VFL Almost closed by corporate regulator 1986

[The_Wookie]

Yep, & we get the 'Poor bugger me' from some. As if we cant see who got the Lions share of the benefits of being in a national competition.

Talk about 'having your cake & eating it as well'. Honestly the attitude is appallingly selfish.

The infighting comes about because most can see the ridiculous situation of so many welfare dependent clubs in one city.

Its not a properly run national league. Its the life jackets for old mates league.

Sure it is. It was also the lifejacket for Port Adelaide, Brisbane (now for the third time), Sydney (twice), the money from West Coast and Fremantle and their matches keeps the WAFL afloat. Its the only thing keeping Gold Coast and GWS running. But hey once again its all about Victoria and Victorians right?

Just because theres no tasmanian side doesnt make it not a properly run national league.

 

[GreyCrow]

SANFL clubs were pretty much propped up by VFL clubs transfer fees though weren't they? The VFL were going to dramatically reduce this (if not downright remove it) so it wouldn't have turned out well for the SANFL clubs if they continued to hold out. Especially with the VFL refusing to play State of Origin games at Footy Park as well.

No. The transfer fees were not propping up the SANFL.

Good luck playing WA every year in SOO.

They needed SA in to call it national ( without Tasmania)

 

[The_Wookie]

No. The transfer fees were not propping up the SANFL.

They were propping up the SANFL clubs to a certain extent - not as much as the WAFL though. SANFL clubs did start to report financial losses after transfer fees were abolished by the VFL - in 1989, eight clubs reported significant losses.

Good luck playing WA every year in SOO.

They needed SA in to call it national ( without Tasmania)

You can have a national league without two states even. Theres no convention that requires a national competition to be based in all or even most states. It certainly helps the perception though.

 

[deltablues]

The AFL is the VFL with some interstate teams added. If it were a true national competition like the NFL there would by definition be no "interstate" teams - in the NFL we don't have "interstate" teams.

All of the issues raised in these sorts of threads - i.e. the VFL/state rivalries/state leagues/who saved whom yada yada - are the final remnants of the old pre-AFL world, on their way to being subsumed by the event horizon of the black hole known as the AFL.

Fact is, the whole AFL/VFL redux thing was born with a club foot. Had there been a clean sheet/green-field start-up, the AFL architecture would have been way different. So the whole debate is reminiscent of the old Persian proverb - the dogs continue to bark but the caravan has moved on.

But Tasmania should have a team (just hittin' the ball back over the net...).

 

[Kwality]

The AFL didnt save the VFL. The VFL saved the VFL - and THEN changed its name to AFL.



The VFL may not have had all of the best players, but it had enough - and enough money - from the 70s on that it was the go to place for footy. Others had their VFL aspirations stalled by clubs demanding high transfer fees - the WAFL and SANFL should be glad that the VFL didnt unilaterally stop paying transfer fees earlier than they did. A lot of the top WA players did make the move, a fair few of the best SA players did as well - the history of that is undeniable. Yes you can throw a list of players that didnt go at me, but it goes both ways.

(The other night on Friday Front Bar Bosustow told the story of how the Blues offered to pay $20,000 but his WAFL club, Perth, wanted $25,000 - Carlton wouldnt go that high and the Buzz was left in Perth. He apparently only found out about it a couple of years ago - long after - and was ropeable, said he would have paid the extra 5 grand himself to come back to the VFL. This was 1984.)

Yes the VFL differs from the AFL in that only one comp has all the best.

The transfer fee is a quite a horse of a different colour.

 

[Kwality]

Sure it is. It was also the lifejacket for Port Adelaide, Brisbane (now for the third time), Sydney (twice), the money from West Coast and Fremantle and their matches keeps the WAFL afloat. Its the only thing keeping Gold Coast and GWS running. But hey once again its all about Victoria and Victorians right?

Just because theres no tasmanian side doesnt make it not a properly run national league.

 

[The_Wookie]

Yes the VFL differs from the AFL in that only one comp has all the best.

The transfer fee is a quite a horse of a different colour.

It goes part of the way to explaining why more didnt make the journey over. The SA Player retention scheme was another reason. The VFL did by and large pull most of WA's best talent over, and a fair bit of SA's, and suggesting otherwise is a little disengenuous. Sure the likes of Stephen Micheal, Michael Aish and Barry Robran may not have made it over to Victoria, but plenty of others did.

