Jesse Hogan(mini-draft)- priority for us

[theGav56]

And that post shows why whiteoak's personal posting style is worth it. Intelligent. Sharp. Amusing.

 

[Silent Alarm]

If Melbourne die, have a mass expulsion, or he just goes, I reckon he'll want to stay in Melbs. I know a heap of blokes who are mates with him, and he's given them the "impress Vic clubs the most" advice. Unless we offer him Buddy-like figures, he probably won't come back.

 

[whiteoak]

At least eight clubs in the AFL are not independently viable entities. Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sydney, GWS, Melbourne, Bulldogs, North Melbourne and Port Adelaide all rely on AFL assistance to remain in the league.

Sydney have been propped up for 20 years, have been one of the more successful sides in that period, and have a number of associated concessions to assist them, yet still cannot reliably turn a profit. In a city of 4.5 million. When will this club be viable? Why do they continually get concessions and handouts which actually are distorting the league?

The reality is that the AFL is heavily reliant on a handful of clubs supporting the rest of the league. Killing Melbourne won't make North Melbourne or the Western Bulldogs any more viable. Killing all of those three won't make Collingwood any more profitable. It will undermine the status of the game in Melbourne, which as much as Sydney, is the reason why the TV networks pay over $1 billion for the rights.

Oh come on Clay.

Yes, we know it's you. You're a bit hard to miss.

The established Victorian clubs you mention are compensated under the equalisation fund and all, with possible exception of North, have reasonable chances of viability in the future once certain agreements have ended. I.E.: Unviable stadium deals at Docklands and Footy Park which are strangling their finances for example.

The expansion clubs are just that, and for them to survive initially they obviously need funding and support. That's just common sense.

I singled out North, because they knocked back the Gold Coast deal. So they are in sink or swim territory and if they fail, then tough t***ies to them too. They've had their chance and I won't spill a tear for them either.

However, none of the clubs that you mention have made the absolute clusterf*** of their situation like the MFC. You and I both know that their situation is primarily of their own doing, (they couldn't even cheat properly for Christs sake), and they have been spoon fed money and draft picks hand over fist for years and years.

Out of all of the clubs you mention they have the least connection with their supporter base, they also have the least appeal to draw new members and supporters, as their culture and ethos is aimed squarely at the big end of town, not the average suburban battler/bogan/footy supporter who will actually get off his arse to buy a membership and go to a game. They are an elitist club and have painted themselves into a corner by portraying themselves as such.

No amount of high profile advertising and public appearances in their new "expansion" area in Melbourne will change that perception. They are a dead duck in the water, and only a regime change at AFL Commission and CEO level will see the necessary steps taken to rid the competition of them.

Again, you and I both know how Victorian-centric the Commission is at present, and they are loathe to bring in yet another interstate interloper who will further dilute their influence. Politics Clay. I'm sure that you understand.

As for the AFL relying on the big clubs to support the rest of the league. More horseshit from you Clay.

The amount of revenue generated by clubs is small change compared to TV rights and naming right sponsor funding.

Hence Demetriou stating this week that the current MFC fiasco is "harming the brand". It is the "brand", afterall, which they sell to the sponsors and TV networks. Not individual clubs.

 

[Silent Alarm]

Melbourne seriously have about three things keeping them in the competition: their age, their name, their connections.

Remember that this is a club who's supporters willingly wanted to merge. Plenty of clubs have had their fans, quite literally, tin rattling to keep their favourite past time.

I reckon we'll look back on the Dees as dying when David Neitz retired.

 

[Enya]

The established Victorian clubs you mention are compensated under the equalisation fund and all, with possible exception of North, have reasonable chances of viability in the future once certain agreements have ended. I.E.: Unviable stadium deals at Docklands and Footy Park which are strangling their finances for example.

I mentioned three Victorian clubs. So with the possible exception of North, and Melbourne who are according to you unviable, the historically weakest of the three in the Western Bulldogs is apparently viable, once freed from the yoke of Docklands. I highly doubt that.

