I’d like us to do bothJust.............WIN!
That's literally all it takes.
I’d like us to do bothJust.............WIN!
That's literally all it takes.
I’d like us to do both
Flags mate, that’s what we need to winWe saw, in the first half of 2016, that winning isn't enough.
That smoke is coming from my ears. Gutter journalist with an ax to grind. Vague and unsubstantiated tripe from a sh*t stain of a human. Clearly Joyce and BS were feeding that prick and it’s high time the club just outright shun these muckrakers.Time to circle the wagons again, the smoke signals are pretty easy to read.
From the rafters.Bring back PAgan’s siege mentality. Take the gloves off and start f*n swinging.
Not even trying to do it by stealth.Time to circle the wagons again, the smoke signals are pretty easy to read.
Can't agree. Losing the second half of that season more than offset the good start.We saw, in the first half of 2016, that winning isn't enough.
EFAHe’s officially turned.
I consider him an enema.
The way Amarfio presents himself and the club in the media will be fascinating. We've taken an inoffensive, eager-to-make-everyone-happy approach for a long time. Amarfio's profile indicates he may be a bit more prickly than that. And his experience in media and broadcasting at the AFL, Austereo and CA would suggest he would know how the media game works. Interesting times.I want Amarfio’s first order of business to call out Barrett for his putrid article.
Yep, that article was Caro-esque. He’s gone from tantrums to malevolent and outright dangerous if he keeps this up. If there is an AFL agenda in place, he’s the new mouthpiece.He’s officially turned.
I consider him an enemy.
The new CEO is our war time consigliereTime to circle the wagons again, the smoke signals are pretty easy to read.
I cant get past that it’s published on the afl site, with the fixture and this article it’s pretty clear that they don’t want us. It’s not even a conspiracy theory it’s flat out obvious.Yep, that article was Caro-esque. He’s gone from tantrums to malevolent and outright dangerous if he keeps this up. If there is an AFL agenda in place, he’s the new mouthpiece.
This being in the middle of the article, while mentioning the cost of giving people boot, and not mentioning how good our financial position in recent years has been tell you all you need to know about how the media/AFL will try to shaft us. Historically unsuccessful. Bad at managing the club and their finances. Wouldn't even be surviving if not for Tassie. etc etcThe regularly struggling club - the one which took 50 years to win its first VFL premiership, which was forced into a private ownership structure in the 1980s as a last-resort survival project, which the AFL was desperate to move to the Gold Coast in the late 2000s – is again in a vulnerable state.
These figures have been floating around for a long time and I believe them. We would have a third of the season split between North and South Tasmania, the rest of our home games in Melbourne and then another ~8 being away games in Melbourne (don't misinterpret the quotation marks around "home" as meaning actual home games). And it would be easy to sell; we travel for roughly half our games which is just as many as the interstate teams travel for."There is clearly a deal to be made for North in Tasmania, a potentially lucrative one which could see the club maintain an 11 "home" game arrangement in Melbourne as well as servicing eight or nine matches in Hobart and Launceston."
In what alternate universe could 11 home games in Melbourne, and 8-9 in Tassie for 1 club be even a remote possibility ? this sounds more like the ravings of a lunatic than an officially sanctioned ? journalist to be honest.
None of that is true. I'm not defending the Tasmania arrangement at all, but Geelong's home games at Docklands have never had anything to do with our choice to play in Hobart. The replacement games that NMFC members receive are always negotiated between NMFC and the other Victorian clubs AFTER the draw comes out. Those deals have absolutely nothing to do with the AFL or their fixturing. The AFL does not have to make any concessions to NMFC to accommodate the Hobart home games presently. Reasons for Geelong hosting NMFC at Docklands have most commonly revolved around construction delays at Kardinia Park. Again, nothing to do with Hobart. If Geelong supporters have a problem with playing us at Docklands, then they should stop putting their hand out for government money to expand their shithole.Anyway, Geelong should be complaining about the "replacement games" system because several times they've had to play home games at Etihad/Marvel to accommodate our Hobart setup. It's not fair on them and it's a temporary salve at best.
Absolutely SPOT ON!Wtf is that about with Tom Lynch? I'd assume he didn't pick up the phone because he was never called
It's a fair point but the whole piece is couched in so much rhetoric what does he expect?
An alternative view...
Reads like the poor bastard is going to believe anything that Barrett throws out there.
An alternative view...
That also stinks of the bullshit that was fed to Fitzroy supporters about the amount of games Brisbane would play in Melbourne."There is clearly a deal to be made for North in Tasmania, a potentially lucrative one which could see the club maintain an 11 "home" game arrangement in Melbourne as well as servicing eight or nine matches in Hobart and Launceston."
In what alternate universe could 11 home games in Melbourne, and 8-9 in Tassie for 1 club be even a remote possibility ? this sounds more like the ravings of a lunatic than an officially sanctioned ? journalist to be honest.