 

[telsor]

You claim poor old Victoria suffered. So l point out the obvious farce of that call, compared to the rest of the footy states. And Claim I Take YOU out of context & I have an ego. !!!

You are a rare one arent you! I call out your crap & you play the man in reply.. Typical.

How about justfying your statement to us.

I know you cant because its blatantly absurd.

I have justified my statement. Several times.

How many state leagues have had clubs killed off by the league like Fitzroy? (they were later resurrected by their fans..tell them they didn't suffer) Or relocated interstate like South Melbourne?

WA & SA both have all the same clubs playing in all the same leagues.

That you don't think it's suffering because other things happened doesn't change those facts.




Oh, and Tasmania was a basket case completely seperate from that...The first VFL/AFL involvement in fixing their problems was when they were asked to come in and help fix the mess of the first attempt at a statewide league. Not that Tas was ever in *anyones* plans for a national comp. So any 'suffering' in Tas is completely unrelated to a national comp...Although I'm sure you still blame Victoria for it.

 

[telsor]

Indeed mugsta

You overlook the VFL NEVER EVER had the best footballers as the AFL does ... many delude themselves that the VFL is now the AFL, when it was a very different beast.

Where did anyone say they did?

They had most of them though. Look at the SOO teams...Which comp did most of the players come from?

Indeed, that they even needed SOO shows how far behind WAFL & SANFL were. If they were close to VFL standard, they would have just had interleague matches. Instead, they needed to get most of their players back, and play the games at home (when travel was rarer and thus a bigger deal) in order to be competitive.

 

[telsor]

Seeing as how this thread has devolved to the usual 'how the evil Vics destroyed national football', lets look at how it was done in the enlightened state of Tasmania when creating a state league.

In 1985, with a background of decline in football across the state, they commissioned the Evers report.

Among it's recommendations was a state league, consisting of 5 clubs form the south, and 5 form the north and north west. Trouble is, this would have meant kicking a TANFL (the southern/hobart league) clubs out, so instead they promoted all 6 and graciously let 2 Launceston clubs into the new 'state league'. A year later they even let a couple of clubs in from the north-east.

So faced with a similar situation to the VFL, the most powerful league in Tas promoted all it's teams...

Just as well it's only the evil Victorians that act in a self interested manner.

Of course, the real difference was that the VFL was competently run (for the most part) and didn't financially collapse (like the Tas league and it's clubs did).

 

[madmug]

Seeing as how this thread has devolved to the usual 'how the evil Vics destroyed national football', lets look at how it was done in the enlightened state of Tasmania when creating a state league.

In 1985, with a background of decline in football across the state, they commissioned the Evers report.

Among it's recommendations was a state league, consisting of 5 clubs form the south, and 5 form the north and north west. Trouble is, this would have meant kicking a TANFL (the southern/hobart league) clubs out, so instead they promoted all 6 and graciously let 2 Launceston clubs into the new 'state league'. A year later they even let a couple of clubs in from the north-east.

So faced with a similar situation to the VFL, the most powerful league in Tas promoted all it's teams...

Just as well it's only the evil Victorians that act in a self interested manner.

Of course, the real difference was that the VFL was competently run (for the most part) and didn't financially collapse (like the Tas league and it's clubs did).

Thanks for the history lesson. It requires analysis for it to be of much use in understanding the Tasmanian situation. Like all history, it requires analysis & interpretation.

For a start, how many of those 6 TFL clubs still play State League? Answer is 3. One, Sandy Bay is dead. The other 2 have been damaged by the TSL experience. You get that for trusting the AFL. Just ask Hobart & South Launceston

The point lve made over & over is the massive change That happened to footy & all community sport from the 80s to the 2000s was as much due to social change as the AFL itself.

The Biggest difference here was that with the professionalisation of the game, each state with an AFL club gained huge benefit both economically & through an association with the games professional development.

Tassie lost out on the social change swing but gained nothing on the professionalisation of the game via getting an AFL club.

So you point out the sad trail of events but have failed to explain why the game has stagnated here.

Simplistic regurgitation of facts & events doesnt show the socialogical & consequent economic forces at play.

