Visy Poach: chickens coming home

[TheLip]

Indeed, a good post. All I get crappy with is the Collingwood fans acting as if it was always thus re: finances, when the reality is they initially abandoned the thing that has hugely contributed to where they are and then used their bulk to bully their way back into it when another club - that had done the hard yards - was doing very nicely out of it.

Whilst I'm totally disinterested in weighing in on the core of the debate, I think it's worth putting this into some kind of perspective. The truth of the matter is that for a short period in the 80's and 90's, Collingwood was financially moribund but that period aside, by VFL standards Collingwood was always a financial powerhouse and always has had a huge supporter base. The fact that for a short time that was all put at risk due to poor management does not mean that Collingwood's status as one of the powerhouses of the league and a financial powerhouse at that is somehow something new if that's the suggestion.

 

[frantelle]

Which is what I have been saying all thread.

I'm saying it is very rich to get lectured by Eddie - as he does to North - when he stole the fixture we made.

And thus Collingwood supporters whinging about Carlton's deal with Judd (reprehensible as it is) is somewhat tiresome.

If by your account that us playing on Friday nights has made us a strong force, why is it you used to dominate that timeslot but struggle now? It's not as simple as what time of the week you play, once you figure that out at North you'll be better for it

 

[bobsyouruncle]

Cheats will be cheats.

Ad hominem - Attacking someone's person rather than the arguement itself. Like calling someone Hitler during a debate. Nice and cheap way of getting a cheap shot in, but actually says nothing about the topic.

Also a tautology, not much of an arguement when your premise is the same as your conclusion.

Im sure if Cartlon paid Judd $1 per year out of the salary cap and Visy chipped in with $2 million per year that would be okay too??

Strawman arguement. Easier to argue against a completely absurd statement which has no relevance to facts. As plenty have said earlier, many players are on similar deals. The dollar amounts may be different but the methods are the same. If you truely want a level playing field, ban all deals.

 

[Donstuie]

I'd have been happy if they'd stripped the premiership won with salary cap breaches

Which was?

 

[Tas]

I was born into a strict Carlton family... My grandfather played one game for the blues


The bolded part is ridiculous... Your club needs all the supporters it can get... North are in no position to be picky about how your supporters became north supporters.... Why you really need is supporters who show up to games

I didn't claim my views were that of my club, just how I feel.

I'd be happier if we played at a stadium suitable to our supporter base and we didn't have the need to try and get 50k people to a game every week or need to get that kind of numbers to get a fair an equitable share of the draw and timeslots.

Seeing the players squabble for money and what the AFL is turning the game into is leaving a bad taste in my mouth about where the game is heading.

 

[Poseidon]

Yet none of them come anywhere close to Judds.

Does this matter? When arguing about the integrity of the competition, why should the dollar amount of the deal come into play? If you truly wanted a level playing field then you'd want all 3rd party deals banned.

 

[Krueger]

Ad hominem - Attacking someone's person rather than the arguement itself. Like calling someone Hitler during a debate. Nice and cheap way of getting a cheap shot in, but actually says nothing about the topic.

Also a tautology, not much of an arguement when your premise is the same as your conclusion.



Strawman arguement. Easier to argue against a completely absurd statement which has no relevance to facts. As plenty have said earlier, many players are on similar deals. The dollar amounts may be different but the methods are the same. If you truely want a level playing field, ban all deals.

Come on, the Judd deal is basically rorting the salary cap even though for some reason it was given the green light. Basically the club President was paying him out of his own pocket to supplement his salary from the club.

 

[Jade]

Hmmmm. After eschewing Friday nights after playing the first one Collingwood spend the late 80s and early to mid 90s in moribund financial position.

McGuire - a TV man - comes in, lobbies the AFL to "maximise" the fixture and HEY PRESTO! Collingwood are rolling in bucks.

So what I'm getting here is; McGuire is a better President than most?

The ironing is delicious. Apparently it was okay for a little bit of draft tampering to occur in 2009 though.

You mean Collingwood's underhanded tactic of letting, what was it, 28 picks go before they picked up Ball? Geez...

 

[Stamos]

Which was?

Essendon 1993

 

[Tas]

Whilst I'm totally disinterested in weighing in on the core of the debate, I think it's worth putting this into some kind of perspective. The truth of the matter is that for a short period in the 80's and 90's, Collingwood was financially moribund but that period aside, by VFL standards Collingwood was always a financial powerhouse and always has had a huge supporter base. The fact that for a short time that was all put at risk due to poor management does not mean that Collingwood's status as one of the powerhouses of the league and a financial powerhouse at that is somehow something new if that's the suggestion.

The problem is money/power doesn't breed innovation, they just suck on the teat until what they have runs dry. A club with money and power just tries to take what others do and hold on to the power they have.

North continues to be innovative because we have to in order to survive in this competitive environment and it is not selfish like Collingwood and Essendon who just take what others have developed. We invented club memberships, jumper sponsorships, club songs, clash jumpers, corporate entertainment, pre-match entertainment, coeterie memberships, social clubs, cheersquads, footy flags, international players, move games out of suburban base, move games interstate and play friday nights to expand the time slots and exposure.

It has changed the game as we know it and for the betterment of all clubs and for the game.

The selfish nature is why the game has stalled in terms of innovation. After the success we made of Friday night football it should have followed that Monday Night football would follow similar to the American success and broaden the broadcasting market. But, it never took off. Dogs made a half-arsed attempt to develop it but realised it takes a lot of time and a sacrifice of money to make something like that work and they dropped it like a hot potato.

Why?

They realised they would have had gone through the expense to develop the market and the end result would have been that it would have just been taken away from them as soon as it became successful.

It is why I doubt the strong clubs of today will be strong in the future, the environment which kept them strong is being slowly eroded and they lack the innovation. It will take a long time but clubs are not prepared to do the innovative work for the fat cats any longer. It is why we are focused on our development with Ballarat, if and when it becomes successful it will only benefit us and nobody else.

Times are already changing, clubs that don't evolve will be left behind in the long-run. Empires always crumble for the same reason.

 

[Rob]

Does this matter? When arguing about the integrity of the competition, why should the dollar amount of the deal come into play? If you truly wanted a level playing field then you'd want all 3rd party deals banned.

U mad?

The dollar amount is everything, because that's how you determine whether the arrangement crosses from being legitimate payments for services to a salary cap rort.

It's amazing how many Carlton supporters can't understand this simple premise.

 

[TheLip]

The problem is money/power doesn't breed innovation, they just suck on the teat until what they have runs dry. A club with money and power just tries to take what others do and hold on to the power they have.

North continues to be innovative because we have to in order to survive in this competitive environment and it is not selfish like Collingwood and Essendon who just take what others have developed. We invented club memberships, jumper sponsorships, club songs, clash jumpers, corporate entertainment, pre-match entertainment, coeterie memberships, social clubs, cheersquads, footy flags, international players, move games out of suburban base, move games interstate and play friday nights to expand the time slots and exposure.

It has changed the game as we know it and for the betterment of all clubs and for the game.

The selfish nature is why the game has stalled in terms of innovation. After the success we made of Friday night football it should have followed that Monday Night football would follow similar to the American success and broaden the broadcasting market. But, it never took off. Dogs made a half-arsed attempt to develop it but realised it takes a lot of time and a sacrifice of money to make something like that work and they dropped it like a hot potato.

Why?

They realised they would have had gone through the expense to develop the market and the end result would have been that it would have just been taken away from them as soon as it became successful.

It is why I doubt the strong clubs of today will be strong in the future, the environment which kept them strong is being slowly eroded and they lack the innovation. It will take a long time but clubs are not prepared to do the innovative work for the fat cats any longer. It is why we are focused on our development with Ballarat, if and when it becomes successful it will only benefit us and nobody else.

Times are already changing, clubs that don't evolve will be left behind in the long-run. Empires always crumble for the same reason.

Bizarre way to look at things IMO and not just a few unsubstantiable claims I might add but each to their own I guess. I'm not interested in an argument about who invented the chook raffle, I was merely pointing out the fallacy of some assumption that Collingwood was not historically a powerful club!

 

[MaddAdam]

If by your account that us playing on Friday nights has made us a strong force, why is it you used to dominate that timeslot but struggle now? It's not as simple as what time of the week you play, once you figure that out at North you'll be better for it

This post makes no sense.

 

[MaddAdam]

Bizarre way to look at things IMO and not just a few unsubstantiable claims I might add but each to their own I guess. I'm not interested in an argument about who invented the chook raffle, I was merely pointing out the fallacy of some assumption that Collingwood was not historically a powerful club!

It is all true.

No Collingwood supporter has been able to answer me sone simple question:

Why, after playing in the first Friday night game, did Collingwood abandon the concept then re-discover an interest in it in the late 1990s?

 

[The Filth]

It is all true.

No Collingwood supporter has been able to answer me sone simple question:

Why, after playing in the first Friday night game, did Collingwood abandon the concept then re-discover an interest in it in the late 1990s?

Geez mate give it a rest - poor kangas!

It is not rocket science. Part of bidding for TV rights and increased revenue to the AFL meant scheduling games that rate in prime time spots. Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton rate unlike the Kangaroos.

You get money from the equalisation fund as compensation for your piss-poor membership, attendances, ratings and financial management.

Collingwood could play anywhere in Australia and still draw a bigger crowd than the Kangaroos - facts are facts.

 

[MaddAdam]

You get money from the equalisation fund as compensation for your piss-poor membership, attendances, ratings and financial management.

Collingwood could play anywhere in Australia and still draw a bigger crowd than the Kangaroos - facts are facts.

If we hadn't been robbed of what we invented, our attendances and membership would have continued to grow as steadily as it did in the 90s.

Collingwood are leeches.

 

[TheLip]

If we hadn't been robbed of what we invented, our attendances and membership would have continued to grow as steadily as it did in the 90s.

Collingwood are leeches.

lol. Then I strongly recommend that you take your bat and ball and go home. Alternatively you could throw that dummy right out of the cot!

 

[The Filth]

If we hadn't been robbed of what we invented, our attendances and membership would have continued to grow as steadily as it did in the 90s.

Collingwood are leeches.

Next you will tell us that you invented the wheel..

Night football was played from the late 50's until the early 70's as a play-off for teams which failed to make the finals. Not surprisingly North Melbourne featured in a lot of those series.

 

[Buddy Magic]

The OP is a bit rich coming from a Collingwood supporter! You seriously don't think Daisy Thomas will be looked after with real estate and/or work when he retires due to staying at Collingwood. Pffft... Time to grow a brain, son

 

[Brad Goodman]

It is all true.

No Collingwood supporter has been able to answer me sone simple question:

Why, after playing in the first Friday night game, did Collingwood abandon the concept then re-discover an interest in it in the late 1990s?

Poor management by those in power until Eddie came along?

Question for you - why did the AFL see fit to "take it off North and give it to Collingwood" (obviously a very simplistic summary)?

 

[All Australian]

Before the 2010 season started the AFL conceded 114 players were paid more then $2M in 3rd party payments.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-stars-secret-perks-as-extra-payments-revealed/story-e6frf9ix-1225834081183

 

[The Filth]

The OP is a bit rich coming from a Collingwood supporter! You seriously don't think Daisy Thomas will be looked after with real estate and/or work when he retires due to staying at Collingwood. Pffft... Time to grow a brain, son

I actually wondered what happened to the old days when someone bought players a pub when they retired?

 

[The Filth]

Before the 2010 season started the AFL conceded 114 players were paid more then $2M in 3rd party payments.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ayments-revealed/story-e6frf9ix-1225834081183

That's fine - but the real issue is the way these payments are treated in respect to the Salary Cap. The "Judd" deal is an exception to the rule.

Anyway it will expire soon...then wait on how the AFL stuffs up free-agency.

 

[Rob]

Before the 2010 season started the AFL conceded 114 players were paid more then $2M in 3rd party payments.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-stars-secret-perks-as-extra-payments-revealed/story-e6frf9ix-1225834081183

So based on that:

Average third party deal: less than $20k
Judd third party deal: over $200k

Yeah, nothing dodgy there.

 

[serenityNow]

Oh look its anther Judd third party deal thread WoW!! and started by a Collingwood supporter...please

The obsession and jealousy is amazing, had any of your clubs had a deal in place like this, none of you would be complaining.


But by all means carry on, its great reading while i have my lunch