All three of them have equivalent problems with small supporter bases and lack of appeal. If one is unviable then the rest have to be considered unviable too.

You don't think the TV rights have anything to do with the biggest clubs? Why do you think Collingwood get more prime time games than any other club? Why do you think they get so many games in Melbourne?

The bottom clubs are kept alive so the big Melbourne clubs can play 18 games per season there, beamed into Victorian lounge rooms almost every Friday night. A few million slinged here and there is a small price to pay to have the cash cows of Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, etc pulling the money in.

How often do you hear from supporters of Melbourne clubs that they don't go to some games of their team because "they're only playing Freo"? That's the market they are pandering too, and that's why the old VFL clubs are kept alive.

 

[caterina]

Caterina, you are neither obviously. I dont intend to name names.

I wasn't asking if I was one of them, was more of a general observation. Anyway, we're all in agreement, Jesse Hogan should get out of Melbourne.

 

[whiteoak]

I mentioned three Victorian clubs. So with the possible exception of North, and Melbourne who are according to you unviable, the historically weakest of the three in the Western Bulldogs is apparently viable, once freed from the yoke of Docklands. I highly doubt that.

All three of them have equivalent problems with small supporter bases and lack of appeal. If one is unviable then the rest have to be considered unviable too.

You don't think the TV rights have anything to do with the biggest clubs? Why do you think Collingwood get more prime time games than any other club? Why do you think they get so many games in Melbourne?

The bottom clubs are kept alive so the big Melbourne clubs can play 18 games per season there, beamed into Victorian lounge rooms almost every Friday night. A few million slinged here and there is a small price to pay to have the cash cows of Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, etc pulling the money in.

How often do you hear from supporters of Melbourne clubs that they don't go to some games of their team because "they're only playing Freo"? That's the market they are pandering too, and that's why the old VFL clubs are kept alive.

Again, I feel that it is important to highlight that you constantly/deliberately neglect to address the topic of Melbourne causing this all themselves. And the inherent injustice of continuously propping them up for these actions.

I have stated above why I believe that the MFC have zero chance of becoming viable, as I have offered my feelings in regards to North. They are led by a total muppet in Brayshaw who is clearly there for his media profile and not his business acumen. As I said before, they have made their bed and I care not if they fold as well.

I believe that the Bulldogs have the best chance with the expansion area that they've been given. They also appeal to the demographic with their working class roots and underdog tag. They have a fine coach imo and a developing list. Some sustained success, (finals), in the years to come and freedom from the yoke of the Docklands deal will see them go ok in the future in my estimation.

If, as you say, the bottom clubs are kept alive so the big Melbourne clubs can play 18 games a season and boost the TV rights deal, then common sense would dictate that it wouldn't matter who they were playing. The Big 4 supporters are there to watch their team afterall.

With a successful Fremantle this year, do you think that a Prelim Final between Essendon and Fremantle, for example, would rate much differently to Essendon/MFC game on a national level. Or an Essendon/Tasmania Demons, or a Collingwood/New Zealand Kangaroos PF?

I don't think so. Those clubs supporters will tune into watch their club against a competitive team, regardless of who it is.

But how many, today, will switch on Foxtel/Seven to watch their team give out a 100 point thrashing against the current Melbourne Demons?

That is what Demetriou meant when he said that the brand is being damaged.

People switch off the telly and go and dig the vegie garden instead.

 

[Paracleet]

I mentioned three Victorian clubs. So with the possible exception of North, and Melbourne who are according to you unviable, the historically weakest of the three in the Western Bulldogs is apparently viable, once freed from the yoke of Docklands. I highly doubt that.

All three of them have equivalent problems with small supporter bases and lack of appeal. If one is unviable then the rest have to be considered unviable too.

