The problem as I see it is a lack of clear direction on the issue of equalisation.
In many ways I support the AFL's handling of this issue. We have an AFL commission so that the interests for the game can be maximised, not the interests of individual clubs.
I don't have a problem with the comp subsibizing some clubs and not others if those clubs are of strategic importance to the competition as a whole (Brisbane, Sydney).
I also feel that clubs need to make their own destiny, which North to their credit are very good at. But whilst North stay in North (or St Kilda, or Western Bulldogs for that matter in Melbourne) then I think it is fair that they are required to do that on their own. If that is the strategic direction they chose to take then I sincerely hope they succeed as I do not want to see any club fold, and I will personally support them....but I don't think a club can say that they are staying put, not implementing a strategic plan and expect the same support as South Melbourne who took action to ensure their future. Again, this is just a general statement, not necessarily about North who I think are great at looking to ensure their future in Melbourne.
I don't think we should do away with the forced draw which enshrines blockbusters, as it is in the best interests of the AFL, perhaps not North but it is for the AFL (tradition, ratings, catering, etc). That says to me that clubs which do not have the support or membership to prosper in their own right are saying that it is fair that they get equal access to the benefits of other clubs large membership. I disagree. If I run a corner store which gets 10 customers a day, and next door there is a supermarket which gets 10,000 a day then I must compete. I can't just demand that some of the supermarket customer's visit my store.
anyway.....
ptw