Jade
Smug lives here.
Chess Club Tournament Winner
10k Posts
30k Posts
Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 - Colyer, Fantasia, McDonald-Tipungwuti and McKernan
BeanCoiNFT Investor
Essendon Player Sponsor 2017
Essendon Player Sponsor 2016
Essendon Player Sponsor 2014
Essendon Player Sponsor 2013
Essendon Player Sponsor 2012
Essendon Player Sponsor 2011
Podcaster
Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
Meet-Up Master
- Jul 8, 2008
- 34,634
- 53,749
- AFL Club
- Essendon
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives.
It is the one that is most adaptable to change."
- Charles Darwin
A decade ago, in 2007, Carlton trailed only the Pies (and not by much) from the traditional Victorian clubs in membership figures. They enter 2017 ranked sixth in a ten team market in this regard.
Fifteen years ago, Carlton were the only Victorian club in existence that had yet to claim a wooden spoon; an incredibly impressive feat considering they were a foundation club. Entering 2017 they have now claimed four, and are favourite or second favourite to claim a fifth.
On field and off, Carlton have regressed significantly in comparison to their peers, so the simple question is this;
What has happened to the Carlton Football Club?
On field or off, the cause of this malaise seems common, and it seems clear; a succession of senior administrations has refused to adapt to a changing industry and has been left behind.
In isolation, it can be difficult to recognise.
Carlton's well known salary cap indiscretions came at a time when an ageing list was transitioning out of the club - thus the accompanying penalties came at a time when the Blues most needed to replenish through the draft. The inability to replenish on an equal footing with the rest of the league hurt - but this to me has been an all too easy excuse to point to. Yes, those sanctions hurt, but at the same time they seem to plaster over the very significant cracks in decision making not a football level, but at an administrative level.
It's only when you start to compare them to their peers that you start to see a pattern of poor decision making, across consecutive administrations.
A couple of notable examples:
- Planning for what would be announced as Docklands Stadium (now Etihad) was well underway when Carlton committed to an $8.5m redevelopment of Princes Park. The resulting stand was only used for eight years before being effectively rendered redundant when the venue ceased to be used as an AFL venue.
- A failure to realise that support needed to be cultivated outside of the traditional club corridors. Think Hawthorn and North Melbourne with Tasmania, The Dogs with Ballarat and North Australia, St Kilda and it's efforts in New Zealand. Carlton have failed to spearhead any significant expansion projects - it's best effort a short lived sponsorship arrangement with Tourism Malaysia.
So what do you think?
Has Carlton failed to adapt to a changing industry? If so, is this a legacy issue due to it's long history of success?
Have the Blues adequately acted to grow its supporter base and sponsorship?
What has caused the generational decline of the Blues?
It is the one that is most adaptable to change."
- Charles Darwin
A decade ago, in 2007, Carlton trailed only the Pies (and not by much) from the traditional Victorian clubs in membership figures. They enter 2017 ranked sixth in a ten team market in this regard.
Fifteen years ago, Carlton were the only Victorian club in existence that had yet to claim a wooden spoon; an incredibly impressive feat considering they were a foundation club. Entering 2017 they have now claimed four, and are favourite or second favourite to claim a fifth.
On field and off, Carlton have regressed significantly in comparison to their peers, so the simple question is this;
What has happened to the Carlton Football Club?
On field or off, the cause of this malaise seems common, and it seems clear; a succession of senior administrations has refused to adapt to a changing industry and has been left behind.
In isolation, it can be difficult to recognise.
Carlton's well known salary cap indiscretions came at a time when an ageing list was transitioning out of the club - thus the accompanying penalties came at a time when the Blues most needed to replenish through the draft. The inability to replenish on an equal footing with the rest of the league hurt - but this to me has been an all too easy excuse to point to. Yes, those sanctions hurt, but at the same time they seem to plaster over the very significant cracks in decision making not a football level, but at an administrative level.
It's only when you start to compare them to their peers that you start to see a pattern of poor decision making, across consecutive administrations.
A couple of notable examples:
- Planning for what would be announced as Docklands Stadium (now Etihad) was well underway when Carlton committed to an $8.5m redevelopment of Princes Park. The resulting stand was only used for eight years before being effectively rendered redundant when the venue ceased to be used as an AFL venue.
- A failure to realise that support needed to be cultivated outside of the traditional club corridors. Think Hawthorn and North Melbourne with Tasmania, The Dogs with Ballarat and North Australia, St Kilda and it's efforts in New Zealand. Carlton have failed to spearhead any significant expansion projects - it's best effort a short lived sponsorship arrangement with Tourism Malaysia.
So what do you think?
Has Carlton failed to adapt to a changing industry? If so, is this a legacy issue due to it's long history of success?
Have the Blues adequately acted to grow its supporter base and sponsorship?
What has caused the generational decline of the Blues?
