Analysis What is it with Eddie and plans?

Remove this Banner Ad

glengowan

Club Legend
Oct 8, 2004
1,560
1,511
Woodside
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Eagles(SANFL)
Nothing wrong with floating plans! He's bound to come up with a good one eventually, and I reckon his thoughts on jumping in with the Olympics to gain better infrastructure and sell the "dream" of playing AFL or making The Olympics as one and the same - "if you run 100m in 10 sec you're off to The Olympics, if you run 100m in 10.5 sec you're on the half back flank for Collingwood". That is a good idea! As resources are being used in scouring the best kids in the land to find 2032 Gold Medallists, kill two birds with one stone and plant the idea of becoming an AFL or AFLW footballer if not quite to the level of an Olympian.
 

Shane Heard

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Mar 11, 2018
7,588
13,664
AFL Club
Essendon
North Melb should be wound up. Why should these poor kids have to go them. And don't get me started on this Shinboner spirit crap, they are basically admitting that they are unviable and unprofessional.

Get rid of North, give Tassie a licence. Job done.

We were crap for 20 years and still had 30-40k people showing up to our games, plus big membership numbers.

Is that you John?
 

Shane Heard

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Mar 11, 2018
7,588
13,664
AFL Club
Essendon
At least Eddie thinks about the big picture, unlike any of our politicians we vote for.

You mean the big narcissistic, deranged “ I’m desperate to be relevant “ picture that Ed clings to so he’s not at home driving Carla insane with his inane ramblings?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Shane Heard

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Mar 11, 2018
7,588
13,664
AFL Club
Essendon
This is the major issue everyone who comes up with us fails to take into consideration.
a) We wont vote for it.
b) AFL doesn't have the power to force us to relocate.
c) We aren't under any financial pressure, we have no debt and made a "profit" even during covid no crowds period.
d) The new stadium post AFL acquisition deal is a lot more favourable to clubs.
e) Other clubs are in a worse financial position than us and they are not under any pressure.
f) membership based increased despite winning the spoon and people expecting a tough rebuild.
g) AFL retains far too much of the broadcasting rights, we get $946m for 2023 and 2024, $473m per year. Broadcasting rights is 50% of the AFL revenue, they should run the competition with the 50% non broadcasting revenue and return all the broadcasting revenue to the clubs, that would be $26.27m, per club, per year. That would lead to higher salaries for players, clubs retaining bigger profits and have more scope for well paid assistants and money to spend on more community programs. We get about half of that.

Fox estimated the 10 year AFL distributions between 2012-2021 to be:
GWS $203m
GC $198m
Brisbane $160m
St Kilda $156m
Bulldogs $139m
North $134m

The top 4 only received $93-96m. Everyone is getting screwed in the current scenario, Whilst the teams who currently get a lot less from the AFL directly, they are often generating a significant amount thanks to a contrived system of inequitable access to FTA time slots which over a long period of time helps to promote support base growth, advertising and sponsorship revenue, etc. This isn't how other major sports are handled around the world.

AFL policy is to move away from cycles of boom and bust, they know it is more desirable to have any given team being able to win, it draws larger crowds, it generates more viewers but the current free agency system makes it easier to lose players as a struggling club and harder to acquire good quality players at the same time the AFL forces clubs to spend all their salary cap every year and expect a team to spend the same amount on assistants when their list is full of kids who need development as clubs who have mature teams that don't need as much development work.

IF Tasmania is economically viable with their own team then awesome, give them a license if it wont impact the existing clubs. But, the Tasmanian government should underwrite them that they will make up the shortfall between what they project and what become actual takings because the batshit metrics the AFL pushed to justify GWS and GC were pure fantasy and the rest of the clubs are footing that bill now.

