We had a bad year this year, no body will disagree with you, but you know bad years happen to us all.
In 2006 our profit was $791k and in 2005 our profit was over $1million. We have reduced our debt by 3million dollars in 3 years, and are targetting new markets, without leaving Melbourne, and are infact making a success of the Chinese community, an area Hawthorn targetted some time ago, yet still managed to leave the door open for us to kick you out of the way.
I make jokes about Tassie, but as long as your all comfortable with it, then that is great for your club, personally i think that selling your home games to another state to turn a profit is very dangerous. One day a government change might come in, and your football department is already used to running with a lot more cash that suddenly it doesn't have anymore. Suddenly you can't pay coaches, you have to sack staff, etc etc.
Funny how you havent replied to this Hawkk
Leather Poisoning
10 Dec 2007, 20:22
I hope for Melbourne's sake that was taken out of context.
If not - that's about as far from strong leadership as it gets.
Well said.. :thumbsu:
For a middle road club thats had somany problems in the past, the self righteous attitude of some of its supporters and its president are really a little hard to stomach sometimes.
We've made 11 straight profits, which is pretty good really.
I think i read in this thread about 6 times Hawks supporters saying they have 'never received a cent of assistance' now come on. I can understand you guys not knowing everything about my club, and making many incorrect statements., but lack of knowledge of your own is unforgiveable. We had a bad year this year, no body will disagree with you, but you know bad years happen to us all.
Its the revenue that's the problem, match day attendances and membership only makes up a small % of overall revenue.
In 2006 our profit was $791k and in 2005 our profit was over $1million. We have reduced our debt by 3million dollars in 3 years, and are targetting new markets, without leaving Melbourne, and are infact making a success of the Chinese community, an area Hawthorn targetted some time ago, yet still managed to leave the door open for us to kick you out of the way.
In regards to your profits in 2005 and 2006 didn't that include games sold to the GABBA, Carrara as well as the $1m out of the CBF? Its pre determined revenue that you would have budgetted for, but if you were serious about retiring this debt you would have cut the buisness back to the bones and cut massive chunks out of the debt in 2005 and 2006. I'm not privy with Melbourne's numbers but it sounds to me that you didn't capitalise enough on your 1998-2006 'success'
I make jokes about Tassie, but as long as your all comfortable with it, then that is great for your club, personally i think that selling your home games to another state to turn a profit is very dangerous. One day a government change might come in, and your football department is already used to running with a lot more cash that suddenly it doesn't have anymore. Suddenly you can't pay coaches, you have to sack staff, etc etc.
Of the Tasmanian deal, 1.8m is designated to sponsorship - baring in mind without the Tasmanian deal we would have a 'clean' jumper, while the remaining 1.2m comes from the 4 games we play down there - including 2 mandatory high drawing, high interest games.
medusala
10 Dec 2007, 22:12
IMO the league has no right to decide which clubs survive.
Precisely. The MARKET should.
The Market has already made clear which clubs cant survive.
The AFL is propping them up.
Brown Blood
10 Dec 2007, 22:30
Precisely. The MARKET should.
The Market has already made clear which clubs cant survive.
The AFL is propping them up.
Its not quite so simple because we don't have anything like a perfect market.
The draw is slanted, fta coverage is slanted and promotional activities for some clubs is limited - and some clubs are heavily favoured.
Further the afl commision need to understand they exist for the clubs not the other way around.
It is not for them to decide to grow revenue at the expense of the health of some of the existing clubs.
Remember if they had their way 10 years ago we wouldn't be around.
We should be though, Gardiner was trying to put the Tasmanian sponsorship and Geelong Skilled Stadium deal on the same level as the CBF...which is laughable. Not withstanding which club hosts an annual 'blockbuster' on Queens Birthday?
We had the LOWEST FTA exposure in the league last year, yet only Collingwood out of Victoria recieved less from the AFL in terms of 'compensation'
I'd argue St Kilda, Richmond and Carlton are also envious of the deal, but that's beside the point. What is gained out of 'selling' games to Tasmania if we are guaranteed $$$ from the AFL regardless.