You don't think the TV rights have anything to do with the biggest clubs? Why do you think Collingwood get more prime time games than any other club? Why do you think they get so many games in Melbourne?

The bottom clubs are kept alive so the big Melbourne clubs can play 18 games per season there, beamed into Victorian lounge rooms almost every Friday night. A few million slinged here and there is a small price to pay to have the cash cows of Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, etc pulling the money in.

How often do you hear from supporters of Melbourne clubs that they don't go to some games of their team because "they're only playing Freo"? That's the market they are pandering too, and that's why the old VFL clubs are kept alive.

Typical pueso-logic from you there. The flip side is that for every small drawing team they leave in melbourne its two, three or four less opportunities for a big club v big club match a year which draws bigger crowds and bigger tv viewerships. Your reason is not the reason they are kept alive, afterall it wasn't so many years that they were trying to actively get rid of a couple of the vic sides. What's different now is instead of a few 100 million for tv rights they are now on 1.2 billion with a pay tv partner screaming for content.
The reasons you give are the ones keeping a Tassie side out, not leaving the weak vic clubs in.

 

[Enya]

What is pueso logic? Is it Spanish or something? Amusing from Bigfooty's version of William Safire.

The AFL already doubles up on blockbusters every year. Just as redundant rivalries like Richmond vs Carlton are still given prime slots as the opener at the MCG.

whiteoak, I ask you, why should a club forever have their name tarred by decisions made by Cameron Schwab?

Anyway, I'm off to the soccer. Talk to you idiots later.

 

[scon]

What is pueso logic? Is it Spanish or something? Amusing from Bigfooty's version of William Safire.

The AFL already doubles up on blockbusters every year. Just as redundant rivalries like Richmond vs Carlton are still given prime slots as the opener at the MCG.

whiteoak, I ask you, why should a club forever have their name tarred by decisions made by Cameron Schwab?

Anyway, I'm off to the soccer. Talk to you idiots later.

Let me know if Mark Schwarzer plays a pseudo or titular skipper's role on the night.

 

[Freo Shark]

Care to name names as to who those arseholes and fools are freo shark? Just as a favour to them, as they struggle under the misapprehension that they are only expressing opinions when they post. Cheers.

Which names would you like me to name?

 

[whiteoak]

What is pueso logic? Is it Spanish or something? Amusing from Bigfooty's version of William Safire.

The AFL already doubles up on blockbusters every year. Just as redundant rivalries like Richmond vs Carlton are still given prime slots as the opener at the MCG.

whiteoak, I ask you, why should a club forever have their name tarred by decisions made by Cameron Schwab?

Anyway, I'm off to the soccer. Talk to you idiots later.

That was ratified by their administration of the time and implemented by other senior staff. On more than one occasion over a period of years.

That's why Clay.

Soccer suits you.

 

[holy diver]

Why do some people feel sorry for MFC? They did bring the entire calamity upon themselves through nefarious means. If there is ANY way we could get Jesse Hogan to Freo' due the MFC's softcockness the club must pursue.

 

[Wigarus]

Why do some people feel sorry for MFC? They did bring the entire calamity upon themselves through nefarious means. If there is ANY way we could get Jesse Hogan to Freo' due the MFC's softcockness the club must pursue.

I don't feel sorry for Melbourne at all but people like Neeld, a couple of new draftees etc, its hard not to feel sorry for the people that didn't contribute anything to their plight but have to deal with it.

 

[holy diver]

I don't feel sorry for Melbourne at all but people like Neeld, a couple of new draftees etc, its hard not to feel sorry for the people that didn't contribute anything to their plight but have to deal with it.

Yeah, Neeld kind of got sucker punched when they appointed him but at the end of the day he at least got a good pay out to walk away from that sewage pit of a club.

 

[Alfonz]

Why feel sorry for Neeld? He wanted the job. Then went in with whatever he thought was needed, but clearly no clue how to actually handle the situation. And for being one of the most incompetent coaches in a very long time he gets to walk away with a massive payout that is way above what someone with his skills should actually earn. He's done pretty well for himself.

