Demetriou the new AFL CEO

[Jimmy#5]

Originally posted by Weaver
Demetriou has been criticised for his decisions and public statements.

Cook and the other contenders have the advantage of never having made a public statement or a decision that effects the competition.

It is hardly a fair fight in that sense.

One guy cops the flak from the MCC agreement and is declared scum, the other guys sit quietly twidling their thumbs and have no mud slung at them. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have done the same things in the same circumstances.

Demetriou has at least delivered a good CBA which shows wage restraint, and overseen a policy where clubs that want aid have to cut their costs first. Keeping the balance sheet in check at least keeps clubs alive and that is the first priority in my book.

My thoughts exactly there Weaver... at least give the guy a chance to show his wares... if he was no good he wouldn't have been CEO of the AFLPA or a GM of Football Operations at the AFL now would he ppls???

If he does a crap job and the Commission is not happy with his performance, like anyone who has a job, he can be given the arse by his superiors (the AFL Commission) at any given time!

Originally posted by pazza


The consultative committee have wasted 3 months, when we all knew this was going to be the bloody obvious result.

While it may've taken them 3 months or thereabouts to find a replacement, it's a neccessary process and one that would be taken by any organisation/company looking for a new CEO or someone in a high position of management.

Fair enough Andy D was the obvious choice but if they didn't take the time to look at other replacements or they ended up overlooking someone who could do a better job than he, then you would all be saying ***** like 'they should've looked harder, spent more money, taken longer in their search etc...'

Sounds a bit hypocritical if you ask me...

I will reserve judgement until after he takes over the head post and has been in the position long enough to have some influence... might surprise quite a few of you actually!

 

[TimHarvey]

Originally posted by Duffman95
Well ii dare say football operations manager would have a significant in all those contracts

The MCC contract was made long before Andy D's tenure. Is that one of the contracts you are referring to? As I said the AFL's hands are tied with this contract.

Apart from that Andy D has done a good job. The AFL is one of the most profitable companies in it's industry and it I would back there idea of potential management over some unemployed bums on a football site.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by pazza
My biggest problem with Andy D is his idea that the competition needs to support the clubs in the Northern States, whilst clubs like the Bulldogs and Kangaroos are taken to the cleaners.

No, its the bet each way. Why support the dogs and roos now, if they will be gone in 10 years anyway.

We need to make strong decisions. Either go full on into NSW and QLD with second teams, or retreat back to a VFL.

 

[Grave Danger]

Demetriou knows where the bodies ar buried.

 

[Duffman95]

Originally posted by grayham
5) The lack of further expansion plans.
6) A perceivement of pro-vic bias.

The comp has lost the initiative, and its management is firespotting, rather than being proactive.
By finding the CEO from within, it suggests more of the same.

5) Yes, true, reactive
6) Victorians would say interstaters are favoured, South Australians the opposite.... everyone getting ****ed around??

And yes, reactive....

Football would have been MUCH better off with Cook, as we have seen the GOOD he has done to two clubs, whereas Demetriou has done nothing except **** up

 

[marcuz]

Andy was chosen because his head fits perfectly up eddie's arse ,thats where he'll spend most of his time...he's just a puppet

 

[Wojee]

Originally posted by Jimmy#5


Fair enough Andy D was the obvious choice but if they didn't take the time to look at other replacements or they ended up overlooking someone who could do a better job than he

Seems to me like they have deliberately overlooked someone who could do a better job than he

 

[Nikita Blue]

The AFL needed to go with someone with experience as CEO of a major organisation. Instead they have chosen a guy with no integrity and the diplomatic skills of Les Patterson.

Big question is why Caroline didn't know - did he stop spoon-feeding her stories as he got closer to the top job.

 

[Joffaboy]

Great news. Finally a Victorian back in the top spot. After the jackson dark days a ray of light for the true home of Aussie Rules

waiting..........

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So who is in line for AD's Operations Manager position? As it appears the career path to CEO, would Brian Cook consider a move?

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Joffaboy
Great news. Finally a Victorian back in the top spot. After the jackson dark days a ray of light for the true home of Aussie Rules

Jackson did more for Victorian football than Oakley did, while Oakley did the opposite.

 

[Joffaboy]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
So who is in line for AD's Operations Manager position? As it appears the career path to CEO, would Brian Cook consider a move?