There is no incentive to thrive.
There are two seperate issues, Gardiner is a tool for calling our profit disingenuous , you will get no argument from me on that score. The only reason I can think of him even saying it is because of Jeff's somewhat sanctimonious spray.
The other side of Gardiner's argument is that clubs deserve to receive AFL distribution funding up to the point that the competition can afford it.
It can be reasonably argued that we deserve as much if not more funding from the AFL than Melbourne does, but we don't need it. Collingwood and Sydney deserve a greater split of the TV revenue than we do, thankfully Collingwood does not need the dollars either. If all of the clubs took their rightful 1/16th share of the surplus revenue, there would be none left for game development, Auskick and the like. I am happy for Hawthorn to contribute to the development of the game, but if I were a North or Melbourne supporter I would think that charity begins at home. Melbourne are not taking any money from Hawthorn or it's members, if anything they are stopping a few South African kids from getting a free footy and AFL lanyard.
I see it a bit like the pension:-you can contribute to your super for your entire career and fund your own retirement or you can pay all your taxes and hope that the government does the right thing by you in your old age. Melbourne have paid their taxes as have we, luckily we get to enjoy the easier lifestyle that our exta savings have allowed, wheras Melbourne are living hand to mouth and have to rely on AFL approval from everything from thier player contracts to their football operations appointments if they want to get their share of the AFL pie. Frankly it would be humiliating, I don't envy them for getting "something for nothing" instead I feel sorry for them having to cap in hand merely to survive in a competition that should have plenty of money for everyone.
There is incentive to thrive, thanks to our sacrifices we now have choices and we can determine our own future. MFC, NMFC and FFC through little fault of their own are at the mercy of the AFL. It isn't like these clubs are surfie dole bludgers who are living the high life. They are paupers in a multi-million dollar industry, no club would willingly choose to exist this way.
andrew coombs
10 Dec 2007, 22:51
People on this board are beginning to sound like Eddie McGuire when he prattles on about how humungously successful Collingwood is and how they are propping up all the other Melbourne clubs. He spins it a way that would have a casual observer believe that all clubs have the same opportunity to prosper as his club has. This offensive untruth has sadly infiltrated the the thinking of many fans, including here on the HFC board. There is more then enough money for all clubs to survive in the AFL and those disadvantaged by factors such as low socio economic fan base and generational small support numbers should and must be supported financially by the AFL. The loss of the clubs mentioned by the economic rationalists like HAWWK would destroy the competition and completely alienate hundreds of thousands of fans. Lets not forget where we were not so long ago.
Would Kennett please take himself off the ring a quote speed dial of every footy journo in Australia, its bloody embarassing.
medusala
11 Dec 2007, 04:40
The draw is slanted, fta coverage is slanted and promotional activities for some clubs is limited - and some clubs are heavily favoured.
Even with a perfect draw those clubs would be in trouble. Those three have been broke for years. They were struggling with an even draw.
Further the afl commision need to understand they exist for the clubs not the other way around.
No, the AFL exists for the best interests of the game.
Remember if they had their way 10 years ago we wouldn't be around
How is that even comparable? Where was the CBF then?
Brown Blood
11 Dec 2007, 09:28
Even with a perfect draw those clubs would be in trouble. Those three have been broke for years. They were struggling with an even draw.
It is to the afl's advantage to keep teams in the afl to maximise (to a level the number of games) and to not disenfranchise existing supporters.
It is also been considered important for the health of the competition to ensure teams don't become to dominant or weak.
That is why there have beenmany mechanisms since the start of the vfl to achieve a "competitive balance" - things like zoning, transfer fees, modified gate sharing, player drafts, salary caps, equalisation levy's, veterans list, special assistance funds and the CBF payments.
No, the AFL exists for the best interests of the game.
The afl is a body set up by the clubs to administer their competition - nothing more.
What the problem is they have interpreted this to mean the idea is to maximize revenue (probably because that is the one way officers of the afl can justify increasing salaries).
And the issue is by doing this they are sometimes doing it at the expense of some clubs and their supporters.