We are doing fine, everyone who isn't a member should piss off and stop telling us what we should do, if you want to sell off your own clubs then have at it. All we want to see is the AFL to distribute all the broadcasting revenue equally to all the clubs, then they can get rid of this loaded system of handouts which they use to be able to manipulate clubs and force them to put up with unfair access to the FTA market which impacts all aspects of the commercial business.
That’s fine ..but Caro says the AFL funded your debt recovery

She mumbled it the other night
 

Grand Uncle Horace

Hall of Famer
May 24, 2017
37,548
45,671
Old South Grandstand
AFL Club
Sydney
This is the major issue everyone who comes up with us fails to take into consideration.
a) We wont vote for it.
b) AFL doesn't have the power to force us to relocate.
c) We aren't under any financial pressure, we have no debt and made a "profit" even during covid no crowds period.
d) The new stadium post AFL acquisition deal is a lot more favourable to clubs.
e) Other clubs are in a worse financial position than us and they are not under any pressure.
f) membership based increased despite winning the spoon and people expecting a tough rebuild.
g) AFL retains far too much of the broadcasting rights, we get $946m for 2023 and 2024, $473m per year. Broadcasting rights is 50% of the AFL revenue, they should run the competition with the 50% non broadcasting revenue and return all the broadcasting revenue to the clubs, that would be $26.27m, per club, per year. That would lead to higher salaries for players, clubs retaining bigger profits and have more scope for well paid assistants and money to spend on more community programs. We get about half of that.

Fox estimated the 10 year AFL distributions between 2012-2021 to be:
GWS $203m
GC $198m
Brisbane $160m
St Kilda $156m
Bulldogs $139m
North $134m

The top 4 only received $93-96m. Everyone is getting screwed in the current scenario, Whilst the teams who currently get a lot less from the AFL directly, they are often generating a significant amount thanks to a contrived system of inequitable access to FTA time slots which over a long period of time helps to promote support base growth, advertising and sponsorship revenue, etc. This isn't how other major sports are handled around the world.

AFL policy is to move away from cycles of boom and bust, they know it is more desirable to have any given team being able to win, it draws larger crowds, it generates more viewers but the current free agency system makes it easier to lose players as a struggling club and harder to acquire good quality players at the same time the AFL forces clubs to spend all their salary cap every year and expect a team to spend the same amount on assistants when their list is full of kids who need development as clubs who have mature teams that don't need as much development work.

IF Tasmania is economically viable with their own team then awesome, give them a license if it wont impact the existing clubs. But, the Tasmanian government should underwrite them that they will make up the shortfall between what they project and what become actual takings because the batshit metrics the AFL pushed to justify GWS and GC were pure fantasy and the rest of the clubs are footing that bill now.

We are doing fine, everyone who isn't a member should piss off and stop telling us what we should do, if you want to sell off your own clubs then have at it. All we want to see is the AFL to distribute all the broadcasting revenue equally to all the clubs, then they can get rid of this loaded system of handouts which they use to be able to manipulate clubs and force them to put up with unfair access to the FTA market which impacts all aspects of the commercial business.

Of your 46,000 members, only 6,000 can be relied on to rock up to home games.

The location of your home should not really matter to North fans given members prefer to watch on telly anyway.
 

Blue1980

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 9, 2011
16,257
19,195
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Arsenal
If North had an equitable fixture over the last 20 years their sponsorship and corporate revenue would be much higher and they would not need assistance from the AFL. The ratings drive sponsorship money - nobody wants to pay for jumper space on a Sunday Foxtel-only game. People want to go to corporate boxes on a Friday night, not at midday on Sunday when their kids are playing sports.

It's why when Carlton and Essendon were s**t the corrupt pricks running the AFL gave them commercially the best fixtures, to ensure they made enough money to help them get back to winning.

Rember when Eddie Mcguire cried wanting compensation for Collingwood having to play one Sunday Twilight game, I think he said it cost them about $500,000 in lost revenue.

Now times that by about 12 games per year over 20 years. Are you getting it yet champ?

Eddie is an idiot, ignore what he says. Though I think he wanted the compo from the short lived Sunday night experiment.

So you still live in this world where you think the only thing holding north back from 80k members is fixturing?

Sure you may have got worse time slots, but it’s a cause and effect. Do you expect north v gws to be on a Friday night?
 

Blue1980

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 9, 2011
16,257
19,195
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Arsenal
Like Eddie, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately.

Traditionally the Melbourne clubs were named after the suburb in which they were based and this inter-suburban rivalry was an important part of the game’s popularity. I think a lot has been lost in the clubs moving yet retaining the names of suburbs they are no longer connected to. Clubs in other sports like the NFL don’t retain the name of the town they have left. Not sure why AFL clubs do. I think it is time to embrace new suburban rivalries based on the clubs’ new homes.

