Did anybody else catch undertones of "no more blockbusters at the G"?

[ok.crows]

You don't have to put EVERYBODY off.

Just a percentage would do.

And get it in perspective - how much cash flow is the MCC willing to surrender all for the sake of one-final-in-4-years (on average), and a final that includes an interstate side anyway.

... and the AFL is saying "we will fix it & give you compensation if you just let go of your poxy final".

 

[M29]

Originally posted by Dan26

What your suggesting is not the way to do business. It's vindictive and innapproprie, regardless of how unfair the finals contract is. You know this as well as I do. Don't use emotion ok.crows. Be pragmatic.

Originally posted by Dave
don't bother presenting logic, it doesn't compute.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by mantis
How thick are you? as I said the punters won't believe it, because they KNOW the AFL will not schedule games to lose money. It won't happen & seems everyone bar the thick interstate supporters know that.

Of course the AFL schedule games to lose money.

They did it for a final just last year. They held it at the G in front of Melbourne fans when they could have held it at AAMI Stadium in front of Crows fans.

But once AGAIN you miss the point. The AFL don't wear any loss for this draw (bogus draw) until next year.

The MCC should be suffering significant dwonturn well before then, and be willing to get it fixed, all for the sake of an odd poxy final once-in-4-years.

So in the end the AFL won't end up scheduling games to lose money anyway.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by ok.crows
You don't have to put EVERYBODY off.

Just a percentage would do.

So, you're assuming, that a percentage of MCC members would actually believe that the AFL would hold a game like coll vs carl, or ess vs coll at colonial?

Do you think we're idiots?

If you went up two 10 people on the street and asked them whether they'd beleive that the AFL would consider this scenario, 8 of them would laugh and the other one would punch your teeth down your throat and steal your wallet, while the 10th person would most likely be suzi. Who'd call the police.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Dan26
That's part of the agreement. The best 11 games must be drawn at the MCG. I'm surprised no one else has rought it up. I've always found it difficult to guess how you gauge the best 11. i.e how do you know how big the games are going to be? But the point of that component of the contract, is to ensure the MCG gets the expected bigger drawing games.

Again, what agreement?

THe AFL aren't penalizing the interstate fans - the MCC are. The AFL want the interstate fans to be able to attend deserved home finals.

I know it is the MCC obstinacy at the root of the problem, but the AFL caused the problem in the first place and it is the AFL who must pro-actively fix it. Now.

Begging with the MCC hasn't helped.

Now is the time to use something that hurts.

Who gains out of Ess vs Coll at the Dome? Everyone loses. The fans lose out, and the AFL would have been the ones to penalize them. The AFL currently don't penalize any fans. The MCC are the ones who do that. It is in the best interests of the game to play the best crowd drawing H&A games at the MCG.

No-one gains. Less people lose out though, which is the point you fail to address.

What your suggesting is not the way to do business. It's vindictive and innapproprie, regardless of how unfair the finals contract is. You know this as well as I do. Don't use emotion ok.crows. Be pragmatic.

It is no less vindictive or inappropriate than the MCC position. Since less people are affected by a blockbuster lockout at the Dome than the finals fiasco, then it is entirely appropriate and pragmatic.

Finally, once AGAIN, there should actually be no such lockout occur in the end. There should be a fix come out of this all, and no-one ends up hurt, and everyone ends up happy, except perhaps Mr Gough.

Sorry, but I had to end up hurting 1 person.

It seems better that way than the fans of 6 interstate sides, or about 52% of AFL supporters, wouldn't you say?

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Dan26
That's part of the agreement. The best 11 games must be drawn at the MCG. I'm surprised no one else has rought it up. I've always found it difficult to guess how you gauge the best 11. i.e how do you know how big the games are going to be? But the point of that component of the contract, is to ensure the MCG gets the expected bigger drawing games.

Based on current ladder positions the best 11 games would seem to involve non-Victorian teams.............that should satisfy the MCC.........

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by M29
So, you're assuming, that a percentage of MCC members would actually believe that the AFL would hold a game like coll vs carl, or ess vs coll at colonial?

Do you think we're idiots?

I can respond to this in soooooooo many ways, but I'll just suggest "Street talk" as a sampling of easy-to-find idiocy.

Never underestimate the number of idiots.

OK - a bit harsh I agree, but here is another angle - (parody warning)

So your assuming that all interstate fans would believe the AFL was prepared to sacrifice their interest all to finance one stand at one ground in a state other than their own?

Do you think they would be idiotic enough to swallow that?

 

[Navy Master]

The main thing here is that the MCC or Victorians should NOT have rights to any finals in the AFL, its a disgrace, and you can blame Jackson for signing the moronic contract in 2001! Which ensured 4 games every finals series... Stupid, i genuinely feel for the non-Vics here, its ridiculous...

And geez... didnt Clinton love the question on the Superleague?? Andy looked a bit worried by it, but Clinton jumped in (stupidly i think) and basically said "No, and you dont have to answer that!"

