C'mon Ed...

[Kummerspeck]

We will help you and support you to be competent financially, but you don't stack the deck unfairly so one kid can feel better about himself. You give him the same rules as everyone else and let him try his hardest.

I can only assume you're taking the piss. The competition and systems that feed into it are stacked towards the heartland clubs, particularly the Victorian ones, by its very nature.

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

I can only assume you're taking the piss. The competition and systems that feed into it are stacked towards the heartland clubs, particularly the Victorian ones, by its very nature.

So you receive no money from the competition to stay economically viable? Being based in Victoria doesn't help you on the field.

 

[Kummerspeck]

So you receive no money from the competition to stay economically viable?

I personally don't and I never claimed the Swans didn't receive money from the AFL. Although it should be noted that the Swans receive less from the AFL than Collingwood to the tune of $733,000.

Being based in Victoria doesn't help you on the field.

In terms of player retention, travel, games played at the grand final ground and a guaranteed home Grand Final against any non-Victorian team...yes, yes it does.

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

I personally don't and I never claimed the Swans didn't receive money from the AFL. Although it should be noted that the Swans receive less from the AFL than Collingwood to the tune of $733,000.

In terms of player retention, travel, games played at the grand final ground and a guaranteed home Grand Final against any non-Victorian team...yes, yes it does.

Then we are on the same page. I am all for having strong academies in nsw and qld. There is no justification to interstate teams having sole access to them though.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Then we are on the same page.

You just explicitly denied something I've been arguing the entire thread. I'm not entirely sure you know what that means.

I am all for having strong academies in nsw and qld. There is no justification to interstate teams having sole access to them though.

Well one, the northern teams don't have sole access to them. (or if they do, someone better tell the Giants given a they have almost as many ex-academy players on other lists as on theirs) and the reasons why the northen clubs oversee the talent pathways after two poor attempts have been explained repeatedly in every thread on this topic.

 

[Sausages]

This is easily the worst conversation I have ever read. You have one bloke running around contradicting his own points as he posts them and acting like a smug academic. Then you have others pointing out the Eddie is wrong because Collingwood got beaten on the field last night?

Eddie is a love him, hate him type. He is looking out for Collingwood. This does not make him wrong about academies. They should be run by the AFL as they are the ones indirectly funding them anyway, and they should be accessible to all. Otherwise there is no point in having a draft. We would just move back to zones. Plenty of Victorian kids have to move interstate to play, so should everyone else.

Also, to those that are saying that if we want a national competition then we need to constantly support the struggling interstate clubs, you sound like a selfish child saying "My parents should support me for life". You were created by the AFL to grow and succeed. That is why you took on the CHALLENGE of becoming a successful club. We will help you and support you to be competent financially, but you don't stack the deck unfairly so one kid can feel better about himself. You give him the same rules as everyone else and let him try his hardest.

As long as the AFL keeps Brisbane financially viable, they will eventually find a better coach/players and become successful like everyone else does through personnel and good drafting. Until then, get out here and sell your brand like everyone else does and quite your whinging.

1 - My position is every club should have a zone of equal size or an AFL funded but club run academy.
2. Supporting struggling interstate clubs = supporting every club imo, regardless of where they are.
3. Created by the AFL to grow and succeed - define success....winning one flag? 11? None but top 4 every year?
4. Eddie doesn't want us to have any of "Collingwood's money" - sorta makes the whole "We will help you and support you" statement incongruous with the statements by your chief.
5. Same rules? - yep....but you can't apply that mentality to one aspect and neglect others, such as the draw.
6. Financially viable is a broad statement - we are insolvent. I'd suggest that supports a "not financially viable" argument.
7. Sell the brand? We are trying - but nobody up here wants to buy...see point 3 - "created by the AFL".

And I'll wear the smug academic point with pride, thanks

 

[Sausages]

And LASTLY - if the Pies are the biggest, most well-supported in Australia AND they want the game up here to succeed - bring 'em up twice a year to play us and somebody else.