AFL clubs are the cutting edge of the game. They are the drivers of the game. We get FIFO clubs here for the money. They add NOTHING to Tasmanian football. They soak up sponsorship , media & community attention. We rarely get players coming to play in the TSL. Even Melbourne metropolitan clubs get them, which adds to the young guys learning the game & helping coaching. AFL clubs can teach administrators etc etc.

Even the junior development is way underfunded compared to other places.

The TSL clubs get 100k each for doing a variety of tasks the AFLTas once did itself. Its called cost shifting onto clubs. The TSL costs a lot of crowd support as the supporters wont travel. A home game against a northern club is a financial cost.

lf a club did want to leave, AFLTas threatens to fund another club & free transfer your players to them. Ask South Launceston about that! That was Wade. We dont know what the new guy, the cheese maker, will bring. So far we've heard no more money for clubs. So they will battle on with fewer & fewer volunteers stepping up to help.

Having our own club would help the game here enormously IMO.

But you seem not to Understand the need for it as a counter to the damage done to to the game here. AFL/VFL actions/ non actions & social change being the causes. The current AFL funding is just a piss in the pot in comparison to what not having our own club would have done.

So dont bore me with the 'poor bugger me' attitude to how Victoria has 'suffered'.

Its just BS.

 

[telsor]

Thanks for the history lesson. It requires analysis for it to be of much use in understanding the Tasmanian situation. Like all history, it requires analysis & interpretation.

For a start, how many of those 6 TFL clubs still play State League? Answer is 3. One, Sandy Bay is dead. The other 2 have been damaged by the TSL experience. You get that for trusting the AFL. Just ask Hobart & South Launceston

The point lve made over & over is the massive change That happened to footy & all community sport from the 80s to the 2000s was as much due to social change as the AFL itself.

The Biggest difference here was that with the professionalisation of the game, each state with an AFL club gained huge benefit both economically & through an association with the games professional development.

Tassie lost out on the social change swing but gained nothing on the professionalisation of the game via getting an AFL club.

So you point out the sad trail of events but have failed to explain why the game has stagnated here.

Simplistic regurgitation of facts & events doesnt show the socialogical & consequent economic forces at play.

AFL clubs are the cutting edge of the game. They are the drivers of the game. We get FIFO clubs here for the money. They add NOTHING to Tasmanian football. They soak up sponsorship , media & community attention. We rarely get players coming to play in the TSL. Even Melbourne metropolitan clubs get them, which adds to the young guys learning the game & helping coaching. AFL clubs can teach administrators etc etc.

Even the junior development is way underfunded compared to other places.

The TSL clubs get 100k each for doing a variety of tasks the AFLTas once did itself. Its called cost shifting onto clubs. The TSL costs a lot of crowd support as the supporters wont travel. A home game against a northern club is a financial cost.

lf a club did want to leave, AFLTas threatens to fund another club & free transfer your players to them. Ask South Launceston about that! That was Wade. We dont know what the new guy, the cheese maker, will bring. So far we've heard no more money for clubs. So they will battle on with fewer & fewer volunteers stepping up to help.

Having our own club would help the game here enormously IMO.

But you seem not to Understand the need for it as a counter to the damage done to to the game here. AFL/VFL actions/ non actions & social change being the causes. The current AFL funding is just a piss in the pot in comparison to what not having our own club would have done.

So dont bore me with the 'poor bugger me' attitude to how Victoria has 'suffered'.

Its just BS.

So you agree that when faced with a similar choice, the strongest league in Tas made a similar choice about 'going state' to what the strongest league in Aus made with going national. Yet continue to blame everything on the evil VFL for doing what the TANFL did...

Is it just that you're embarrassed because Tas once again failed where Vic succeeded? Is that why you hate Victoria so much? Because we make you look bad by comparison?

 

[madmug]

So you agree that when faced with a similar choice, the strongest league in Tas made a similar choice about 'going state' to what the strongest league in Aus made with going national. Yet continue to blame everything on the evil VFL for doing what the TANFL did...

Is it just that you're embarrassed because Tas once again failed where Vic succeeded? Is that why you hate Victoria so much? Because we make you look bad by comparison?

You clearly didnt read/process my precious post

Your answer is both ignorant & arrogant. But given your previous post We wouldnt expect much else.

 

[Kwality]

Where did anyone say they did?

They had most of them though. Look at the SOO teams...Which comp did most of the players come from?

