Dan, all that Liverpool girly-soccer stuff seems to have gone to your head.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 7 - Pride Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Blockbutsr matches advanatgeing teams are a myth,
- Thread starter Dan26
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Dan, all that Liverpool girly-soccer stuff seems to have gone to your head.
Originally posted by SydneyBomber
Dan, all that Liverpool girly-soccer stuff seems to have gone to your head.
he he he ... don't mock me. I'll steal your hubcaps!!!
Seriously, i do agree with Dan on this point. I am not going to be drawn into a boring debate with anyone, or force people to agree with my viewpoint, but you extend the season .... you change the game enough to warrant recognition for top spot. Playing 34 weeks of football to determine 1 winner is way too unfair for Aussie Rules (from a player management standpoint). In soccer, yes they play each team home and away and there can only be one championship team, but they play with squads teams are unsually involved in a number of other competitions during the season.
I don't think clubs could handle a 30 game season. You'd have an increased cap that will effectively spell the end of the Bulldogs and Kangaroos at least!
The draw, if not exceeding 22 rounds should start the next season with the remaining 8 rounds and continue on so over time everyboby will have played everyone else the same amount home and away.
This was brought home to me this week as we have just played our 10th game against the Kangaroos but are about to play our 17th game against the E-girls.
This was brought home to me this week as we have just played our 10th game against the Kangaroos but are about to play our 17th game against the E-girls.
gozzo
Senior List
Whats the point in being pro-active and innovative when you do hit the jackpot (Friday night footy) it gets given to the big 4. [/B][/QUOTE]
Interesting that Essendon approached the AFL asking for LESS Friday night games, because they have an ADVERSE effect on attendances and memberships (less families coming out at night and therefore less memberships/reserved seats being sold).
On a lighter note, maybe North and the Doggies should get salary cap allowances, like the interstate darlings of the AFL, to compensate for the increased costs of living in inner western Melbourne!! Or to retain them, when more successful clubs come a-knocking (e.g Nathan Brown at the end of the year)
Interesting that Essendon approached the AFL asking for LESS Friday night games, because they have an ADVERSE effect on attendances and memberships (less families coming out at night and therefore less memberships/reserved seats being sold).
On a lighter note, maybe North and the Doggies should get salary cap allowances, like the interstate darlings of the AFL, to compensate for the increased costs of living in inner western Melbourne!! Or to retain them, when more successful clubs come a-knocking (e.g Nathan Brown at the end of the year)
Essendon had less ‘family’ members I believe, but more members over all. With Friday day night footy you get your product (team) on free to air TV (to the masses) which can only help in gain more money from sponsorship and help gain more supporters. From these extra supporters you get more members, not to mention the extra theatergoers.
Yep Friday nights suck and are no benefit at all, that’s why we want em and don’t get em.
On a lighter note…….you’re a moron, we get less money than the AFLs Victorian darlings. So the darling teams can steal our players, they’re not happy just stealing our initiatives.
Originally posted by R00StaR
Essendon had less ‘family’ members I believe, but more members over all. With Friday day night footy you get your product (team) on free to air TV (to the masses) which can only help in gain more money from sponsorship and help gain more supporters. From these extra supporters you get more members, not to mention the extra theatergoers.
Yep Friday nights suck and are no benefit at all, that’s why we want em and don’t get em.
On a lighter note…….you’re a moron, we get less money than the AFLs Victorian darlings. So the darling teams can steal our players, they’re not happy just stealing our initiatives.
Is that you in there Michelle?
gozzo
Senior List
Originally posted by R00StaR
Essendon had less ‘family’ members I believe, but more members over all. With Friday day night footy you get your product (team) on free to air TV (to the masses) which can only help in gain more money from sponsorship and help gain more supporters. From these extra supporters you get more members, not to mention the extra theatergoers.
Yep Friday nights suck and are no benefit at all, that’s why we want em and don’t get em.
On a lighter note…….you’re a moron, we get less money than the AFLs Victorian darlings. So the darling teams can steal our players, they’re not happy just stealing our initiatives.
We can all insult one another, but I think that the point made in jest is valid.
My point -- however badly expressed -- is that the AFL should do more to help traditional Victorian clubs like the Roos and the Dogs -- whether it is the salary cap or whatever -- because I personally would rather see them stay around than some of the interstate clubs. (Sorry interstaters, but I like my traditional Victorian footy)
North could probably get more money by getting more Friday night games. I support that, you might as well have them, as according to our club officials, they don't benefit us a great deal.
They actually campaigned to get less Friday night games.
But who cares about the facts, when you've got a good grudge going???