 

[Dan26]

No, you're wrong. Tha's not the way to conduct business. You want to schedule no blockbusters at the MCG (which can't happen anyway, because with 41 games there, there will still be plenty of big games)

Even if the AFL do this, there is no guarantee the contract will be changed. Your logic is to play Ess vs Coll at the Dome, and hope the MCC changes the finals contract. Where did you learn the rules of business mate? That's not the way to get the MCC to change. The only losers will be the Essendon and Collngwood fans. The interstate sides will still suffer through the inequity of the contract. And as I said, with 41 games at the MCG, consiting of home clubs of Collingwood, Richmond Hawthorn and Essendon (for 4 home games) there will always be plenty of big games, even if you avoid Ess v Coll v Carl. You can't get around that, because there are so many (41) games. If you're in the AFL's shoes you don't deliberatley penalize fans so that the MCC can stop penalising interstate fans once every few years or so. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And you ask what agreement? The agreement Iv'e told you about in the last two firggin posts I've written! Do I need to make it a third?

 

[M29]

Originally posted by ok.crows
I can respond to this in soooooooo many ways, but I'll just suggest "Street talk" as a sampling of easy-to-find idiocy.

Never underestimate the number of idiots.

So you do believe that some people (MCC members) would actually fear the AFL moving big games to colonic?

Secondly there is no way in hell the clubs would agree to it, even a complete fool would see though this 'bluff'.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Dan26
No, you're wrong. Tha's not the way to conduct business. You want to schedule no blockbusters at the MCG (which can't happen anyway, because with 41 games there, there will still be plenty of big games)

Even if the AFL do this, there is no guarantee the contract will be changed. Your logic is to play Ess vs Coll at the Dome, and hope the MCC changes the finals contract. Where did you learn the rules of business mate? That's not the way to get the MCC to change. The only losers will be the Essendon and Collngwood fans. The interstate sides will still suffer through the inequity of the contract. And as I said, with 41 games at the MCG, consiting of home clubs of Collingwood, Richmond Hawthorn and Essendon (for 4 home games) there will always be plenty of big games, even if you avoid Ess v Coll v Carl. You can't get around that, because there are so many (41) games. If you're in the AFL's shoes you don't deliberatley penalize fans so that the MCC can stop penalising interstate fans once every few years or so. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And you ask what agreement? The agreement Iv'e told you about in the last two firggin posts I've written! Do I need to make it a third?

Says you.

Once AGAIN, there is no intent that fans get hurt, or AFL clubs get hurt.

There is only the intent to dry up the amount of people (right now) buying MCG memberships, and the advertisers wanting to buy signage at the G.

If you dry it up, the MCC will have an insurmountable cash flow problem. It shouldn't take more than a few weeks for it to become a real problem. The MCC should come to its senses, and decide that the odd once-in-4-years final isn't worth the angst. The whole thing should get fixed & go away well before this year is out, and there will be no losers in the end. Except Mr Gough.

Why shouldn't "not enough money coming in, all for the sake of the odd poxy final" be a way to get the MCC to shift their stance?

Finally, you do need to name this agreement, since you are the only one to have mentioned it. Who signed what agreement about what games must be played at the MCG, other than the "41 games" agreement and the "at least one final each week at the G" agreement?

 

[dreamkillers]

I find it interesting that a few people are saying that doing some of the things OK Crows has suggested is not the way to do business.

As much as I rarely agree with him here on Bigfooty doing business in the corporate world isn't all about being nice to who you do business with.

It's about getting the best deal possible. At the moment the MCC/MCG have that in hand but the AFL hold the product they need and can easily use leverage against them.

Sure the theory they teach in uni's etc may seem that being nice is the way but it's a hell of a lot different out there in the real world. Using pressure, threats and leverage is just one of the tools that many successful businesses use whereas not too many successful business are nice all of the time.

I'll also agree with Dan on this very rare occasion......lets have the 11 best games at the MCG next year which in current trends will involve Port, Brisbane, West Coast, Sydney, Freo and Adelaide and see what the MCC/MCG think of that...........

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by M29
So you do believe that some people (MCC members) would actually fear the AFL moving big games to colonic?

Secondly there is no way in hell the clubs would agree to it, even a complete fool would see though this 'bluff'.

Except for the fact that these games would be written down on the draw.

To some people, in fact to many people, that would make it gospel.

In fact, many people would still be turning up according to the originally published, "unbelieveable" draw even if the AFL subsequently published a "sane, fixed, negotiated to get the finals fixed" draw later on.

There is no way in hell interstate sides agreed to get dudded home finals either, but it happened.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Says you.

Once AGAIN, there is no intent that fans get hurt, or AFL clubs get hurt.

There is only the intent to dry up the amount of people (right now) buying MCG memberships,

Utter ****. Like I pointed out earlier, MCC memberships are cheaper than scalped GF tickets and Silver Gold Memberships before and after buying a GF ticket with them.