It seems fairly obvious to me that because the afl wants to expand the game into the gold coast and west sydney they have simply tried to force some teams (kangaroos) to relocate which is against the interests of their supporters.
lickmerocks
11 Dec 2007, 09:45
Paul Gardner likes having a dig at us about Tassie whenever he gets the opportunity however i get a feeling that Paul will be doing a deal over the next couple of years to play games out of CHINA....:eek:
medusala
11 Dec 2007, 18:06
It is to the afl's advantage to keep teams in the afl to maximise (to a level the number of games) and to not disenfranchise existing supporters.
Keeping teams in Vic stops the game spreading and new supporters coming on board
Is the game better or worse for Brisbane and Sydney? Not a tough question.
The afl is a body set up by the clubs to administer their competition - nothing more.
There is more to it than that. The clubs gave it power to act in the best interests of the game and above the self interests of the clubs (who were doing a damn poor job of running the comp)
It seems fairly obvious to me that because the afl wants to expand the game into the gold coast and west sydney they have simply tried to force some teams (kangaroos) to relocate which is against the interests of their supporters
By giving the Dogs $1.9m a year and the Ross $1.5m they have a VERY odd way of going about it.
Very.
Brown Blood
11 Dec 2007, 18:38
Very.
I find somebody that selectivly quotes do it because they have a flawed argument :rolleyes:.
RustyHawk
11 Dec 2007, 19:00
Suzi wrote at 11.06am 11/12/2007
I think we have found the team that we can relocate to the gold coast....
Melbourne should go up there.
Fabulous
11 Dec 2007, 19:26
I find somebody that selectivly quotes do it because they have a flawed argument :rolleyes:.
Brown Blood. I was about to congratulate you on your last post for its content.
But then you post this sort of crap that relates more to your style than what Medusala wrote. He is big enough to look after himself though.
Anyway the thrust of what you were trying to say is correct. The AFL are about feathering their own nest and decisions are mostly about achieving this end.
Merry Xmas BB
medusala
11 Dec 2007, 19:48
I find somebody that selectivly quotes do it because they have a flawed argument :rolleyes:.
Selectively quote?
The CBF amounts paid isnt a selective quote. Its a fact.
The AFL have gone out of their way to keep 3 clubs alive. This is a big turn around from the past.
One wonders what is "flawed" about that argument.
The afl is a body set up by the clubs to administer their competition - nothing more.
What the problem is they have interpreted this to mean the idea is to maximize revenue (probably because that is the one way officers of the afl can justify increasing salaries).
And the issue is by doing this they are sometimes doing it at the expense of some clubs and their supporters.
I've thought this too BB, the shame of it is that the AFL 's CEO is probably not to blame.
Unfortunately this is the fault of the AFL commission and the clubs themselves, Demetriou's bonuses are paid on financial results. His salary has increased over 70% in the last two years based largely on his efforts with the media deal. Of course he wants to increase the amount of money he can squeeze out of the media by having weekly broadcasts into QLD and NSW, it has nothing to do with his desire to enrich the competion or educate those northern philistines on the merits of footy. From what I can tell he is simply doing what most family breadwinners would do in the same situation, making sure his $7 million dollar mortgage on his Toorak dwelling is able to be serviced. Mind you I am not so sure most of us would sell out our own footy club to do it-I'd have Carlton playing out of Canberra before I would consider moving my former club to the GC.
If Andrew was paid his million dollar a year to keep existing AFL members and clubs happy then you could be assured that the AFL would have a different agenda. A lower salary cap and higher percentage of distribution of funds to the clubs would make survival a matter of course for existing clubs along with making it easier for new franchises to enter the competition. Instead of following this member friendly approach, Demetriou sides with the wealthy clubs and players: gifting what should be the wealthiest union in Australia $6. million dollars, then lets it be known that the Roos are a financial train wreck despite following every bit of advice the AFL offered including playing home games in Sydney, Canberra and Gold Coast along with appointing an AFL approved CEO.
There is no doubt that Melbourne can support 10 teams, but it won't happen if the executive officers of the AFL are paid bonuses to increase global revenue rather than club revenue.