I know for a fact that North on a Friday night at the 'G (particularly when it was wet) was always a danger game for us.
So it would be "good for footy" for you to have more.
BTW...I cannot remember the last time that we "stole" your players. Calling me a moron does not change that. Who was the last Roo of any note, who crossed to Essendon? There are no players currently on our senior list from North. Even a look at Carlton and Collingwood's senior lists sees the number of former Kangas pretty thin on the ground. I count Martyn, McKernan & Freeborn. All sides are guilty of grabbing the best player they can, from wherever they can. I'm sure some Collingwood folks would still like Sav Rocca in their side too.
The difference between Essendon and Collingwood versus St Kilda and Kangaroos r that they can play interstate sides at Colonial and draw twice as much.
Thats where theyre making most of their money, not from 3 home games that draw more than the average game a year that r supposedly meant to equate to millions of dollars in gate takings.
Thats where theyre making most of their money, not from 3 home games that draw more than the average game a year that r supposedly meant to equate to millions of dollars in gate takings.
No idea what your on about.
Now that is far less condescending than your poorly expressed one. Sorry about the insult, I just found it condescending as I said and just another cheap shot at us. I remember Essendon officials coming out and saying they didn’t want night games, in fact I remember it well because I watched the membership figures after that. Im almost 100% certain, Essendons membership figures were up the year of the complaint. But feel free to correct me if im mistaken, im only going by memory.
Also I didn’t mean Essendon has stolen any of our players. I meant when we cant afford to keep our players under our tiny salary cap, they will be stolen. If we cant pay what other clubs can, then we will have players stolen by the unlevel playing field.
Portia
#DrewBlood
30k Posts
10k Posts
TheBrownDog
Port Adelaide - Jesse Palmer Player Sponsor 2017
Podcaster
Port Adelaide - Riley Bonner Player Sponsor 2016
Port Adelaide - Brendon Ah Chee Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Jarrad Redden Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
- Oct 7, 2001
- 50,502
- 24,864
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Muckbuckle Dolmens
Nah, not enough righteous fury.
No it isn't as is evident by the following:
We all know that michelle would bitch and moan about how we kept them in the VFA for another 50 years and how we managed to rig the draft system so we could get all the 'good players' from them and their zones... Wah wah wah, it's all our fault remember.
gozzo
Senior List
You are right, the figures were good...but the theory on that was they would have been even better with less Friday night games...as (anecdotally) people had rung the club saying that it was hard to get away from work for Friday Night Footy and that they could not take the kids.
Sorry if I sounded condescending -- I'm not really sure how you got that out of what I said (I was taking aim at the ridiculous assertion that footballers should be paid more to live in Sydney because of property prices, more than anything. Prices in Melbourne -- particularly inner suburbs -- have actually closed the gap to Sydney in some areas over the past 18 months.) but I hope you did not miss the real point.
North have a fair whack of good young players and the "richer" clubs will naturally come calling as your boys show their wares on the field. The AFL has to decide if it wants clubs like North and do something about it, if it does. Otherwise the club will bleed to death...and I'd rather the AFL spent money on North & the Dogs rather than Brisbane or Sydney. That's my real point.
I have to say that in my opinion, Friday Night Footy will help North more than it would Essendon. But it's not the be-all and end-all that maybe you are hoping for.
Gozzo
I got your point in the end, just thought you were coming from a different angle, but never mind that. I believe Friday nights would make a big difference to a club like North. Surely there would be more theatergoers who are still in the city after work, the sponsorship would make a big difference as club sponsors want exposure. They get more exposure from prime time free to air than Foxtel. Then our supporters need to have Foxtel to see us play, meaning less money for memberships. I could go on and on, but you get the drift.
The AFL take away substantial revenue and say don’t worry we’ll have heaps of extra bucks to not only look after you, but all the other smaller clubs. The AFL gets all this extra cash, we get less, the big 4 get the benefits of Friday night footy and the gap widens more. But what happens when we need this extra cash? We get shafted on the field. This is what really ****es me off about it.
You are absolutely correct in saying the AFL has to figure out what they want, a good comp with a level playing field or to kill off the smaller clubs. If we had our Friday nights or even our fair share, there would be a fair chance we wouldn’t need these hand outs and be forced to operate on a reduced cap. To make matters worse we have clubs legally above the cap, how on earth are we meant to compete long term? Maybe we’re not meant to.
I got your point in the end, just thought you were coming from a different angle, but never mind that. I believe Friday nights would make a big difference to a club like North. Surely there would be more theatergoers who are still in the city after work, the sponsorship would make a big difference as club sponsors want exposure. They get more exposure from prime time free to air than Foxtel. Then our supporters need to have Foxtel to see us play, meaning less money for memberships. I could go on and on, but you get the drift.
The AFL take away substantial revenue and say don’t worry we’ll have heaps of extra bucks to not only look after you, but all the other smaller clubs. The AFL gets all this extra cash, we get less, the big 4 get the benefits of Friday night footy and the gap widens more. But what happens when we need this extra cash? We get shafted on the field. This is what really ****es me off about it.
You are absolutely correct in saying the AFL has to figure out what they want, a good comp with a level playing field or to kill off the smaller clubs. If we had our Friday nights or even our fair share, there would be a fair chance we wouldn’t need these hand outs and be forced to operate on a reduced cap. To make matters worse we have clubs legally above the cap, how on earth are we meant to compete long term? Maybe we’re not meant to.
Thank you to all the posters here who have once again vindicated my position of the advantaged AFL welfare recipients known as Collingwood Essendon, Carlton and Richmond "blockbuster" clubs, and once again proved that a Essendon supporting Werribee risiding virgin and his bullsh1t statistics are no match for thinking sensible and intelligent analysis of the situation.
To Dan IQ 26, stick you screaming insecurities and pathetic defences up your skirt. Facts are facts son. And the facts are your club is unfairly advantaged over other Melb based AFL clubs while at the same time whinge and moan and whine over Brisbane and Sydneys AFL leg up.
Pathetic Hypocrits!!!!
Give up your socialist welfare gifts from the AFL and you may....just may... have a modicum of credibility, but knowing you and your track record that is extremely doubtful.
So in summary, it is no myth, it is FACT!!!!
And I will go on throwing this FACT in your hypocritical squirming faces every chance I get.
To Dan IQ 26, stick you screaming insecurities and pathetic defences up your skirt. Facts are facts son. And the facts are your club is unfairly advantaged over other Melb based AFL clubs while at the same time whinge and moan and whine over Brisbane and Sydneys AFL leg up.
Pathetic Hypocrits!!!!
Give up your socialist welfare gifts from the AFL and you may....just may... have a modicum of credibility, but knowing you and your track record that is extremely doubtful.
So in summary, it is no myth, it is FACT!!!!
And I will go on throwing this FACT in your hypocritical squirming faces every chance I get.
and Who is suppling those FACTS, are those FACTS, what you THINK they are or are the AFL or anyone with Valid info suppling that INFO??
FACT is All clubs play each other be it once or twice.
CLUB Like West and Freo, Adle and PORT play each other tiwce is that fair or un fair.
Collingwood to play St'kilda twice a year would be great, two , easy win. 8 points -
- Apr 20, 2001
- 27,503
- 10,622
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Utd,Liverpool, WWT Eagles.
Nice sidestep.
How about some FACTS or STATS to back up your point?
Whatever you think of Dans stats, at least he's tried to offer something constructive to the debate other than the usual moaning and whingeing.
Yianni
Norm Smith Medallist
HEY!!! Noone has even commented on my theory! I spent a long time writing it and I want some damned feedback!
My theory being:
I think what people are saying here (god this does sorta sound like the Society and Culture page) is that:
If it is all survival of the fittest then fine, your economic rationalist arguments hold water. We need more members, we need more people going to games, etc, etc. Fair enough.
However, if the agenda is the survival of the 16 teams, then the landscape changes somewhat. All teams are not equal (i.e. unequal supporter bases, etc) and so the league may need to give some teams a 'leg up'
The problem arises when the aims are not clear. At the same time we have:
1 - TRYING TO ENSURE SURVIVAL OF ALL TEAMS (Requires helping out smaller clubs, larger clubs will pretty much survive on their own)
2 - TRYING TO MAXIMISE ATTENDANCES (Requires scheduling large drawing teams against each other)
3 - ENSURING THAT MEDIA RIGHTS HOLDERS GET THEIR MONEYS WORTH (Requires schuduling large drawing teams in prime time locations)
The problem is that these 3 aims are inconsistent. You cannot achieve 2 and 3 without compromising to some extent 1. This is the problem, and this is why noone will ever win this argument.
Fans of smaller teams are essentially yelling "1! 1! 1!", then the Collingwood and Essendon fans say "Ah yes, we are aware of 1, but you must remember 2, and of course the reason we play all the Friday nights is 3"
What is needed is some clarification as to who runs this game (AFL, Clubs, TV?) and which of those objectives is the most important. When you're trying to do 3 things at once, you probably end up achieving none of them.
If you look at the English Premier League, they are a purely 'survival of the fittest' league (no salary cap, draft, free agency, etc) This is fine, at least people are clear on what they're doing. The results are in line with that strategy (same teams compete every year, best players go to best teams, etc)
I'm not saying that I know the answer, I'm just saying that until there is a CLEAR enunciation of the aims of the league and in what/who's interests the league acts then we will continue to have these discussions.
Fans of larger clubs have the luxury of choosing not to care if they want to. Unfortunately, not all of us do...
Comments?
My theory being:
I think what people are saying here (god this does sorta sound like the Society and Culture page) is that:
If it is all survival of the fittest then fine, your economic rationalist arguments hold water. We need more members, we need more people going to games, etc, etc. Fair enough.
However, if the agenda is the survival of the 16 teams, then the landscape changes somewhat. All teams are not equal (i.e. unequal supporter bases, etc) and so the league may need to give some teams a 'leg up'
The problem arises when the aims are not clear. At the same time we have:
1 - TRYING TO ENSURE SURVIVAL OF ALL TEAMS (Requires helping out smaller clubs, larger clubs will pretty much survive on their own)
2 - TRYING TO MAXIMISE ATTENDANCES (Requires scheduling large drawing teams against each other)
3 - ENSURING THAT MEDIA RIGHTS HOLDERS GET THEIR MONEYS WORTH (Requires schuduling large drawing teams in prime time locations)
The problem is that these 3 aims are inconsistent. You cannot achieve 2 and 3 without compromising to some extent 1. This is the problem, and this is why noone will ever win this argument.
Fans of smaller teams are essentially yelling "1! 1! 1!", then the Collingwood and Essendon fans say "Ah yes, we are aware of 1, but you must remember 2, and of course the reason we play all the Friday nights is 3"
What is needed is some clarification as to who runs this game (AFL, Clubs, TV?) and which of those objectives is the most important. When you're trying to do 3 things at once, you probably end up achieving none of them.
If you look at the English Premier League, they are a purely 'survival of the fittest' league (no salary cap, draft, free agency, etc) This is fine, at least people are clear on what they're doing. The results are in line with that strategy (same teams compete every year, best players go to best teams, etc)
I'm not saying that I know the answer, I'm just saying that until there is a CLEAR enunciation of the aims of the league and in what/who's interests the league acts then we will continue to have these discussions.
Fans of larger clubs have the luxury of choosing not to care if they want to. Unfortunately, not all of us do...
Comments?
Unfortunately (for ALL of us), it appears that TV is running the game more and more....
Essendon and Collingwood, worked very hard to make Anzac day game a success (FACT), Now it is, Other Club (Vulture) are circling and complaining why should Essendon and Collingwood have that day, we want it.
Richmond and St’Kilda had a day on their own,(Easter Monday) They got 45,000 which is great. IF Richmond and St’Kilda had any foresight, they will try to make that day their own….Instead some lazy Clubs refuse to create their own Traditions, They steel from others (FACT)
Richmond and St’Kilda had a day on their own,(Easter Monday) They got 45,000 which is great. IF Richmond and St’Kilda had any foresight, they will try to make that day their own….Instead some lazy Clubs refuse to create their own Traditions, They steel from others (FACT)
Here's a question:-
One of the main arguments posited for why Ess v Coll should be on Anzac day is the crowd.
So, lets assume that Ess v Coll would draw 65,000 regardless of the day its played, and 85,000 on Anzac Day.
Lets also assume that St Kilda v Kangaroos would get 20,000 on any normal day, but when played on Anzac day would get 40,000 once all the neutrals are there - maybe even a few more as there would be room at the ground.
So from the AFL's perspective you can have either 65,000+40,000 = 105,000 total for these two games or 85,000+20,000 = 105,000. Not a real lot of difference is there
So the only reason I can see for the Anzac Day game being Ess v Coll would be to swell the coffers of the clubs that play that day.
Surely in that case it would be better to make an extra 20,000 paying customers turn up for a game involving two clubs that are struggling?
One of the main arguments posited for why Ess v Coll should be on Anzac day is the crowd.
So, lets assume that Ess v Coll would draw 65,000 regardless of the day its played, and 85,000 on Anzac Day.
Lets also assume that St Kilda v Kangaroos would get 20,000 on any normal day, but when played on Anzac day would get 40,000 once all the neutrals are there - maybe even a few more as there would be room at the ground.
So from the AFL's perspective you can have either 65,000+40,000 = 105,000 total for these two games or 85,000+20,000 = 105,000. Not a real lot of difference is there
So the only reason I can see for the Anzac Day game being Ess v Coll would be to swell the coffers of the clubs that play that day.
Surely in that case it would be better to make an extra 20,000 paying customers turn up for a game involving two clubs that are struggling?