Indeed, that they even needed SOO shows how far behind WAFL & SANFL were. If they were close to VFL standard, they would have just had interleague matches. Instead, they needed to get most of their players back, and play the games at home (when travel was rarer and thus a bigger deal) in order to be competitive.

Sad.

 

[telsor]

Sad.

What?

That I showed just how many of the best players were in the VFL?

 

[telsor]

You clearly didnt read/process my precious post

Your answer is both ignorant & arrogant. But given your previous post We wouldnt expect much else.

No, I just ignored the bits that were just deflecting from the point. Which didn't leave much.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Where did anyone say they did?

They had most of them though. Look at the SOO teams...Which comp did most of the players come from?

Indeed, that they even needed SOO shows how far behind WAFL & SANFL were. If they were close to VFL standard, they would have just had interleague matches. Instead, they needed to get most of their players back, and play the games at home (when travel was rarer and thus a bigger deal) in order to be competitive.

It would be interesting to ask the players of the late 70's and early 80's if they would of stayed in the WAFL if they could of got the same money? The VFL we all know was the strongest of the three big leagues, don't think that is any secret and of course if all the good players from the other two leagues go there they become stronger and stronger. But love to know deep down in their heart did they go for money or to play in a stronger league. I reckon it would be a bit of both.
As for SOO well no state football can be successful unless you play for your own state and hence why SOO was very successful. Not sure how much of a career highlight it would of been for Barry Cable playing for Victoria in a state game. It simply does not make sense.

 

[Kwality]

What?

That I showed just how many of the best players were in the VFL?

Was it a claim, an unsupported claim ?

The point being that the AFL is an elite comp, the State based comps were local comps ...

 

[mianfei]

The problem in the 80s was the economy was stuffed, inflation was out of control, the economy was crashing and the costs were running out of control, the cost of running a club was doubling every 5 years and the revenue wasn't growing anywhere near as fast.

Broadcasting rights in 1985 was just $3.5m and C7 knew the VFL was hurting financially and did the campaigner move of dropping the offer for broadcasting rights in 1986 down to $2.7m, which the VFL rejected and the ABC pick up the coverage for that year, the community hammered C7 and abandoned their popular programs.

My club felt the pinch, we had been (expletive) since 1979 so the big crowds were gone, AFL forced us to abandon playing at Arden Street in 1985 so the break even point of games rose significantly. We floated shares to privatise the club to bring in some working capital, it fundamentally saved the club, although it would create issues down the track with corporate shenanigans and infighting for "power" and left us vulnerable as a club.

As the economy moved out of recession it had a big impact on the broadcasting revenue, C7 won the rights in 1987 for $6m per year, in 1992 for $17m per year and in 1998 for $40m per year. Pay TV establishes in the late 90s and in 2001 forced the broadcasting rights up to $500m with a lot of the Victorian games going exclusive to Foxtel. Broadcasting revenue has continued to surge, $750m in 2006, $1.25b in 2011 and the next contract is for $2.5b

The money from the sale of licenses was a much needed injection of money for struggling clubs, but the VFL saw short-term problems largely driven by wider economical factors. The sale of licences alone wouldn't have done anything to help or save the clubs or competition.

I think it is an over-simplification analysis that the new clubs saved the VFL, if you would extract the Victorian broadcasting revenue component from the national component and factored the loss of revenue based on the division of the revenue it probably has hurt Victorian clubs long-term. It cost us money to broadcast into NSW and QLD until it went to the secondary digital channels and the Perth/Adelaide advertising markets are small by comparison to Melbourne and are not lucrative enough for Foxtel to pay for exclusivity.

It was really a perfect storm of factors. If Gordon Lewis did his job and administrators were appointed, they would have radically reduced spending, might have seen Fitzroy survive and would have significantly hastened reforms. The competition and the clubs were just too slow to transition from amateur organisations to professional ones.

What job was Gordon Lewis intending to do? I have never even heard of him, but it’s still an interesting “what if” should it be at all true.

