Hang your heads in shame AFL/MCC

[Former]

Originally posted by ozzult
I wasn't dreaming when I saw the 4500 word discussion about my avatar.


4500 words about one picture, quite an enthralling discussion actually.

a) The discussion was about avatars in general, your continued use of sexually suggestive avatars was used as an example.

b) I'm intrigued to know where you saw that discussion. It was in the private moderators board. This would seem to indicate you or someone you know caused the recent trouble on this site.

c) Your avatar has been removed. Post another sexually suggestive image and you will be booted.

 

[ozzult]

Originally posted by Appleyard
a) The discussion was about avatars in general, your continued use of sexually suggestive avatars was used as an example.

b) I'm intrigued to know where you saw that discussion. It was in the private moderators board. This would seem to indicate you or someone you know caused the recent trouble on this site.

c) Your avatar has been removed. Post another sexually suggestive image and you will be booted.

a) No it was about my avatar specifically.

b) Yes it was me, I confess, guilty on all charges

c) Please enjoy my new avatar.

 

[Former]

No I think you'll find that it was about avatars, prompted by a discussion on where the line should be drawn on sexually suggestive images like the ones you have used.

If you are going to admit to getting in as a mod and messing with user access to the site please be sure you did actually do it, I'd hate to see you booted for something you didn't do.

 

[ozzult]

No I didn't do it.

The actual thread I'm referring to was started specifically about my avatar, that must be "avatars in general" nowadays.



But anyway, I'm happy with my new avatar.

 

[Former]

"Prompted by a discussion..." about your avatar. The entire discussion was not about you and your avatar.


If you did not do it, then I'd very much like to know who showed you that private discussion.

 

[ozzult]

Originally posted by Appleyard
"Prompted by a discussion..." about your avatar. The entire discussion was not about you and your avatar.


If you did not do it, then I'd very much like to know who showed you that private discussion.

I'll take the fifth on that one.

Because I don't like to kick up a fuss, it's just not my way

 

[Mead]

The thing which really makes me livid about the AFL/MCC thing is the impact it has on the fans.

Think about it like this- I know of people who have supported fremantle from day one (the poor misguided souls). They've probably shelled out somewhere in the $1500 in terms of memberships, and supported fremantle through the dark times. Basically, they're the sort of members that the AFL is always trying to push on struggling clubs- they support their team with question, through the hard times.

Now, after x number of years of no on field success, it looks as though Fremantle might *finally* make a final, and earn the right to play it at home. Now tell me, how can you POSSIBLY justify a system which would take away the right of a such a fan to see their team play a final, in favor of the big corporates, and one-week-in-a-year spectators who don't know or care about either team? How can you possibly tell someone who has supported their team (and thus padded Wayne Jackson and Co's pay cheques) that now the good times are here and they have a chance to see some september action, but sorry, you don't deserve it, we're going to let some jaded MCC members watch your game instead?! If that is the case, everything which has mad footy the national game is dead, and I would have serious second thoughts about following the AFL anymore. Why the hell should I continue to shell out my dollars to support a league which so blatantly doesn't care about the fans?

The reality is, the AFL has entered into an idiotic contract, and now is expecting the MCC to be nice about it and let them out. Since when is that how things work in the business world? Stephen Gough is being an absolutely soulless intransigent ****er about this, but that is his prerogative. There is one clear out here, the AFL needs to default on the contract, and pay damages. (incidentally, from what little I know about contract law <exam marks pending > , VOR is totally right, and jasonoz's interpretation of Hadley and Baxendale is rather bizarre to say the least)

If it does, it might preserve some semblance of fairness, and convince people like my freo supporting hobo mate that its worth continuing to shell out their hard earned to support this game? If not, their financial losses from defaulting on the contract might be insignificant compared the disillusionment and consequential loss of interest and viewing dollars by the fans being screwed.

 

[Former]

Originally posted by ozzult
I'll take the fifth on that one.

Because I don't like to kick up a fuss, it's just not my way

I think we should take this conversation to e-mail.

 

[Katthawk]

Ye...hess I saw you both... anyhow..Bluey and Appleyard.. I think..

VOR... it is not the MCC who makes up who pays how much for the tickets for Subi and Footy Park...

Just can you understand that if the MCG is supposed to provide the most seats for the Grand Final then all teams and all clubs should pay for it. Who actually sets the costs for tickets?

Surely not the grounds themselves..

I shall begin again tomorrow with another barrage of irrefutable knowledge.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by Dan26
Apparently there is a contract (yes believe it or not, the AFL signed a contract) that states that there must be a final at the Dome if two or more finals are scheduled in Victoria in the first week.

Then how is the AFL ever going to be able to build up its bank of finals at the MCG ?

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by mighty mick
why change the system when the interstaters wont show up to thier home finals cos they complain about the price of the tickets, victorians will pay to see our sport at the mcg as the ground standards and facilities are better and of course way bigger.

Whats this crap about intersate fans not showing up to finals?

The Crows have had only two finals in their home sate. Both have been absolute sell-outs.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Katthawk
What do you expect us Victorian teams to do

We expect you to have to travel to play finals matches on your merit, just as interstate sides have to.

 

[morgoth]

Stupid

The MCC is not a representation of most Victorians. With the exception of the GF (and everyone seems comfortable with that staying), I do not care where they are played.

The MCC is catering to their members and the corporates who come for the 'event'. Why would an average Vic supporter fork out $70 or whatever it costs to go and watch two interstate teams. The argument of going for the atmposphere is diluted by having two interstaters.

It is stupid and unfair.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by 1jasonoz
How many Millions do you think it will cost?

Say they went to court and said hey we should have got 60,000 at the weekend, but the AFL refused to meet there contract obligations. Court would say, Hmm ok 60,000 at what... $50 a ticket, equals $3 million. Say they get half, thats $1.5 million. Say each person spends $20 per day on beer, food etc, thats another $1.2 million, say they get that. The MCC then say they had contract with advertisers, to avertise during the finals, say another $2 miilion compensation. That means to shift the game would cost the AFL, us, the clubs what $4.7 million. This is not including any damages that may be awarded for lost prestige , reputation etc...Now do you see why it would cost so much to shift the game.

This is actually an arguement the wrong way around IMO.

I think it would be costing the AFL more in terms of lost revenue, lost prestige and lost credibility to hold a final at the MCG in order to honour the contract than it would cost to break the contract and hold the finals where they should be held.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by 1jasonoz


The only way this will be solved, will be if the premiers of the variuos states sat down with the AFL/MCC, said look this sucks, lets work out how much money is left outstanding on the contract, and we will pay it out. But for a contract with what 28 years to run, you'd be looking at $200 million plus to do that.

The MCG is already in receipt of more than $200 million in excess of what the contract guarantees them, if your figure of $47 mill for one game is anything approaching correct.

There have already been more than 20 finals (figure taken from memory) played at the MCG in excess of the "1 per week" mark since the contract started.

 

[hotpie]

Re: Stupid

Originally posted by morgoth
The MCC is not a representation of most Victorians

Probably correct but the point is moot

But the MCC built the Great Southern Stand and the new Northern Stand for "most Victorians". The PF agreement is designed to ensure that the stand is financed properly.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason

In order of priority this year, teams should be aiming to finish 1st, 2nd or 5th.

This is encouraging, as I think the Crows can make 5th.

This is akin to the situation, whereby if for example the Crows come up against either West Coast or Brisbane in a final that should be a home game for either of those sides, then the Crows are far better off if that game gets scheduled at the MCG !!!!!

However, if it happens to be Port, then not.

The whole system is screwed.

Somebody should blow the MCG up.

That would save a lot of $$$ & angst in the long run I would think.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason

Against stupidity, even the Gods themselves struggle in vain.

The quote is (I think) from Emmerson:

"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain".

Very appropritae when faced with a Victorian self-interested, dog-in-the-manger, "we don't care if we kill all interest in AFL as long as we get 1 PF game at our ground" type of attitude.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Squeak
Don't blame the MCC for all this. They have to look out for their own interests first, the game's 2nd. The AFL has different priorities and has been the weak link in all this.

The MCC's own interest is to keep the game popular.

If their actions kill interest in the national competition and the competition constricts in scope back to just Victoria, then it will likely die altogether due to competition with other sports or even other entertainments entirely.

The MCC are potentially cutting their own throats.

 

[Clackers69]

Can't be bothered reading through all the 100 odd posts, but it's a great result for AFL and MCC Members, of which I am one (AFL). Thanks god the MCC held tough in the face of the AFL trying to sell out it's many members. Now we will get what we paid for, AFL Finals.

 

[BrisGirl]

The loser in all of this?.......The interstate supporter

Airfares to Melbourne + 2 nights accommodation + food = @ $2500

Who has that money to go and see your team play in a final that should be played in your home State.

....and I still ask, why does Cricket have this kind of hold over our game, when it is our money that keeps the grounds around Australia, in the state they are in, because is certainly wouldn't be Cricket money keeping the grounds working.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Magpie Magician
You can't even get 30,000 to a final in your home state.

Nothing to do with it.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Dan26
How about if the AFL just decide to give the premiership to the team on top of the ladder, and do away with the finals? That's throw the cat amongst the pigeons.

Is there any "contract" that says finals must determine the premiership? No.

Good idea

and then pay a Goodwill seires of matches using the finals rule and don't call them finals

Then say see you in Court Stephen Gough you loser.

 

[Jars458]

Here's a scenario. Ladder finishes this way

Port
Brisbane
West Coast
Sydney
Fremantle
Adelaide
Kangaroos
Collingwood


Port v Syndey - AAMI - Port win
Brisbane v West Coast - GAbba - Brissy win

Fremantle v Collingwood - Subiaco - Freo win
Adelaide v Kangaroos - MCG due to contract - Kangas win

Week 2

Sydney v kangaroos - MCG due to contract - Kangas win
West Coast v Freo - Subi - Cost win

Prelims

Port v west coast - AAMI - port win
Brisbane v Kangas - MCG due to contract

Grand final

port v kangas - mCG -- kangas win


Kangaroos win a Premeirship with four home finals after not haviny earned even one.

This would be a disgrace. Substitue Collingwood or Richmond as its even worse as they play most of their games at the MCG

Even though for a team to win four finals it would be a good effort in any case, the Premiership would be so tarnished it wouldn't be funny.

Lets hope for the AFL's sake that they can play two intestate sides at teh MCG in most weeks as at least this would be a more netural outcome.

The non Vic clubs pour millions into the AFL and this is what they get in return.

I would almost support a boycott of the finals this year. THEN the AFL would have to do something.

 

[Mr Q]

Re: Re: Stupid

Originally posted by hotpie
But the MCC built the Great Southern Stand and the new Northern Stand for "most Victorians". The PF agreement is designed to ensure that the stand is financed properly.

Yes, and what percentage of West Coast and Adelaide fans lived in Victoria in 1996, 1999 and 2002?

Built the stand for "most Victorians" is not a fair argument when we're talking about the Australian Football League.