Here is a list of the updated club names. They sound better to me. I think it would avoid a lot of confusion too.


Carlton North Blues

Footscray Bulldogs

Jolimont Demons

Jolimont Tigers

Melbourne Magpies

Mulgrave Hawks

North Melbourne Kangaroos

Moorabbin Saints

Tullamarine Bombers


I would love to hear the thoughts of people who agree with me.

You’re just “starting a discussion”
 

GWT6

All Australian
Jun 7, 2011
628
1,988
AFL Club
Melbourne
Eddie is an idiot, ignore what he says. Though I think he wanted the compo from the short lived Sunday night experiment.

So you still live in this world where you think the only thing holding north back from 80k members is fixturing?

Sure you may have got worse time slots, but it’s a cause and effect. Do you expect north v gws to be on a Friday night?
If you can direct me to the post where I claimed that I "think the only thing holding north back from 80k members is fixturing" I'm happy to discuss it with you.

I had replied to a poster earlier that said other clubs can dictate North's future because they fund them (to paraphrase). I pointed out that North needs to be funded because of the inequality of the fixture that favours the financially strong clubs at the expense of the weaker ones, and the stong clubs go along with it because they know they are better off that way.

If you want to discuss that, fine, if you want to make up fake quotes, I'm not interested.
 

Tas

Premium Platinum
Dec 23, 2002
58,094
49,389
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
Of your 46,000 members, only 6,000 can be relied on to rock up to home games.

The location of your home should not really matter to North fans given members prefer to watch on telly anyway.


Our lowest crowds here have been 13,422 vs Melbourne 13,742 vs Giants and 14,204 against Eagles. I think the Melbourne one is the most disappointing one, but it is the nature of being s**t for some time and struggling to even put up much of a fight.

If we were a top 8 side and getting 20k crowds at home like the Swans I would be a lot more worried, because really, what is the upside?

You hit the nail on the head that a lot of supporters are conditioned to watching us play on TV, part of it is self-inflicted, part of it is AFL-inflicted by holding back so much of the revenue we are forced to sell games elsewhere and over a long period of time it erodes at the supporter base that is developed a habit of not being accessible, we get periods of over a month where we don't play in Melbourne and people get used to doing something else with their time and develop different habits.

There is a lot of upside if and when we resolve our remaining issues. Even though the Melbourne market is congested, data indicates that the supporter bases of the various clubs here can shift significantly over time. We have far fewer hurdles in front of us than we used to have. Despite our current issues, we have no financial issues so we are not under any external pressure to resolve the problems immediately.

The media don't really think we are going to move, their intent is for them to get dumb people like the majority of BF to click their links so they can generate money from advertising revenue. These articles only exist because they know there are a sea of morons who will read their shite.
 

Bungeye

Club Legend
Aug 19, 2017
2,308
1,619
AFL Club
Collingwood
You mean the big narcissistic, deranged “ I’m desperate to be relevant “ picture that Ed clings to so he’s not at home driving Carla insane with his inane ramblings?
A narcissist needs an empath. I'm sure they get on swimmingly...
 

Blue1980

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 9, 2011
16,257
19,195
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Arsenal
If you can direct me to the post where I claimed that I "think the only thing holding north back from 80k members is fixturing" I'm happy to discuss it with you.

I had replied to a poster earlier that said other clubs can dictate North's future because they fund them (to paraphrase). I pointed out that North needs to be funded because of the inequality of the fixture that favours the financially strong clubs at the expense of the weaker ones, and the stong clubs go along with it because they know they are better off that way.

If you want to discuss that, fine, if you want to make up fake quotes, I'm not interested.

I’ve got no issue with north getting funding or any club getting funding.

Though North aren’t being propped up anywhere near as much as GC, GWS or even Brisbane have been.

I would say even if you gave north all the same marquee games and time slots bigger clubs get, they’d still need more funding than the average club.

However, I don’t believe north should be relocated or anything. The current argument is dumb and happens whenever any non big club is down the bottom of the ladder (happened to Melbourne, WB, GC, Brisbane, Port, StK over the past 10-15 years when they are struggling for a few seasons, calls for them to merge/disband/relocate).