 

[Enya]

That was ratified by their administration of the time and implemented by other senior staff. On more than one occasion over a period of years.

The Hatt & McLean era went on for seven years. Should the club have been wrapped up then?

 

[whiteoak]

The Hatt & McLean era went on for seven years. Should the club have been wrapped up then?

Considering that we were an expansion club in a two team football mad state with fantastic growth potential in all areas? And did we cheat, get numerous PP's and still go cap in hand for more money from the AFL? Did we ever have 10,000 fans turn up to a home game?

No. I don't think so. And neither do you.

But then again, we really are comparing apples and oranges here, aren't we.

You know why I like you Clay?

You like an argument even more than I do.

And that can only be a good thing.

But just be careful. The meek have indeed inherited the Earth** and we all have to be very, very nice to each other.

**this board.

 

[Arcassius]

for posterity.

 

[Enya]

Plenty of clubs have cheated in this competition and then fallen on hard times. Carlton is the prime example. They cheated the salary cap, fell into debt, were rescued by the AFL, and arguably tanked as well (though the AFL didn't want to know about it then). There's an argument put by former players that Fremantle 'cheated' in 1999. I don't believe it, but it's on the record just as Brock McLean put it on the record about Melbourne.

Essendon are still the only club to cheat the salary cap in a premiership year, and now have the PED thing hanging over them. And hey, look at the AFL assistance they're getting, Demetriou personally contacting their sponsors, among other things. If you want to find examples of impropriety in the AFL, you don't have to look very far.

The AFL are committed to 18 clubs, and there are no viable options for relocating a struggling club - except maybe to Western Australia, which is a growing state, economically prosperous, and under catered for when it comes to football.

 

[Kickett Punches Read]

Why feel sorry for Neeld? He wanted the job. Then went in with whatever he thought was needed, but clearly no clue how to actually handle the situation. And for being one of the most incompetent coaches in a very long time he gets to walk away with a massive payout that is way above what someone with his skills should actually earn. He's done pretty well for himself.

I stopped feeling sorry for neeld the moment he decided it would be a good idea to have a 19 year old and a 20 year old as co-captains... unbelievably bad decision, and a real slap in the face to the one honest trier they do have in Nathan jones, it shows he clearly is lacking in footy sense.

as for the club, the only club I loathe more than Melbourne is west coast, if we could fold up west coast and keep Melbourne, id be happy... but seeing as that wont happen, I reckon Melbourne should be shipped straight to van diemens land and a new franchise created

 

[Taylor]

The Tassie Devils wouldn't be so far removed from the Demons.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I stopped feeling sorry for neeld the moment he decided it would be a good idea to have a 19 year old and a 20 year old as co-captains... unbelievably bad decision, and a real slap in the face to the one honest trier they do have in Nathan jones, it shows he clearly is lacking in footy sense.

as for the club, the only club I loathe more than Melbourne is west coast, if we could fold up west coast and keep Melbourne, id be happy... but seeing as that wont happen, I reckon Melbourne should be shipped straight to van diemens land and a new franchise created

Vossy was captain at a similar age wasnt he? At that turned out pretty well.

Melbourne should merge with North Melbourne, and create one club with a decent amount of supporters.

Fitzroy should have merged with the Buldogs, so that there is one thriving club.

Tasmania should get a clean team.

 

[BananaOnTheRun]

Melbourne should merge with North Melbourne, and create one club with a decent amount of supporters.

They could call themselves the Melbourne Panhandlers.

 

[UFO Tatsu]

Vossy was captain at a similar age wasnt he? At that turned out pretty well.

vossy was initially co-captains with a. lynch before he assumed full captaincy few years later on ... having a experience player sharing the responsibility would of helped him get used to the role ... the dees would of been better off co-captaining one of the youngsters with jones