I have doubts that administrators could, let alone would, have reduced spending radically enough to counter the financial problems faced by a changing culture whereby people lacked the time they once possessed to attend matches and the population was moving to suburbs where public transport was appallingly bad. To move the live audiences for which football as it had been played for over a century was designed – compared with rugby or US gridiron or basketball which were vastly better suited to TV – requires large-scale transport because it is impossible to concentrate even twenty thousand people on roads of any practicable size in single-family private cars. However, even today public transport in new housing estates remains nonexistent at the normal match times of night and weekends. Thus it became, even when tickets cost a fraction of today’s prices, extremely expensive to attend matches because congested roads lost would-be patrons large amounts of time which people were becoming less able to afford as technology made for faster living and more work time.

It was clear with these social conditions that Australian Rules would have to radically change to fit a TV audience, although I do view the changes very sadly on many levels as the present-day game is (for many reasons) aesthetically less attractive and less unpredictable or interesting re outcomes than the game played in the 1980s or 1990s. The requisite live audiences were no longer economically or politically (via vast transfers of money from roads to public transport) attainable.

Still, I do believe that if zoning, clearance and ticket price control restrictions set by the league had been removed, along with the radically reduced spending you claim administrators would have imposed, much could have been accomplished. Weeding clubs off league and even government aid would have ended a tradition going back to North Melbourne in the 1930s (at a point when they had in eleven seasons won just 31 games and drawn two – while if we exclude 1932 and 1933 North’s record totalled 16–144–1 for nine seasons) and sustained via revenue sharing and country zoning up to 1986.

 

[Tas]

What job was Gordon Lewis intending to do? I have never even heard of him, but it’s still an interesting “what if” should it be at all true.

He was a commissioner for corporate affairs, basically the role ASIC does now since the introduction of the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001, but less half-arsed as it used to be.

Their role, in relation to the then VFL, was the protection of creditors in accordance with the legislation if the league itself, an incorporated entity, or any individual clubs, also incorporated, were insolvent (weren't able to meet their debts as they fell due).

In the recent articles about this issue he talked about technical insolvency, this refers to having greater liabilities than your asset value. Technical insolvency isn't automatic grounds for regulators to intervene, balance sheet solvency provides some level of security for creditors but book value is usually different to resale value and very different to fire sale values of liquidation. It doesn't take into consideration cash flow, which is a critical factor when determining actual insolvency. Even Fitzroy was able to meet it's payments when they fell due, as long as the entity operated as a going concern.

The problem would arise if the competition stopped and the revenue streams that arose from it would cease then many clubs would have had problems or even be unable to repay all the debts in such a scenario. Every club that is in this situation would have a qualified auditor's report stating so and that information is public knowledge for existing and prospective creditors. All creditors are aware of the potential risk.

I have doubts that administrators could, let alone would, have reduced spending radically enough to counter the financial problems faced by a changing culture whereby people lacked the time they once possessed to attend matches and the population was moving to suburbs where public transport was appallingly bad.

I think expenditure can and should have been reigned in and that would have been the first port of call had an administrator been appointed.

To move the live audiences for which football as it had been played for over a century was designed – compared with rugby or US gridiron or basketball which were vastly better suited to TV – requires large-scale transport because it is impossible to concentrate even twenty thousand people on roads of any practicable size in single-family private cars. However, even today public transport in new housing estates remains nonexistent at the normal match times of night and weekends. Thus it became, even when tickets cost a fraction of today’s prices, extremely expensive to attend matches because congested roads lost would-be patrons large amounts of time which people were becoming less able to afford as technology made for faster living and more work time.

The vast majority of patrons use the public transport system, which horrific as it is and has been, got people to games and wasn't expensive, even during times of recession.

Games played live against the gate had a significant impact on crowds, previous we were limited to games replays and highlights, with minimal coverage. As the coverage grew it drew support away from match attendances and the move to support the MCC for the redevelopment of the MCG was a diabolical decision, as was the decision at to get heavily into debt on another stadium and then force all 9 clubs no alternative other than to play their games at these cost-heavy stadiums.

The 1989 agreement to redevelop the Great Southern Stand locked us into playing a large number of games there for 40 years and continual modifications to this agreement have pushed it further and further back, now locked in until 2037. AFL is also still paying the MCC $5m per year until 2034 for the
Northern Stand redevelopment, we are still $100m down the toilet on that.

The stadium that existed in 1989 was fine for the AFL. Any modifications to the stadium should have been between the MCC and the state & federal governments. It was the VFL/AFL who locked us into horrific agreements, we were receiving 30% of match revenue compared to 70% or higher by interstate stadiums. Even now after all the bullshitting around and fiddling with the agreements, MCG tenants receive 41% of match revenue, Docklands tenants receive 36%.