It’s that kind of talk which had put north off rebuilding for so long. They now can as they are out of debt and short to medium term their future is secure.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kozi

Varsity athlete
Oct 14, 2011
52,509
70,663
AFL Club
Richmond
Far from an Eddie fan but I’m not totally against it. All games played in Vic just makes sense in these uncertain times.
 

Pessimistic

Make me an Admin!
Sep 13, 2000
86,270
42,487
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
11 games melbourne and 11 Tassie? Make the Melbourne games all MCG and that’s a big fat yes for the hawks, never mind the kangaroos.

Imagine how the decade 2008-2017 would have gone with the hawks on this arrangement. Even better than Geelong.

There’s a reason everyone’s saying no Eddie

(This season hawks have 9 MCG games 4 Marvel and 5 Tassie. Cba where the others are)
 

Pessimistic

Make me an Admin!
Sep 13, 2000
86,270
42,487
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
11 home games in melb - fair enough, yeah whatever... gotta keep the perception to the vics that nothing has actually changed.
then 11 home games in tas - wtf? get stuffed. so if you are an non vic team and play norf twice in the one year, you have to play 2 away games. yeah, i can see that being unanimously embraced by all the non vic clubs (vic clubs shouldnt give a crap as lets be honest, most of their 'away' games are in melb anyway and tas is barely a quick swim across bass strait).

I can’t understand why Jeff hasn’t taken up the offer already
 

Pessimistic

Make me an Admin!
Sep 13, 2000
86,270
42,487
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
I agree that 19 teams is too many.
If Kangaroos merged with Gold Coast, a lot of problems would be solved.
GC would have more members and be more successful, Kangaroos would have a future and Tassy takes 18th licence.

Queensland bears.

Take the lions name back and give it to Tassie, producing more Melbourne based support
 

Lets Roar like '44

Premiership Player
Jan 23, 2007
3,455
1,447
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Vancouver Canucks
I’ve got no issue with north getting funding or any club getting funding.

Though North aren’t being propped up anywhere near as much as GC, GWS or even Brisbane have been.

I would say even if you gave north all the same marquee games and time slots bigger clubs get, they’d still need more funding than the average club.

However, I don’t believe north should be relocated or anything. The current argument is dumb and happens whenever any non big club is down the bottom of the ladder (happened to Melbourne, WB, GC, Brisbane, Port, StK over the past 10-15 years when they are struggling for a few seasons, calls for them to merge/disband/relocate).

It’s that kind of talk which had put north off rebuilding for so long. They now can as they are out of debt and short to medium term their future is secure.
Brisbane should be propped up for eternity. We lost 2 clubs because every single club in the league (except Nth) wanted Fitzroy shipped off to Brisbane. Your club voted for the merger between Fitzroy and Brisbane so if I were a Carlton supporter I wouldn’t be complaining if the Lions did get an extra dollar or two.
 

Pessimistic

Make me an Admin!
Sep 13, 2000
86,270
42,487
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Brisbane should be propped up for eternity. We lost 2 clubs because every single club in the league (except Nth) wanted Fitzroy shipped off to Brisbane. Your club voted for the merger between Fitzroy and Brisbane so if I were a Carlton supporter I wouldn’t be complaining if the Lions did get an extra dollar or two.

Remember Oakley blocked the lions playing more in Tassie? Ironing
 

deck

Premiership Player
Aug 7, 2004
4,295
2,322
Melburn
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Liverpool, SF 49ers, FSU
This has been rolled out before and has no chance of happening even if North was in on the idea. It's basically asking the other clubs to give up a home game to play in Tassie against North.
 

Blue1980

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 9, 2011
16,257
19,195
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Arsenal
Brisbane should be propped up for eternity. We lost 2 clubs because every single club in the league (except Nth) wanted Fitzroy shipped off to Brisbane. Your club voted for the merger between Fitzroy and Brisbane so if I were a Carlton supporter I wouldn’t be complaining if the Lions did get an extra dollar or two.

I’m not complaining, just stating facts.

You also skipped over my first sentence where I said I have no issue with any club receiving funding.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad