Hang your heads in shame AFL/MCC

[Dave]

Originally posted by Jars458
Every person has an overriding responsibility to the community in which they live.

That however does not a conflict of interest make.

 

[Navy Master]

Solution is simple, starve them

All Carlton home games at Optus next year, miss out on those big ones, Essendon all at the Dome, take away ANZAC Day for the MCG, give em all the vic v non-vic games (about 25-30 of them), and play heaps at the Dome, they get their 41 games, and their finals once a week, but that is what would really **** off MCC members, not missing out on 2 all non-vic finals for one or two years...

I'd love to see what the MCC do, i hope they fold... And Jackson has to go quicksmart, its his fault, im suprised him and his ego were pushed over so easily (so he claims) by the state government (who are also ****weak but on an ego trip)

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Dave
That however does not a conflict of interest make.

No - didn't say it did.

It does place a responsibiliity on them other than protecting their own commerical interests.

To me it isn't even that they are doing. (THe AFL have said teh MCC won't be financially disadvantaged)

They are just sticking by the contract for the sheer sake of it out of some silly notion that if one Prelim wasn't played at the MCG it would be the end of Victorian football as we know it.

Or is it perhaps they would think they would lose face if they backed down

Bracks' atttitude shows the real baiss behind it all. A view that AFL finals belong in Melbourne and that's that. Such a dogmatic and narrow minded view is a disgrace.

I hold no hope for the future of this nation when the supposed working class party holds a view that clearly results in such inequities. The ALP used to stand for a fair go for all. Obviously not anymore ( at least in Victoria).

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by 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

You've gone wrong here. It's actually West Coast v Roos at Subi; Sydney v Freo at MCG.

Although its an interesting hypothetical. I'm not sure a Victorian team actually can get four undeserved MCG finals (barring playing a higher ranked Victorian team of course).

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Jars458
Bracks' atttitude shows the real baiss behind it all. A view that AFL finals belong in Melbourne and that's that. Such a dogmatic and narrow minded view is a disgrace.

I hold no hope for the future of this nation when the supposed working class party holds a view that clearly results in such inequities. The ALP used to stand for a fair go for all. Obviously not anymore ( at least in Victoria).

Whilst I agree with most of your other points I don't on this one...........Brack's is looking after his political future like ALL politicians do - if we didn't have state politics and he was PM I'm sure he would be saying the complete opposite.

 

[DaveW]

Further to that last post, it is actually possible. It just requires a first week upset like last year.

Port
Brisbane
West Coast
Sydney
Fremantle
Adelaide
Kangaroos
Collingwood


Port v Sydney - Football Park - Sydney win
Brisbane v West Coast - Gabba - Bris win

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

Week 2

Port v Freo - Football Park - Port win
West Coast v Kangas - MCG due to contract - Kangas win

Prelims

Brisbane v Port - Gabba - Brisbane win
Sydney v Kangas - MCG due to contract - Kangas win

Grand final

Port v Kangas - MCG due to contract -- Kangas win


Sorry, just had to be anal retentive there.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
Whilst I agree with most of your other points I don't on this one...........Brack's is looking after his political future like ALL politicians do - if we didn't have state politics and he was PM I'm sure he would be saying the complete opposite.

I honestly cant see Bracks being voted out because he didn't back up the MCC

That would make Victorian voters morons.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Jars458
I honestly cant see Bracks being voted out because he didn't back up the MCC

That would make Victorian voters morons.

No but he could be voted out for not supporting games at the MCG hence his statement where he said both prelims should be played there.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by dreamkillers
No but he could be voted out for not supporting games at the MCG hence his statement where he said both prelims should be played there.

What a joke that would be

If Vicotorians would base their vote on that, they have serious problems given that its clearly wrong on principle.

If the NT joined the SANFL and made the grand final as the number one team, then it would be clearly fair for the grand final to be held in Darwin.

I would have no problem wiht that and doubt most South Aussies would.

only comparison I can think of.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Jars458
No - didn't say it did.

No, Brisgirl did. The comment you replied to was a reply to her assertion.

To me it isn't even that they are doing. (THe AFL have said teh MCC won't be financially disadvantaged)

And before that they said they'd offered to do them a favour in the future. Neither if us know what the AFL have offered because they wont come out and say so. I suspect the reason for this is that they've offered SFA and don't want anyone to know.

I hold no hope for the future of this nation when the supposed working class party holds a view that clearly results in such inequities. The ALP used to stand for a fair go for all. Obviously not anymore ( at least in Victoria).

Not just in victoria. Ask Beattie about whether he'll take CG handouts this year.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by Jars458

I hold no hope for the future of this nation when the supposed working class party holds a view that clearly results in such inequities.

For gods sake its only football.

Please don't extrapolate this out into some broader issue.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Navy Master
All Carlton home games at Optus next year, miss out on those big ones, Essendon all at the Dome, take away ANZAC Day for the MCG, give em all the vic v non-vic games (about 25-30 of them),

Another bush lawyer ala ok.crows. The AFL cannot do this.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Dave
And before that they said they'd offered to do them a faqvour in the future. Neither if us know what the AFL have offered bevause they wont come out and say so. I suspect the reason for this is that they've offered SFA and don't want anyone to know.



Not just in victoria. Ask Beattie about whether he'll take CG handouts this year.

That's true I suppose, but surely the AFL can't be that deceitful?? I dont belive they could.

I think grants commission handouts is a different kettle of fish entirely.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Jars458
That's true I suppose, but surely the AFL can't be that deceitful?? I dont belive they could.

They lied about Colonial - "Any match that will be a lockout will be switched to the MCG".

I think grants commission handouts is a different kettle of fish entirely.

It's not about a fair go for all?

 

[Navy Master]

Originally posted by Navy Master
Solution is simple, starve them

All Carlton home games at Optus next year, miss out on those big ones, Essendon all at the Dome, take away ANZAC Day for the MCG, give em all the vic v non-vic games (about 25-30 of them), and play heaps at the Dome, they get their 41 games, and their finals once a week, but that is what would really **** off MCC members, not missing out on 2 all non-vic finals for one or two years... The MCC wants non-vic teams to play at their ground, they can have all those games!

I'd love to see what the MCC do, i hope they fold... And Jackson has to go quicksmart, its his fault, im suprised him and his ego were pushed over so easily (so he claims) by the state government (who are also ****weak but on an ego trip)

 

[grayham]

The ugly compromise I can see coming is that the MCG relents on finals that contain no vic teams at all, including the preliminary, but still requires a finals that have a vic team to be played at the MCG irrespective of finishing positions.

Which may sound like a compromise, but in fact fixes nothing at all.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by grayham
The ugly compromise I can see coming is that the MCG relents on finals that contain no vic teams at all, including the preliminary, but still requires a finals that have a vic team to be played at the MCG irrespective of finishing positions.

Which may sound like a compromise, but in fact fixes nothing at all.

That sounds worse.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Dave
It's not about a fair go for all?

Yes it is, but what that fair go for all is, is a bit more doubtful in the CGC case than it is in the AFL finals case.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Jars458
What a joke that would be

If Vicotorians would base their vote on that, they have serious problems given that its clearly wrong on principle.

If the NT joined the SANFL and made the grand final as the number one team, then it would be clearly fair for the grand final to be held in Darwin.

I would have no problem wiht that and doubt most South Aussies would.

only comparison I can think of.

Possibly or another way to look at it is being a little patriotic and sticking it up other states which would keep a lot of the locals (voters) happy.....

Remember politics and commonsense are miles apart......

 

[BrisGirl]

Originally posted by hotpie
MCC Mission Statement

The Melbourne Cricket Club is a private club with public responsibilities.

It has two primary roles

- managing the MCG as the world's best stadium for all people.

- providing the best services and facilities to its members.
whilst ensuring our unique sporting culture and heritage are enhanced and appreciated.

Just a little hypocritical.....

The MCC is a private Club

Dictionary (private):- 'not seen, used or shared by others; used or controlled by individuals, rather than the public'

# The MCC manages the MCG for all people..... other than the football public, which happen to be screaming out of the injustice of it all.

# Providing the best services and facilities to its 'members'
Which Members would they be? Cricket Club Members?

If the MCG Trust handed over the management rights to the AFL, do you think the MCC will be magnanimous about it because it is in the best interest of the Public?

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by BrisGirl
Just a little hypocritical.....

The MCC is a private Club

Dictionary (private):- 'not seen, used or shared by others; used or controlled by individuals, rather than the public'

# The MCC managers the MCG for all people..... other than the football public, which happen to be screaming out of the injustice of it all.

# Providing the best services and facilities to its 'members'
Which Members would they be? Cricket Club Members?

If the MCG Trust handed over the management rights to the AFL, do you think the MCC will be magnanimous about it because it is in the best interest of the Public?

I'm glad to see you can use a dictionary. As usual you miss the point and fly off on ridiculous tangents.

Bottom line in the Mission Statement is that is dual responsibilites are to manage the MCG and to look after its Members. Nowhere are they obliged to assist the football world (or the cricket world for that matter!!!)

Their stubbornness on this issue is in line with their mission statement - to do whats in the best interests of the ground and its Members.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by hotpie
I'm glad to see you can use a dictionary. As usual you miss the point and fly off on ridiculous tangents.

Bottom line in the Mission Statement is that is dual responsibilites are to manage the MCG and to look after its Members. Nowhere are they obliged to assist the football world (or the cricket world for that matter!!!)

Their stubbornness on this issue is in line with their mission statement - to do whats in the best interests of the ground and its Members.

OK, so as the managers of the ground, how is it in the best interests of the ground to royally pi$$ off your major customer (the AFL)?

Now that customer is probably going to have to take all your best buisness to another ground in order to force the issue, to get you to co-operate.

How is that in any way in the best interests of your members, if they no longer get any good games?

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by ok.crows
OK, so as the managers of the ground, how is it in the best interests of the ground to royally pi$$ off your major customer (the AFL)?

Now that customer is probably going to have to take all your best buisness to another ground in order to force the issue, to get you to co-operate.

How is that in any way in the best interests of your members, if they no longer get any good games?

You jump to too many conclusions about the AFL's "industrial action", OK Crows.

Most landlords pi$$ off their tenants from time to time, just as banks annoy customers and hot dog vendors at the footy rip us off. But guess what? We learn to live with it. Its not unusual for one party in a contract to say "doh!" and want out.

But he has to pay to get out.