We saw clubs move from low overhead stadiums with very high stadium returns to very high overhead stadiums with very poor stadium returns, the revenue generation is totally inadequate for funding football, it still is. As bas as the situation was back then, more Victorian clubs would be technically insolvent or worse if a government came in and overnight banned pokies. Most of that top 20-30m the big Victorian clubs are earning is the pokie revenue which generates around 2-5m profit annually and clubs are sitting on some horrific machine lease agreements.

We have wall-papered over the cracks to some extent by relying on gambling revenue to make up the shortfall provided by match day revenue. The AFL distribution doesn't cover player payments and most clubs aren't getting operating costs expenditure from net match day returns so there has always been a shortfall and a lot of this is completely out of the hands of the clubs themselves in Melbourne.

The MCG and Docklands agreements are a restraint on trade and the clubs should have ended them both, a long time ago. AFL has no legal right to tell clubs where they can play their games and be artificially disadvantaged by their whim. AFL clubs have been way too lenient on the administration, they have been completely clueless ever since the 70s, an utterly unprofessional organisation who run a rort of a competition which gives a leg up to whichever clubs they want to have an advantage.

It was clear with these social conditions that Australian Rules would have to radically change to fit a TV audience, although I do view the changes very sadly on many levels as the present-day game is (for many reasons) aesthetically less attractive and less unpredictable or interesting re outcomes than the game played in the 1980s or 1990s. The requisite live audiences were no longer economically or politically (via vast transfers of money from roads to public transport) attainable.

It has radically changed, it is more of a television product, it has brought in a lot of broadcasting revenue as a result. But where has this money gone? It is not going to the clubs, whatever has trickled to the clubs has just gone to players via AFL/AFLPA agreed collective bargaining. Most clubs realistically were better off in the dire times of the VFL. If only they were as professionally run then as they are now, all clubs would be in a far better position.

Still, I do believe that if zoning, clearance and ticket price control restrictions set by the league had been removed, along with the radically reduced spending you claim administrators would have imposed, much could have been accomplished. Weeding clubs off league and even government aid would have ended a tradition going back to North Melbourne in the 1930s (at a point when they had in eleven seasons won just 31 games and drawn two – while if we exclude 1932 and 1933 North’s record totalled 16–144–1 for nine seasons) and sustained via revenue sharing and country zoning up to 1986.

Our suburban zone was horrendous. As soon as we were given a more level playing field with a decent country zone (in the early 70s) we started to dominate and the AFL then realised zones were bad and moved to bring in the draft. It seems we are destined to re-live past mistakes with zoning and free agency. On a level playing field, my club has typically thrived despite all predictions of imminent disaster.

 

[Kwality]

I beg to differ on the role of cash flow - failure to pay the piper is what usually forces action.

Its why the AFL is forced to guarantee the viability of many clubs.

 

[telsor]

I beg to differ on the role of cash flow - failure to pay the piper is what usually forces action.

Its why the AFL is forced to guarantee the viability of many clubs.

Except they don't do that.

As has been explained to you many times.

 

[Kwality]

Except they don't do that.

As has been explained to you many times.

... no, that's just your opinion. I'll stick with my understanding, but thanks for your concern.

Bit like the idea perpetuated by this forum that only the AFL could close a club down. I'll back a creditor anytime.

 

[telsor]

... no, that's just your opinion. I'll stick with my understanding, but thanks for your concern.

Bit like the idea perpetuated by this forum that only the AFL could close a club down. I'll back a creditor anytime.

The AFL does guarantee certain loans, they don't guarantee the viability of a club. I'd welcome any evidence of them guaranteeing the viability of clubs (exceptions being GC & GWS I suppose).

and the AFL *CANNOT* close a club down (well, not without a vote of the clubs). You are correct about creditors though, as was the case with Fitzroy ( the AFL was complicit in that, but they still needed the creditors to actually swing the axe).

 

[The_Wookie]

... no, that's just your opinion. I'll stick with my understanding, but thanks for your concern.

Bit like the idea perpetuated by this forum that only the AFL could close a club down. I'll back a creditor anytime.

In fact, the exact opposite has always been my position - and ive never seen anyone on the industry form suggest otherwise. Or do you still only read what you want to?