Eddie McGuire.

 

[Joffaboy]

Originally posted by Porthos
Jackson did more for Victorian football than Oakley did, while Oakley did the reverse.

Well done Portos, first cab off the rank

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
So who is in line for AD's Operations Manager position? As it appears the career path to CEO, would Brian Cook consider a move?

Interesting question. Surely not Rob Kerr!

 

[Kitty]

Originally posted by Joffaboy
Great news. Finally a Victorian back in the top spot. After the jackson dark days a ray of light for the true home of Aussie Rules

waiting..........

Demetriou brings shame to every Victorian, we should deport him to SA or NSW.

 

[dillo_09]

Originally posted by grayham
The AFL have made a lot of very poor decisions of late, all of which seem to compromise the integrity of the very week to week competition.

Such as???

Originally posted by grayham
1) The MCG finals rule - distinct bias to some sides.

The AFL has tried to negotiate, its the MCC that wont come to the party.

Originally posted by grayham
2) The TV rights deal which sees nine ignore AFL in NSW and QLD.

Nine has a conflict with RL, difficult situation for all concerned.

Originally posted by grayham
3) The selling of home games

Why is this a problem?? The clubs have a product and if they can sell it good luck to them. Your club has benefitted and will continue to do so.

Originally posted by grayham
4) The uneven draw - distinct bias to big clubs.

16 teams will always = an uneven draw. Big clubs are required as a revenue raising product. Without them your club would be poorer given that the Swans cointribute less to the equalization than they receive, therefore meaning you would have to ask for an advance like the dogs and roos and then pay less to your players thus making the swans less likely to hold on to their players.

Originally posted by grayham
5) The lack of further expansion plans.

Why would they want to expand? Where to? NZ?? NT and Tassie dont have the population base and sponsorship potential to support a full time club.

Originally posted by grayham
6) A perceivement of pro-vic bias.

Perceived is correct. It is perceived in Vic that they have a non-vic bias so the reality is probably an even bias accross 16 clubs.

Originally posted by grayham
The comp has lost the initiative, and its management is firespotting, rather than being proactive.
By finding the CEO from within, it suggests more of the same.

Examples????

Come on Grayham, dont make wide sweeping statements, like you always do, without being able to back them up!!





1933

 

[Weaver]

Originally posted by grayham

1) The MCG finals rule - distinct bias to some sides.

Ac contract, not rule, and one that first came about in 1988 as part of the financing agreement for the Great Southern Stand. The AFL and MCC have been at war for donkey's years. Hence the decision to purchase land in the 1960's to build Waverley. Demetriou is on record as having tried to change it and has said that he agrees it is unfair no matter what Melbournians might think.

2) The TV rights deal which sees nine ignore AFL in NSW and QLD.

The TV rights deal was negotiated by Jackson in the main. The clubs wanted the cash and didn't much care about the fine detail. They didn't care about games live against the gate, they didn't care about scheduling. They wanted the cash.

3) The selling of home games

A decision taken by individual clubs for cash. If the AFL tells North they can't play games in Canberra there would be even more uproar about AFL interference.

4) The uneven draw - distinct bias to big clubs.

Can't have an even draw with 22 rounds and 16 teams. Accomodating contracts with stadiums, allowing for multiple showdowns etc is all tough. Each club makes it submision and the AFL does as best as it can. No way the AFL can win here. If there is only one Collingwood-Essendon game a year those suppporters are upset, and if there are 2 other supoorters are upset.

5) The lack of further expansion plans.

Is bloody fantastic. There are half a dozen clubs not far from death's door as it is, and you want more? Relocations and mergers are nonsense. There simply aren't cities to support AFL clubs. The relocation of games to Canberra, Tassie etc is the best way to acheive expansion.

6) A perceivement of pro-vic bias.

Will always exist. Every supporter of every club thinks his/her club is getting a raw deal. Always has, always will.

 

[Yze_Magic]

Originally posted by goaldrush
It is great to see that Andrew Demetriou is the replacement for Wayne Jackson.

you are such a simpleton

 

[PTP]

Greyham is just p!&&#d off that the AFL spent so much money on the search when it could have been gifted to footy's biggest leeches.

 

[jont2020]

Originally posted by dillo_09
Such as???
The AFL has tried to negotiate, its the MCC that wont come to the party.
Nine has a conflict with RL, difficult situation for all concerned.

The AFL signed the agreement with the MCC, and both parties even revisited it in 2001. It is the AFL's fault in signing a 40 year deal (or thereabouts) and not the MCC's - the MCC are merely protecting their own contract as anyone would. The AFL shouldn't have signed it in the first place.

The AFL allowed Nine to have the TV rights on the two days that Nine shows League. Very smart of the AFL to do. Rather than pushing for Nine to have Saturday football instead and thus not having any conflict. Obviously Nine will protect their League product in the Northern states above that of the AFL.

The AFL is spending millions on so called development up North but can't even follow that thru by having matches shown at reasonable times. What a waste of cash.

The AFL has also allowed umpire to fall to farsical levels where footy is now more like aerial ping pong.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by dillo_09
Such as???

Dildo, an appropriate name perhaps. I outlined some examples in my original post which y ou have actually quoted.

The AFL has tried to negotiate, its the MCC that wont come to the party.

The AFL has not pushed very hard. Its not seen as an important issue in victoria.

Nine has a conflict with RL, difficult situation for all concerned.

They stop foxtel from showing the game live on Fridays, and they do no promotion like 7 did, or 10 do.

Why is this a problem?? The clubs have a product and if they can sell it good luck to them. Your club has benefitted and will continue to do so.

I couldnt give a rats cracker if my club benefit. Its wrong, and doesnt nothing for the code but bandaid solutions.

16 teams will always = an uneven draw. Big clubs are required as a revenue raising product. Without them your club would be poorer given that the Swans cointribute less to the equalization than they receive, therefore meaning you would have to ask for an advance like the dogs and roos and then pay less to your players thus making the swans less likely to hold on to their players.

Rubish. The draw can be equal over a 2 or 3 year period.

And FYI the swans contribute much more than the ****y equalisation fund. But we are above petty club issues.

Why would they want to expand? Where to? NZ?? NT and Tassie dont have the population base and sponsorship potential to support a full time club.

You probably asked why expand in 1983 too. There are great expansion opportunities in NSW and QLD which are a lot easier than the first time around. We are still an expanded VFL, not a national comp yet.

Perceived is correct. It is perceived in Vic that they have a non-vic bias so the reality is probably an even bias accross 16 clubs.

The perception in vic is that its our comp, and anyone who joins shouldnt be given the same priveldges as us.
In reality, there is a strong bias toward vic clubs, as graphically illustrated by finals moved to melbourne, and the very existance of 10 unsustainable clubs in the one town

1933

2003.

 

[Z_K]

I don't know much about the AFL's deals with the MCG, the equalisation funds or the extra salary cap provisions recieved by Brissie and Sydney, nor do I want to.

On a very basic level, I think the bloke is an un-intelligent tool and I am sure he will provide us with many cringeworthy moments as he splutters and dribbles his way through the masses of questions he will be forced to answer, after stuffing up everything he touches.

Apart from all that, it seems like a good appointment.

 

[RzrBlade]

AD has just been officially announced as the new CEO of the AFL in a press conference on Fox Footy.

 

[Kitty]

Originally posted by jont2020
The AFL signed the agreement with the MCC, and both parties even revisited it in 2001. It is the AFL's fault in signing a 40 year deal (or thereabouts) and not the MCC's - the MCC are merely protecting their own contract as anyone would. The AFL shouldn't have signed it in the first place.

The AFL allowed Nine to have the TV rights on the two days that Nine shows League. Very smart of the AFL to do. Rather than pushing for Nine to have Saturday football instead and thus not having any conflict. Obviously Nine will protect their League product in the Northern states above that of the AFL.

The AFL is spending millions on so called development up North but can't even follow that thru by having matches shown at reasonable times. What a waste of cash.

The AFL has also allowed umpire to fall to farsical levels where footy is now more like aerial ping pong.

Absolutely agree with all of the above.

Demetriou has also been instrumental in some shocking decisions in scheduling games (mainly in the aim of ****ing off the MCC) ie Round 9, Melbourne v Fremantle at the G and Collingwood v StKilda at Telstra.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by RzrBlade
AD has just been officially announced as the new CEO of the AFL in a press conference on Fox Footy.

Pity it is not April 1st.