Pies v WCE at the Gabba should almost equal a Pies home ground advantage if you blokes believe the hype....

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Dear Eddy, please read and ponder:

"My father would call AFL 'marbles' because he thought it was such a silly game," Rochelle says. "He always loved rugby league, but now he watches every game Isaac plays. He's learning all the rules. It's amazing.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/sydney...cter-forged-in-adversity-20150509-ggxg0a.html

 

[MagpieJo]

1 - My position is every club should have a zone of equal size or an AFL funded but club run academy.
2. Supporting struggling interstate clubs = supporting every club imo, regardless of where they are.
3. Created by the AFL to grow and succeed - define success....winning one flag? 11? None but top 4 every year?
4. Eddie doesn't want us to have any of "Collingwood's money" - sorta makes the whole "We will help you and support you" statement incongruous with the statements by your chief.
5. Same rules? - yep....but you can't apply that mentality to one aspect and neglect others, such as the draw.
6. Financially viable is a broad statement - we are insolvent. I'd suggest that supports a "not financially viable" argument.
7. Sell the brand? We are trying - but nobody up here wants to buy...see point 3 - "created by the AFL".

And I'll wear the smug academic point with pride, thanks

If nobody wants to buy, how about move the team to where it's wanted, and would be supported, say Tassie, or NT?

 

[Sausages]

If nobody wants to buy, how about move the team to where it's wanted, and would be supported, say Tassie, or NT?

Hey, I've stated elsewhere on the boards that I think the endless cycle of handouts to us is ridiculous and ultimately unsustainable...we are saved only by broadcast rights. And I've also stated that this reason is why it is hard yakka supporting the Lions - when we win, our concessions get slammed by all and sundry and when we are struggling we are told to go sell the club.

The critical point is the broadcast dollars though - we are here solely for that reason, no other. So, with that in mind - it could be argued that the expansion teams are the ones bringing in the most dollars to the game, also a point I've stated elsewhere. Hence, why bash us when we ask for concessions?

It's a simple economic reality - the CLUBS like their memberships and their attendances, but the AFL like the broadcast dollars. And as the AFL make the rules, we are here to stay, regardless of other considerations. I've re-stated numerous times that growing the game up here benefits the club, but the method in which it has been done thus far has failed.

Edit - to answer your point specifically, the AFL adjudge that Tassie isn't the same "broadcast dollars growth state" that justifies investment. Which, imo, is a s**t attitude to have. But this is the same league that killed Fitzroy, so tradition means precisely jack and s**t.

 

[MagpieJo]

Hey, I've stated elsewhere on the boards that I think the endless cycle of handouts to us is ridiculous and ultimately unsustainable...we are saved only by broadcast rights. And I've also stated that this reason is why it is hard yakka supporting the Lions - when we win, our concessions get slammed by all and sundry and when we are struggling we are told to go sell the club.

The critical point is the broadcast dollars though - we are here solely for that reason, no other. So, with that in mind - it could be argued that the expansion teams are the ones bringing in the most dollars to the game, also a point I've stated elsewhere. Hence, why bash us when we ask for concessions?

It's a simple economic reality - the CLUBS like their memberships and their attendances, but the AFL like the broadcast dollars. And as the AFL make the rules, we are here to stay, regardless of other considerations. I've re-stated numerous times that growing the game up here benefits the club, but the method in which it has been done thus far has failed.

Edit - to answer your point specifically, the AFL adjudge that Tassie isn't the same "broadcast dollars growth state" that justifies investment. Which, imo, is a s**t attitude to have. But this is the same league that killed Fitzroy, so tradition means precisely jack and s**t.

Fair answer

Maybe they need to do a more accurate broadcast count. I'd be interested to see the numbers each club attracts. A pols if that's already been done.

I don't think it can work unless AFL really grows in Queensland and Sydney as a grass roots game, and do we have to kill the game for a while for that too happen? And would it happen anyway?

I do think there's too many vic clubs, but remembering the loss of Fitzroy and South Melbourne, (I've never done THAT equation) I'd hate to speculate on who goes. I'd be truly devastated to loose my club, so I get how people feel. It's just lose lose. If my club folded or went else where, there would be no second team for me. I'd be done. Nothing to take on their history, it just would not be the same.

Thanks for the response, good to see it handled with such grace. Cheers

But I still want my cup back!

 

[Sausages]

Fair answer

Maybe they need to do a more accurate broadcast count. I'd be interested to see the numbers each club attracts. A pols if that's already been done.

I don't think it can work unless AFL really grows in Queensland and Sydney as a grass roots game, and do we have to kill the game for a while for that too happen? And would it happen anyway?

I do think there's too many vic clubs, but remembering the loss of Fitzroy and South Melbourne, (I've never done THAT equation) I'd hate to speculate on who goes. I'd be truly devastated to loose my club, so I get how people feel. It's just lose lose. If my club folded or went else where, there would be no second team for me. I'd be done. Nothing to take on their history, it just would not be the same.

Thanks for the response, good to see it handled with such grace. Cheers

But I still want my cup back!

Thanks mate Yeah, I realise the fans/members of all clubs wear their hearts on their sleeves which is cool, I wouldn't have it any other way. But my issue is and has been for some time, with the AFL, not the clubs specifically. Your president looks to work the system and does so publicly, hence why my criticism is directed at him in this thread - I'm not naive enough to believe our president wouldn't do likewise either.

But I REALLY feel that we all should be asking the AFL one straight question - what sort of game do we have, if we sacrifice tradition ahead of money? It's the traditions of the clubs, whether they have been here for 100 years or 5 minutes, that must be considered at all times, ahead of broadcast dollars. The strength and appeal of the game is in seeing the bloody thing LIVE not on television. And what a fan wants, what we buy into, is the traditions of the clubs.

I've said elsewhere - give me a weekly broadcast on the history and traditions of every club - I know I'd tune into it every week. And for the expansion clubs' potential audience, it would be a gold mine.

I make fun of the rugby league/union chaps I have worked with about songs for example. They look at me as if I am speaking Latin. Then an ex-pat Pom pipes up and says that singing football (soccer) songs is what makes their game so good at home. It's WHY so many fans attend West Ham vs Chelsea for example - the Hammers know they'll lose, but who cares? They get to sing songs about how much Chelsea suck and this makes it all worthwhile It's a minor example, but instructive nonetheless. The tradition of singing their songs, some of which change from year to year and minute to minute is what keeps 'em coming back, year in year out.

Australians have a terrible habit of not embracing our traditions - and I think it's my (our?) duty to uphold and champion our traditions, whether a fan, member or AFL CEO. And Australian Rules Football IS our tradition. It's OUR game - I don't want anyone to go through what the Fitzroy folk had to go through.

FWIW, I don't think there are too many Melbourne clubs either - saying that is as bad as saying there are too many expansion clubs. But we all have to look out for each other, not just OUR club. That's what the club presidents do, look out for their own club - that's fair enough, that's their job. But my job? Support the club AND the game.

And supporting the game means taking a broad, long-term view - not merely looking at the next broadcast deal and saying "We are growing the game because we have a team in (insert new market here)." Just chucking a team down, seeing them win a flag and saying job done is a cop-out and I expect better from Head Office. MUCH MUCH better. They've fluffed their lines up here, we haven't helped either to be fair - but again, why shouldn't the AFL step in and say "Fellas, you blokes are WAY off track, this is what we want you to do". But they don't. So long as the broadcast rights deal is driving the identity of head office, we are all vulnerable. All of us.

Hell, I even bought a North cheapie membership some years back when they were needing some help. It was only a cheapie, but I at least FELT I was putting my money where my mouth is. I'd buy a membership for every club, if I could afford it.

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

1 - My position is every club should have a zone of equal size or an AFL funded but club run academy.
2. Supporting struggling interstate clubs = supporting every club imo, regardless of where they are.
3. Created by the AFL to grow and succeed - define success....winning one flag? 11? None but top 4 every year?
4. Eddie doesn't want us to have any of "Collingwood's money" - sorta makes the whole "We will help you and support you" statement incongruous with the statements by your chief.
5. Same rules? - yep....but you can't apply that mentality to one aspect and neglect others, such as the draw.
6. Financially viable is a broad statement - we are insolvent. I'd suggest that supports a "not financially viable" argument.
7. Sell the brand? We are trying - but nobody up here wants to buy...see point 3 - "created by the AFL".

And I'll wear the smug academic point with pride, thanks

1. If that were the case that would be fine, and I am sure Ed would love to have it that way. It isn't the case at the moment however, tampering with the draft is not fair.
2. Yep. Financially only though. If growing the game means salary cap concessions and draft picks then I don't want to grow the game.
3. Success for me is the club being a self sustaining entity that contributes and competes on the field. Success on the field will follow naturally eventually.
4. Yeah Ed is a tight arse, but he is responding to members' wishes. As a paying member, it is annoying to think that the money I am giving to Collingwood is probably going to another club. That's not what I want. The AFL should be forking out, as it stands Collingwood gave about 8 million last year to the AFL coffers. How much are we supposed to keep giving?
5. I agree that the draw is ridiculous, but it only helps us if we make the finals i.e. Playing at the g. It doesn't get us there. The travel thing sucks, but I don't see a way around it really. You are living in another state and most teams are in Victoria. With regards to exposure and money, the AFL knows playing collingwood on a Friday makes more money for them to give to Brisbane than playing Brisbane. So it has to be done.
6. No you are not financially viable. That should be priority one. All afl clubs seem to think the only way to make money is by being good on the field. This is important, but not the only way. Start by not buying things you can't afford I.e. Oxygen rooms, Arizona trips... (Not that Brisbane has, but plenty of the struggling clubs do despite their lack of cash) Just because Collingwood did it doesn't mean it is required. Since the tax came in, we have cut back on our stupid spending. Take note struggling clubs. These things make marginal differences at best. Invest some money, get good financial people at the top and stop being dependant. Harder for you guys, but it is the only way forward.
7. Yeah it is going to be harder for you, but it needs to be done. It is the sole purpose for your existence. Figure it out. Hire a proven coach, and better recruiters. Get a culture people can respect and want to be a part of. I really like the stand up bar on the wing. Lots of things like that will start to create a better vibe around the place.

Ultimately through his actions, not words, Ed has shown he is more than happy to help out the game financially. He doesn't want that to mean unfair on field advantages however, and I am with him, as is any rationale fan. There is no point having a national competition if it is not a fair competition. There are some minor advantages to being a Victorian club, but there are advantages to being an interstate team as well I.e. Player anonymity, climate, lifestyle etc... You need to find a way to make the most of them, not demand unfair advantages for on field success.

 

[Colonial]

Awaits monday morning metdown

 

[wahawk]

Which I'll respond to with my idea:

All clubs to get exactly the same assistance and benefits from the AFL. Nobody gets anything from Head Office different to anyone else - whether that is zero dollars or 10mil. No extra cap, no concessions, nada.

I'm happy with that. After 12 months, we'd have an 8 team comp. The Lions would fold. But at least I wouldn't have to listen to the bitching.

If equality and fairness are the yardstick - allocate broadcast dollars by the amount EACH club brings in to that figure. And the Swans and GWS would get about 40% of that cash straight up.

Ed and co want the benefits they bring to their bottom line, but don't want to consider any of the things necessary to keep these critical clubs (as fas as broadcast dollars go) afloat and competitive.

Which returns me yet again to this - he wants us in the game, but doesn't want us to win anything.