Pessimistic
11 Dec 2007, 20:54
Hes right about the various AFL meanings of "handouts", "welfare" etc.
Clubs like hawthorn and melbourne should be taking the afl to task over the contradictory positions when a club like carlton comes looking for money they have one of the biggest turnovers but one of the wors efficiencies.
Brown Blood
11 Dec 2007, 20:58
Brown Blood. I was about to congratulate you on your last post for its content.
But then you post this sort of crap that relates more to your style than what Medusala wrote. He is big enough to look after himself though.
Anyway the thrust of what you were trying to say is correct. The AFL are about feathering their own nest and decisions are mostly about achieving this end.
Merry Xmas BB
Oh look what the cat dragged in - been waiting for an opportunity to have a go eh!
And so what sort of crap are you talking about.
I posted 3-4 sentences in response to each of a couple of points that medusala posted in response to a post of mine and then he chooses to quote 1 in response thus losing most of the content of my point.
If you noticed mick quotes the 3 sentences of one of the same points I made about what the afl commission should be doing and why they are doing it.
The fact is if you are going to quote a poster to make comment on their post I think it is proper etiquette to at least quote all the relevant sentences to the point not just to selectively pull out 1.
You obviously think differently - you think it is OK :rolleyes:.
You really should change your name - you are hardly fabulous.
I'm bored so I had a read of what the Dees fans had to say about this article...
http://demonland.nozzs.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8572
I would much rather relocate than fold.
My mothers family has a large committed South Melbourne background and they celebrated the swans flag as long ang hard as I intend to celebrate ours this year wink.gif
This is not a Fitzroy situation, it's more like South. Relocation is different to being swallowed whole.
Make no mistake, if North fold in the future the same fans hailing Brayshaw now will be baying for his blood. AND RIGHTLY SO!
The difference between us and North is they've had success and still remain a basketcase, our finances are not as parlous, sans success. Personally I think we could be a premiership or two from reeinvigorating a latent supporter base. I could be wrong but I still remember the drought breaking finals of 87. 90,000+ at the "g", 80,000 dees fans, plenty of them young.
The AFL's offer was very tempting and they needed it to happen quick. If they ceded to the request for another year it would have been a festering sore till next post season, and completely unacceptable (would have taken attention away from OUR 150th).
I've always admired North's spirit and wish them well, but can't help feeling they've risked death here. Surely they've shot themselves in the foot as far as their few games up there each year. Will we have to see out their contract for them, like in Canberra last year. If we do it will be the last straw for me and all sympathy for their plight will be lost.
As for the future, within 15, probably 10 years only 10 clubs will survive in melbourne. Within 30, probably 20 years it's unlikely more than 8 clubs will survive here. We certainly can't afford another 40 years like the last. If you know any dees fans who aren't members, get up 'em. If you have any young relatives, let the brainwashing begin, bribery is completely acceptable (already started on my 1 year old neice).
I've lived overseas for extended periods, in places where results were hard to come by (pre internet for you young folk). My interest, desire, love, passion and emotion for this club never waned in the slightest. Those saying they would rather cease to exist than relocate are not truly considering the consequences. Who would you support? What would you do with your winter? I'd love the Broome Demons, or the Upper Congupna West Demons for that matter, till the day I die before I'd ever consider another club.
We still have time, but not a lot. North and Western have positioned themselves for relocation by adopting those non specific titles, but Brayshaw and co stepped in to thwart it (last season). We have positioned ourselves to remain in Melbourne (thankfully), which shows our board is up for the fight. Hawthorn, St. Kilda, Us and to a lesser extent Richmond (if they continue as the basketcase they've been for 20 years they'll be in trouble soon) will be fighting to be the other 2 surviving clubs. Despite Kennet's arrogance I believe we are better placed than the Hobart hawks. That leaves a race between us, the saints and the tiges for success.
philhawk
15 Dec 2007, 12:29
I'm bored so I had a read of what the Dees fans had to say about this article...
http://demonland.nozzs.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8572
That's hilarious.
The Dees are always a good laugh. :thumbsu: