Memo AFL/AFLPA: these poor clubs are poor because not enough people give a flying fark about them. It doesn't matter how many dollars you shovel at them, you will not buy them a fan base. And surprise surprise, you get a fan base by working at it like Essendon, and collingwood, and carltank, and whoreforn, and geelong etc do, and by periods of sustained success. Not by cracking out the "peter gordon memorial begging bowl" every few years when your incompetence and irrelevence begins to overwhelm you again.
Note to poor clubs - you are overwhelmed because the footy public is underwhelmed. So if you want to have money, and be competitive, and play with the big boys, then get off your lazy, incompetent arses and do something apart from beg for a share of everyone elses hard earned income. In essence; fire up or fark off!
This is pretty much the sentiment towards social security in this country isn't it? The poor are poor because they are lazy, incompetent and probably ungrateful for the little that they have. The wealthy are a shrine to diligence and ingenuity.
If you want a competition without St Kilda, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Brisbane, GWS, Gold Coast and Port Adelaide, that's fine. But if we want them to exist, we have to enable them to be competitive. The management of our cub has been woeful for a decade. We've had board leaks, a drug scandal, some of the worst facilities in the competition and on-field, we have scraped into the finals just a few times. Luckily, we are popular though. We have lots of fans. I don't revel in our failings, it just suggests to me that we are not where we are because we are inherently better managed than North Melbourne. We may be rich because we had success in key moments in the evolution of the game. We may be rich because of where we are located and the people that live there. Who knows.
I don't like being taxed. In football or real life. But if we want a robust and dynamic competition, we need to keep the smaller teams viable. Not just for us to beat up on every week, but in a genuinely competitive way. Or we should let them fall apart and we can play Collingwood every weekend.
Nothing to do with Social Security. Not even in the same boat. Security of employment is not supposed to be a competition, it is supposed to be a right.
I have nothing against St Kilda, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Brisbane, GWS, Gold Coast and Port Adelaide. However they need to be able to become sustainable. Providing handout after handout is not sustainable.
You could start with non-player contracts. Melbourne sacks its CEO and its coach and then has to pay them out. With what? Money from the AFL. How is that good management?
Where was the AFL when these contracts were being written by a club whose contracts are underwritten with AFL money? Where is the governance?
And we became rich because we had a bunch of miserly Presbyterians running the club from the beginning. Then as far as I understand we had a deal with different poker machines than everyone else and set up the Melton Country Club as a cash cow. (Others might wish to correct me here.)
But it is also how the club conducts itself with its business base and its supporter base. I have mentioned in another thread the way North treated ex- players in comparison to Essendon.
If you don‘t have a sense of history and know where you came from it‘s very hard to know where you are going.
All those clubs have problems, and with the possible exception of Port Adelaide if you asked half their supporters what the club stands for, what their vision is they wouldn‘t have a clue.
Hawthorn is a very good example of a club that had a historically low supporter base no matter how successful they were. Yet they have managed to become one of the “powerhouses†of the league. It can be done, but it won‘t be done by bleating about how poor they are and how they need help.
Memo AFL/AFLPA: these poor clubs are poor because not enough people give a flying fark about them. It doesn't matter how many dollars you shovel at them, you will not buy them a fan base. And surprise surprise, you get a fan base by working at it like Essendon, and collingwood, and carltank, and whoreforn, and geelong etc do, and by periods of sustained success. Not by cracking out the "peter gordon memorial begging bowl" every few years when your incompetence and irrelevence begins to overwhelm you again.
Note to poor clubs - you are overwhelmed because the footy public is underwhelmed. So if you want to have money, and be competitive, and play with the big boys, then get off your lazy, incompetent arses and do something apart from beg for a share of everyone elses hard earned income. In essence; fire up or fark off!
This is pretty much the sentiment towards social security in this country isn't it? The poor are poor because they are lazy, incompetent and probably ungrateful for the little that they have. The wealthy are a shrine to diligence and ingenuity.
If you want a competition without St Kilda, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Brisbane, GWS, Gold Coast and Port Adelaide, that's fine. But if we want them to exist, we have to enable them to be competitive. The management of our cub has been woeful for a decade. We've had board leaks, a drug scandal, some of the worst facilities in the competition and on-field, we have scraped into the finals just a few times. Luckily, we are popular though. We have lots of fans. I don't revel in our failings, it just suggests to me that we are not where we are because we are inherently better managed than North Melbourne. We may be rich because we had success in key moments in the evolution of the game. We may be rich because of where we are located and the people that live there. Who knows.
I don't like being taxed. In football or real life. But if we want a robust and dynamic competition, we need to keep the smaller teams viable. Not just for us to beat up on every week, but in a genuinely competitive way. Or we should let them fall apart and we can play Collingwood every weekend.
Nothing to do with Social Security. Not even in the same boat. Security of employment is not supposed to be a competition, it is supposed to be a right.
I have nothing against St Kilda, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Brisbane, GWS, Gold Coast and Port Adelaide. However they need to be able to become sustainable. Providing handout after handout is not sustainable.
You could start with non-player contracts. Melbourne sacks its CEO and its coach and then has to pay them out. With what? Money from the AFL. How is that good management?
Where was the AFL when these contracts were being written by a club whose contracts are underwritten with AFL money? Where is the governance?
And we became rich because we had a bunch of miserly Presbyterians running the club from the beginning. Then as far as I understand we had a deal with different poker machines than everyone else and set up the Melton Country Club as a cash cow. (Others might wish to correct me here.)
But it is also how the club conducts itself with its business base and its supporter base. I have mentioned in another thread the way North treated ex- players in comparison to Essendon.
If you don‘t have a sense of history and know where you came from it‘s very hard to know where you are going.
All those clubs have problems, and with the possible exception of Port Adelaide if you asked half their supporters what the club stands for, what their vision is they wouldn‘t have a clue.
Hawthorn is a very good example of a club that had a historically low supporter base no matter how successful they were. Yet they have managed to become one of the “powerhouses†of the league. It can be done, but it won‘t be done by bleating about how poor they are and how they need help.
It's time the AFL just scrap all the clubs, and have all the players in the league training together. Then on the weekends they have a lucky dip to see who each player will player for.
Captains doing schoolyard picks. I like it.
No Captains.....far too unequal. Just a bit of kick to kick will suffice ;)
And after the game, whose team song shall they sing?
Perhaps players from both teams should hold hands and sing church ■■■■■■■ hyms
It's time the AFL just scrap all the clubs, and have all the players in the league training together. Then on the weekends they have a lucky dip to see who each player will player for.
Captains doing schoolyard picks. I like it.
No Captains.....far too unequal. Just a bit of kick to kick will suffice ;)
Only if they take turns taking speccies and waxing is re-introduced
Memo AFL/AFLPA: these poor clubs are poor because not enough people give a flying fark about them. It doesn't matter how many dollars you shovel at them, you will not buy them a fan base. And surprise surprise, you get a fan base by working at it like Essendon, and collingwood, and carltank, and whoreforn, and geelong etc do, and by periods of sustained success. Not by cracking out the "peter gordon memorial begging bowl" every few years when your incompetence and irrelevence begins to overwhelm you again.
Note to poor clubs - you are overwhelmed because the footy public is underwhelmed. So if you want to have money, and be competitive, and play with the big boys, then get off your lazy, incompetent arses and do something apart from beg for a share of everyone elses hard earned income. In essence; fire up or fark off!
This is pretty much the sentiment towards social security in this country isn't it? The poor are poor because they are lazy, incompetent and probably ungrateful for the little that they have. The wealthy are a shrine to diligence and ingenuity.
If you want a competition without St Kilda, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Brisbane, GWS, Gold Coast and Port Adelaide, that's fine. But if we want them to exist, we have to enable them to be competitive. The management of our cub has been woeful for a decade. We've had board leaks, a drug scandal, some of the worst facilities in the competition and on-field, we have scraped into the finals just a few times. Luckily, we are popular though. We have lots of fans. I don't revel in our failings, it just suggests to me that we are not where we are because we are inherently better managed than North Melbourne. We may be rich because we had success in key moments in the evolution of the game. We may be rich because of where we are located and the people that live there. Who knows.
I don't like being taxed. In football or real life. But if we want a robust and dynamic competition, we need to keep the smaller teams viable. Not just for us to beat up on every week, but in a genuinely competitive way. Or we should let them fall apart and we can play Collingwood every weekend.
Nothing to do with Social Security. Not even in the same boat. Security of employment is not supposed to be a competition, it is supposed to be a right.
I have nothing against St Kilda, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Brisbane, GWS, Gold Coast and Port Adelaide. However they need to be able to become sustainable. Providing handout after handout is not sustainable.
You could start with non-player contracts. Melbourne sacks its CEO and its coach and then has to pay them out. With what? Money from the AFL. How is that good management?
Where was the AFL when these contracts were being written by a club whose contracts are underwritten with AFL money? Where is the governance?
And we became rich because we had a bunch of miserly Presbyterians running the club from the beginning. Then as far as I understand we had a deal with different poker machines than everyone else and set up the Melton Country Club as a cash cow. (Others might wish to correct me here.)
But it is also how the club conducts itself with its business base and its supporter base. I have mentioned in another thread the way North treated ex- players in comparison to Essendon.
If you don‘t have a sense of history and know where you came from it‘s very hard to know where you are going.
All those clubs have problems, and with the possible exception of Port Adelaide if you asked half their supporters what the club stands for, what their vision is they wouldn‘t have a clue.
Hawthorn is a very good example of a club that had a historically low supporter base no matter how successful they were. Yet they have managed to become one of the “powerhouses†of the league. It can be done, but it won‘t be done by bleating about how poor they are and how they need help.
The handouts are trying to establish sustainable viability. Paying out the coach was done in the hope that a successful coach would take his place. The AFL had a significant say in who was appointed. I don't think that this could be classified as just throwing more money to incompetent people to waste. I do agree that it is important how this money is spent.
Hawthorn did establish themselves as a successful team through great management and some luck. I don't think Victoria is large enough to support 10 teams of Hawthorn's current size though. Where would the new fans come from? And the money? If it's either propping up these teams or letting them die, i'd rather us pay. Equally, if we keep the teams afloat, but in such a way that they can't meaningfully compete, we may as well let them go anyway.
I didn't think/know Brisbane were in such a bad way?
I think they have an exciting team.
Brisbane people obviously don't, their lowest annual attendance since 1998.
Brisbane were far too arrogant and put a lot of people off. They came in like a flash in the pan, won three premierships, media built up no 4, they fell in a hole and lost their supporters. Then they went right down hill. People up here are very fickle. Gold Coast will probably do better as there are thousands of ex-victorians on the Gold Coast and they will follow a local team.
A guy I follow on twitter (Titus ORiley) was suggesting that the team that finished top should be forced to have Mark Neld coach them the following year. Second should have Spud Frawley etc, all the way down to Matthew Kinghts.
He also said that successful teams should be forced to have Terry Wallace as recruiting manager.
A guy I follow on twitter (Titus ORiley) was suggesting that the team that finished top should be forced to have Mark Neld coach them the following year. Second should have Spud Frawley etc, all the way down to Matthew Kinghts.
He also said that successful teams should be forced to have Terry Wallace as recruiting manager.
If the team that finishes 18th gets Knighta they should just pack up their balls and leave.
Memo AFL/AFLPA: these poor clubs are poor because not enough people give a flying fark about them. It doesn't matter how many dollars you shovel at them, you will not buy them a fan base. And surprise surprise, you get a fan base by working at it like Essendon, and collingwood, and carltank, and whoreforn, and geelong etc do, and by periods of sustained success. Not by cracking out the "peter gordon memorial begging bowl" every few years when your incompetence and irrelevence begins to overwhelm you again.
Note to poor clubs - you are overwhelmed because the footy public is underwhelmed. So if you want to have money, and be competitive, and play with the big boys, then get off your lazy, incompetent arses and do something apart from beg for a share of everyone elses hard earned income. In essence; fire up or fark off!
Great post.
Could I add that the basket case clubs should also get off their lazy, incompetent arses and do something apart from screwing successful clubs like Essendon by supporting Vlad on trumped up charges that would not survive 5 minutes in a court of law.
A guy I follow on twitter (Titus ORiley) was suggesting that the team that finished top should be forced to have Mark Neld coach them the following year. Second should have Spud Frawley etc, all the way down to Matthew Kinghts.
He also said that successful teams should be forced to have Terry Wallace as recruiting manager.
If the team that finishes 18th gets Knighta they should just pack up their balls and leave.
I am waiting for indignant reactions from all those Blitzers who posted they were feeling so "BULLISH" under the Knights regime.
Instead I am pretty sure we will see tumbleweeds on that topic.
A guy I follow on twitter (Titus ORiley) was suggesting that the team that finished top should be forced to have Mark Neld coach them the following year. Second should have Spud Frawley etc, all the way down to Matthew Kinghts.
He also said that successful teams should be forced to have Terry Wallace as recruiting manager.
If the team that finishes 18th gets Knighta they should just pack up their balls and leave.
I am waiting for indignant reactions from all those Blitzers who posted they were feeling so "BULLISH" under the Knights regime.
Instead I am pretty sure we will see tumbleweeds on that topic.
A guy I follow on twitter (Titus ORiley) was suggesting that the team that finished top should be forced to have Mark Neld coach them the following year. Second should have Spud Frawley etc, all the way down to Matthew Kinghts.
He also said that successful teams should be forced to have Terry Wallace as recruiting manager.
If the team that finishes 18th gets Knighta they should just pack up their balls and leave.
The tweet meant the team that finished 8th gets Knights. He was only referring to teams that made the 8.
A guy I follow on twitter (Titus ORiley) was suggesting that the team that finished top should be forced to have Mark Neld coach them the following year. Second should have Spud Frawley etc, all the way down to Matthew Kinghts.
He also said that successful teams should be forced to have Terry Wallace as recruiting manager.
If the team that finishes 18th gets Knighta they should just pack up their balls and leave.
I am waiting for indignant reactions from all those Blitzers who posted they were feeling so "BULLISH" under the Knights regime.
Instead I am pretty sure we will see tumbleweeds on that topic.
Surely you jest? Was there ever such Blitzers?
I do NOT jest on this subject.
There were less than 5 people here who were opposed to that appointment.
During those dark years, I often referred to Knights by the abbreviation of MN, due to one poster toeing the party line so enthusiastically he fully supported our new coach "Matty Nights' [sic]. Many others said they trusted the Board implicitly in whatever decision they made.
Eric Blair would be proud of the way BB has learnt from his manifesto and dealt with this episode in its history.
A guy I follow on twitter (Titus ORiley) was suggesting that the team that finished top should be forced to have Mark Neld coach them the following year. Second should have Spud Frawley etc, all the way down to Matthew Kinghts.
He also said that successful teams should be forced to have Terry Wallace as recruiting manager.
If the team that finishes 18th gets Knighta they should just pack up their balls and leave.
I am waiting for indignant reactions from all those Blitzers who posted they were feeling so "BULLISH" under the Knights regime.
Instead I am pretty sure we will see tumbleweeds on that topic.
Surely you jest? Was there ever such Blitzers?
I do NOT jest on this subject.
There were less than 5 people here who were opposed to that appointment.
During those dark years, I often referred to Knights by the abbreviation of MN, due to one poster toeing the party line so enthusiastically he fully supported our new coach "Matty Nights' [sic]. Many others said they trusted the Board implicitly in whatever decision they made.
Eric Blair would be proud of the way BB has learnt from his manifesto and dealt with this episode in its history.
This latest news from the AFL about equalisation amongst the 18 clubs, could be a real comic fest., if anyone is game. Firstly equalisation is supposed to be about fairness. Yeah right and the AFL are the perfect role models when it comes to modelling that behaviour, aren't they?
This problem of insolvent clubs is not a new problem actually its been going on for years. So why not add two more new interstate clubs just to even things up. What a jolly sensible idea. Its become like a game of AFL Monopoly and who has been in charge to oversee this program of huge growth potential? Wonder what is in the water at AFL House???
