Remove this Banner Ad

Five years on ...

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Tas said:
I am happy my team is improving off-field. I don't want to see other go through what we did.

I'd prefer if the AFL fixed problems rather than spend a fortune expanding. I think if core issues are not addressed then the notion of a level playing field will go from a delusion to outright fantasy. Free Agency is going to push a quarter of the clubs with no immediate prospects into talent development clubs. People think it is bad now, we have a tiny fraction of players out of contract this year due to expansion clubs, it is going to get bigger and worse as years go on.
Click to expand...
But they can't afford to not expand, that's the business they're in.
for all the pissing & moaning, a lot of these 'core issues' actually can't be fixed - umpiring, some clubs being smaller than others, clubs' making bad decisions & getting themselves into a hole, etc.

Greedy players and a greedy administration is pissing on our code. It was never meant to be about money.
Click to expand...
As for your last line... eternal optimist? That's fantasy land; money's always been a huge factor, now it's just worse. At least there's equalisation now & something close to equal opportunities in recruiting.
 
DawOfPromotion said:
In the era of drafting and the salary cap, North and Collingwood have both won two flags.

Us getting flogged had nothing to do with money, it was to do with the fact that a bunch of kids who had run out of petrol tickets two weeks before came up against a very good side at their interstate fortress.
Click to expand...
Have I blacked out & missed something? I didn't think North had won anything since the era of "give a struggling club a large wad of cash for two very, very good prospects" ?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Slattery_20 said:
But they can't afford to not expand, that's the business they're in.
for all the pissing & moaning, a lot of these 'core issues' actually can't be fixed - umpiring, some clubs being smaller than others, clubs' making bad decisions & getting themselves into a hole, etc.
Click to expand...

AFL recognise how vital it is for clean stadiums for GWS and GC and spend a fortune building 2 stadiums that will each be partly used by 1 club in NSW and QLD yet we have 9 clubs in Melbourne, many of which would benefit significantly if there was a clean stadium to use when playing an interstate team.

Rather than spend a fortune on band aids that never address the problems, we could actually address the problem. We have a commitment to provide a minimum number of games and attendance levels for MCG and Docklands, there is a lot of scope to give clubs greater access to a smaller, cleaner stadium.

The will always be a wealth inequality, but it doesn't have to be as severe as it is now. At present the status quo is designed to make rich richer.

As for your last line... eternal optimist? That's fantasy land; money's always been a huge factor, now it's just worse. At least there's equalisation now & something close to equal opportunities in recruiting.
Click to expand...

The system was built on the draft and salary cap to provide equality. Free Agency is not problematic in terms of a team can't get more talent talent than they can afford, however, it makes it easy to be able to condemn some clubs into losing enough talent to deny them any realistic chance at success.

As soon as a successful team loses someone of note to retirement or if they are not living up to expectation they can just piss them off and go after a weaker club's better players. I would not want to be stuck in the bottom half of the ladder over the next few years when all the players people have kept away from GC/GWS come out of contract.

The no real cost to plunder weaker clubs is going to be a disaster. It is a free way to turn spuds like Slattery into Goddard or Dawes into well, almost anyone else.
 
Beer n Skittles said:
I just don't see how it's relevant. AFL weren't going to let Sydney fail, they were as financially secure as any club. They just stuffed up
Click to expand...

You do realise how close Sydney came to extinction twenty years ago? Essentially, had other clubs not signed off on a suggestion to redirect Sydney's licence fee to service their debt, they probably wouldn't be around as the Swans today. Carlton would have taken over the Sydney market from 1993 onwards.
 
North's poor stadium and TV deals are a cop out IMO. The Hawks were once in a terrible spot, but turned it around, and now enjoy a bumper membership and get lots of Friday nights.

You don't get handed the limelight. The Roos have an exciting list, the victim mentality helps no one.
 
Tas said:
The will always be a wealth inequality, but it doesn't have to be as severe as it is now. At present the status quo is designed to make rich richer.
Click to expand...
The severe inequality where about the 6th or 7th smallest club is holding up the silverware as we speak?
In no small part because they've been able to identify value players from larger clubs?
I'm afraid the world as it is doesn't reflect your fears.

As soon as a successful team loses someone of note to retirement or if they are not living up to expectation they can just piss them off and go after a weaker club's better players. I would not want to be stuck in the bottom half of the ladder over the next few years when all the players people have kept away from GC/GWS come out of contract.

The no real cost to plunder weaker clubs is going to be a disaster. It is a free way to turn spuds like Slattery into Goddard or Dawes into well, almost anyone else.
Click to expand...
Or, clubs will get their shit together & the sky won't fall.
We'll see.
It's "no real cost" for smaller clubs to plunder bigger ones, either; they just have to be good at it.
See Mattner, M; Mumford, S; Shaw, R - etc etc
 
bombermick said:
North's poor stadium and TV deals are a cop out IMO. The Hawks were once in a terrible spot, but turned it around, and now enjoy a bumper membership and get lots of Friday nights.

You don't get handed the limelight. The Roos have an exciting list, the victim mentality helps no one.
Click to expand...

This would be valid, if the broadcasting agreement and fixture was the same now as it was 1997-2001.
 
Some North fans above were complaining about the introduction of the new teams - rather than fixing issues like ground deals - but neglect to mention it's the money from these new teams that allows you to stay competitive with the big boys.

The status quo isn't designed to make the rich richer, for the AFL is almost socialist. If it was capitalism, there's no way 10 clubs in Melbourne would survive.
 
I have learned that when North make the finals, don't even attempt to watch any of their finals matches because it will be a one-sided, boring match where North get flogged by 10 goals plus
 
Seriously, can we keep North threads to the North board? Haven't read a single thing of interest relating to North since Wayne Carey shagged what's her name.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

bombermick said:
North's poor stadium and TV deals are a cop out IMO. The Hawks were once in a terrible spot, but turned it around, and now enjoy a bumper membership and get lots of Friday nights.

You don't get handed the limelight. The Roos have an exciting list, the victim mentality helps no one.
Click to expand...

The victim mentality is all in your head. I don't know any Roo supporter that think we are a victims. We get money from the AFL for less exposure with TV time slots and play the smaller drawing teams. It does not mean we are victims - it means the AFL are maximising revenue.

We play a better standard and a better brand of football than Essendon - I don't expect to be handed ANZAC day or the Pies and Blues twice.
 
KrakFiend said:
Seriously, can we keep North threads to the North board? Haven't read a single thing of interest relating to North since Wayne Carey shagged what's her name.
Click to expand...

How about you just don't come into any North threads? I would have thought that would have be the logical thing to do but then I saw who you support.
 
UseYourIllusion said:
This would be valid, if the broadcasting agreement and fixture was the same now as it was 1997-2001.
Click to expand...
Whats that time frame got to do with anything?

In late 2004 Hawthorn drew 11,000 to the MCG to see one of the form clubs in the league play them.

They've bounced back since about then to become the club they are now.
 
mufassa said:
How about you just don't come into any North threads? I would have thought that would have be the logical thing to do but then I saw who you support.
Click to expand...

Given I don't think North threads belong on the main board, it makes sense that I would open them and tell them such. Just doing my bit for the community. Surely the 7 North supporters on here could just chat on msn or something.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

KrakFiend said:
Given I don't think North threads belong on the main board, it makes sense that I would open them and tell them such. Just doing my bit for the community. Surely the 7 North supporters on here could just chat on msn or something.
Click to expand...

And now an attempt at humour - you are a clever little Pie.:thumbsu:

My 7 Roo supporters on here find this type of humour more to our liking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycYpie31L0g&sns=em
 
Slattery_20 said:
The severe inequality where about the 6th or 7th smallest club is holding up the silverware as we speak?
In no small part because they've been able to identify value players from larger clubs?
I'm afraid the world as it is doesn't reflect your fears.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about, Sydney is near the top of the AFL for football department spending. They have THE best stadium deal in the AFL.

Or, clubs will get their shit together & the sky won't fall.
We'll see.
It's "no real cost" for smaller clubs to plunder bigger ones, either; they just have to be good at it.
See Mattner, M; Mumford, S; Shaw, R - etc etc
Click to expand...

Again, they have the resources to spend in the football department and Swans haven't been a struggling club for a long time on-field. They won the flag and have $1m to throw at Tippett, they have a much larger cap and the resources to utilise it.
 
bombermick said:
Some North fans above were complaining about the introduction of the new teams - rather than fixing issues like ground deals - but neglect to mention it's the money from these new teams that allows you to stay competitive with the big boys.

The status quo isn't designed to make the rich richer, for the AFL is almost socialist. If it was capitalism, there's no way 10 clubs in Melbourne would survive.
Click to expand...

Except AD said the money for expansion is being funded largely from Victoria.

I am not against expansion. I am against leaving issues in Victoria and funnelling vast amounts of money to expansion when problems could be fixed here that would save them more money in the long-term by not having to drip feed half the clubs here with 'assistance' money.

If you added up all the handouts they have dished out over the years, they would be a long way to have funded a permanent solution already.
 
Tas said:
What are you talking about, Sydney is near the top of the AFL for football department spending. They have THE best stadium deal in the AFL.



Again, they have the resources to spend in the football department and Swans haven't been a struggling club for a long time on-field. They won the flag and have $1m to throw at Tippett, they have a much larger cap and the resources to utilise it.
Click to expand...
They're a small club; small following; small crowds. They prove that small clubs, if they're run well, can compete with the very biggest.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Five years on ...

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top