This raises a satellite issue....it's possible the goal umpire in the third quarter back in 2002 cost the Pies a flag. I think we'd best look at the benefits goal umpires receive, because that's just unfair, they awarded goals to the Lions but not to the Pies.....

You probably need to re-read my post if you're going to quote it

You seem to be arguing against me, while I'm arguing with you.

Not that i agree with my argument, it's just that the afl need a national comp involving qld/nsw.
Im just playing devils advocate

 

[Lensen]

Why do you keep asserting that the expansion clubs are the ones bringing in the most broadcast dollars?

How much do you think 7 reckon playing local games on a secondary channel to 3/5 of bugger all people is worth?

 

[andypie]

He also said Collingwood are contenders this year so you can pretty much ignore everything that comes out of his mouth.

Show me where that was said?

 

[andypie]

[QUOTE="Sausages, post: 38350523, member: 36450"if they Zones were areas of development for established clubs - not expansion clubs. The differential is immense. Expansion clubs use them both as development AND marketing - traditional Australian rules states need less marketing. Dispute this, and I'll send you to the AFL's PR department for clarity.

The AFL bankrolls every club - and yet we decry the Lions or the Swans winning flags on the back of "concessions"? Maybe Carlton should have dug deeper to lure Voss, or the Pies to chuck an extra 500k at Brown, with their AFL dollars? Surely THAT would be fair and equitable?

Where do you want it stop? I know my vision, and it's likely the same as yours - but the AFL bankrolling clubs isn't the way forward.

Let's just get EVERY CLUB off AFL dollars and see what happens then. Y'know, the market forces that business enterprise likes to suggest is "fair and equal".

I'm up for it. Keen to step to the club to rub a dub?[/QUOTE]
I am sure collingwood would have paid 500k more If they had concessions that allowed them to do so.

 

[Purple Suit]

Show me where that was said?

Ok

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-for-premiership/story-fni5f6hd-1227334321102

 

[andypie]

Ok

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-for-premiership/story-fni5f6hd-1227334321102

Thankyou. Didnt see that one. I was thinking it may have been an earlier one when it had been a bit if a beat up. Poor Ed he should know not to be optimistic .

 

[Kummerspeck]

How much do you think 7 reckon playing local games on a secondary channel to 3/5 of bugger all people is worth?

Because they're also paying for potential, especially come finals time. Look at the five highest rating grand finals of all time and see what they have in common.

 

[telsor]

Because they're also paying for potential, especially come finals time. Look at the five highest rating grand finals of all time and see what they have in common.

While there would be some extra for potential, the week by weeks would be a bigger factor than one 'maybe' game, and as it stands, the AFL probably makes less from TV rights in order to convince ch7 to broadcast every Sydney/GWS game into your home market.

 

[Kummerspeck]

While there would be some extra for potential, the week by weeks would be a bigger factor than one 'maybe' game, and as it stands, the AFL probably makes less from TV rights in order to convince ch7 to broadcast every Sydney/GWS game into your home market.

Is your argument that the potential for finals series featuring northern state teams brings in extra money, however overall they bring the value of the deal down due to playing every one of those games live into the Northern teams' home markets?

 

[Lensen]

Because they're also paying for potential, especially come finals time. Look at the five highest rating grand finals of all time and see what they have in common.

Whilst a fair point, and probably unquantifiable, it would be staggeringly bad business to pay a massive premium over a 200 game season because there's the chance the Swans will be there come GF day

 

[Kummerspeck]

Whilst a fair point, and probably unquantifiable, it would be staggeringly bad business to pay a massive premium over a 200 game season because there's the chance the Swans will be there come GF day

NOT IF THE COMPETITION IS ENGINEERED TO WIN THEM FLAGS!!!!1 Seriously though, access to the northern markets in the regular season would be important, too. Regardless of what you think about viewer numbers, without a presence in the two states that make up over half the population, and without the chance of the finals series being guaranteed top ranking TV events, the rights would take a significant hit.