I for one, would not give a **** how many finals they played there, as long as the Grand Final is on, I've got my moneys worth there.

There is no way in hell, 'bluffing' about moving blockbusters would effect MCC membership. Even if it did, they'd drop prices and the waiting list would be rushing in. It's about 20 years BTW. There is no way that bluffing will stop that many people.

 

[mantis]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
I find it interesting that a few people are saying that doing some of the things OK Crows has suggested is not the way to do business.

We are not saying that, just saying what he has suggested won't work, because the AFL will not schedule blockbusters at any place except the MCG & all Victorian fans know that.

Where is that brick wall smilie when you need it.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Except for the fact that these games would be written down on the draw.

To some people, in fact to many people, that would make it gospel.

In fact, many people would still be turning up according to the originally published, "unbelieveable" draw even if the AFL subsequently published a "sane, fixed, negotiated to get the finals fixed" draw later on.

One minute you say bluffed, next your saying written on the draw. Make your mind up.

There is no way in hell interstate sides agreed to get dudded home finals either, but it happened.

What? The same rules when you entered the comp?

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by mantis
We are not saying that, just saying what he has suggested won't work, because the AFL will not schedule blockbusters at any place except the MCG & all Victorian fans know that.

Where is that brick wall smilie when you need it.

Umm....I think if you read a few posts that has been said..........

As for what the AFL will actually do none of us will know for sure until they release the fixtures for next year.......anything is possible.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
I find it interesting that a few people are saying that doing some of the things OK Crows has suggested is not the way to do business.

Even that way of ransom, is completely **** weak. That's why it won't work.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by M29
Even that way of ransom, is completely **** weak. That's why it won't work.

Ransom, blackmail, leverage - call it what you want but it's part and parcel of big business dealings that happen all the time.

As for not working...........well there's no proof to say it won't just people's opinions as it's never been tested by the AFL but there is plenty of proof in the corporate world to show that negotiating like that works all the time - not a day would pass when some sort of leverage gets a deal through by tightning the screws.


Mind you I tend to think that we'll never see it tested as the AFL don't appear to have the guts to do it.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by M29

One minute you say bluffed, next your saying written on the draw. Make your mind up.

Say what?

Where is there any inconsistency there?

The AFL publish a draw. Write it down, send it out. It has heaps of poor games at the G. Lots of furore, lots of wailing & gnashing of teeth, including by the MCC. So negotiations happen, and the rotten draw is made defunct along with the poxy-odd-final-must-be-at-MCG-anyway-because-Vics-are-dog-in-manger deal.

Then a new draw is published that has everyone happy.

What? The same rules when you entered the comp?

Not so.

Not the same at all. When the interstate sides entered the comp, finals venues where "wherever the AFL said". Then later the AFL made up a final 8, using the McIntyre system. Later still the ex-VFL clubs moaned after Crows won a GF from 5th, and Carlton made a GF from 6th place.

So the AFL decided to keep the final 8, but change the system around, and now (what applies currently) is that the finals venue is part of the advantage system.

These new finals rules (after not 1 not two but about 4 changes since the Crows entered the AF) are being broken - by the AFL. They keep putting games on in Melbourne which, according to their own new rules (and not the rules when interstate side joined), should have been held at interstate venues.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by M29
Even that way of ransom, is completely **** weak. That's why it won't work.

Holding the MCC to ransom is less despicable than holding 52% of AFL supporters to ransom.

One hell of a lot less despicable.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Ransom, blackmail, leverage - call it what you want but it's part and parcel of big business dealings that happen all the time.

As for not working...........well there's no proof to say it won't just people's opinions as it's never been tested by the AFL but there is plenty of proof in the corporate world to show that negotiating like that works all the time - not a day would pass when some sort of leverage gets a deal through by tightning the screws.


Mind you I tend to think that we'll never see it tested as the AFL don't appear to have the guts to do it.

My view is that dreamkillers is 100% spot on here.

 

[mantis]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Holding the MCC to ransom is less despicable than holding 52% of AFL supporters to ransom.

One hell of a lot less despicable.

Where did you come up with the figure of 52%.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by mantis
Where did you come up with the figure of 52%.

That is a pretty commonly accepted figure. The six interstate sides between them account for approximately 52% of AFL following. The TV audiences in states other than Victoria account for about 52% (maybe a little more) of the total. And of the players on the AFL clubs lists, about 52% of them originate outside of Victoria.

So, your answer is - several indicators agree roughly that this is around about the figure.

Attendences at games probably won't agree because of 8 games each week only 3 are allowed to be held in other states.

 

[mantis]

We are only talking about supporters, so where players come from is irrelevant, also you have to remember that a lot of people outside of Victoria, also support Victorian teams, so you can't say that everyone in certain states follow Non Vic teams, I know that a huge number of people interstate, are actually Victorian teams member, and or supporters, there goes your 52%.