Quiet on the equalisation debate?

[Remi Moses]

Just wondering why we've been so quite on the whole equalisation discussion?
I read Melbourne want to be a leader on the issue, yet we've been silent on a very important issue!
Wouldn't mind some transparency on ideas or thoughts from our club?

[Bulldog4life]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/club-leaders-urge-afl-to-buy-etihad-stadium-20130207-2e1f8.html

ETIHAD Stadium should be bought immediately with money from the AFL's Future Fund to solve the structural problems that are crippling the less financial clubs through onerous stadium deals, an extraordinary meeting of the leaders of wealthier clubs has resolved.

The AFL should also scrap all salary cap concessions for clubs - including the cost of living allowance - and abandon all draft concessions if they are to revisit the broad idea of equalisation.

On Wednesday, as news of the Essendon scandal engulfed the football world, a small collection of club presidents and chief executives met to discuss the AFL's decision to return to the problem of equalisation and the widening wealth gap between clubs.

Carlton president Stephen Kernahan and chief executive Greg Swann, Collingwood president Eddie McGuire and chief executive Gary Pert, Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold and Richmond president Gary March were at the lunch organised by McGuire.
Advertisement

Essendon chief executive Ian Robson was due to attend but had more pressing matters to attend to, but he indicated the club's support for the position. Club chairman David Evans was also unable to attend.

West Coast and Fremantle officials were not present but both indicated their support.

''We are one year into a five-year policy that was done at the time of the new broadcast rights deal and the AFL is saying it might not be enough, so you are going to have to pay more,'' Newbold said.

''I think if we are fair dinkum about this we have to look under every stone and at every alternative. As the people being asked to share some of the money they have worked bloody hard to earn we think we would like to at least look at the information in detail to understand the problem.''

The club leaders had a view that if the AFL was renewing its view of equalisation then all unequalising factors should be addressed and so all draft concessions should be removed and all salary cap relief - such as the contentious cost of living allowances - be removed.

The clubs were angered that the premiers last year, the Sydney Swans, were the club able to satisfy the demands of the most highly paid free agent in Kurt Tippett.

''The GWS have indigestion they have so many draft picks, and we think the cost of living allowance is an outdated policy, the logic of which if extended should mean Adelaide has a lower salary cap, and in Perth a higher one,'' Newbold said.

The clubs were angry the AFL had sought to return to the issue of equalisation only 12 months into a five-year plan of income redistribution which they had all voluntarily signed up to.

One club official said there was resentment that wealthier clubs were being presented as the only option for solving the disparity and that structural issues such as the poor stadium deals for clubs were not discussed.

''Why are Hawthorn - who are innovative and have worked bloody hard to get ourselves to where we are now - being penalised because the Bulldogs have to write out cheques each year to play games at Etihad Stadium?'' Newbold asked.

''We think they need to look at buying Etihad Stadium as soon as possible. We think there is a need to look at these issues structurally, not just look at taking more money off the wealthier clubs.''

March said the group was frustrated and angry that a year into the five-year plan they had agreed to without complaint they were being told the plan hadn't worked and that they should trust the AFL's new plans and agree to just give more money. ''What level of funding will be needed to keep these clubs viable?'' he asked.

''We need to look at all things. Not only buying Etihad Stadium but do we need to look at a boutique 25,000 to 30,000 seat stadium?''

[Remi Moses]

Still no quotes from Simon Garlick or Peter Gordon.

[chef]

Are you surprised?

Maybe they don't want to bite the hand that feeds us.

[Maddog37]

If they want to go down the equalisation route then Eddie and his bum boys would no doubt agree to a salary cap on total footy dept spending. In the spirit of a level playing field and all that...........:rolleyes:

[Ghost Dog]

we need the bigger clubs like Hawthorn to draw people to games and taking money off them as a part of any tax deal seems simplistic. It would be better to fix this statdium situation as the article hints. but how long is that going to take? Every year robs us. We are not the only club getting screwed by stadium deals either. Carlton and North are in less than ideal situations.

[The Adelaide Connection]

The reality is the horrific injustices in the fixture and broadcasting of games will always cripple a club like ours.

We are the product on the bottom shelf at the supermarket that nobody notices, whilst others get the eye level spot with multiple facings. Guess which one sells? Guess who has the most members and displays the most growth?

If you were a company that was looking to sponsor an AFL club, who would you look at: the one that gets prime time tv space every week or the one destined to spend their life getting 6 games a year on free to air and playing eternal Sunday twilights?

Even in the 2008-10 period, when some of the "power" clubs were struggling, we still couldn't get close to their exposure.

Eddie and co. want to stop handing out money? Lets see how willing they are to take only 1/18th share of Anzac Day, Friday night footy, and all of the other Prime time spots instead of the share they currently make up.

[Remi Moses]

The reality is the horrific injustices in the fixture and broadcasting of games will always cripple a club like ours.

We are the product on the bottom shelf at the supermarket that nobody notices, whilst others get the eye level spot with multiple facings. Guess which one sells? Guess who has the most members and displays the most growth?

If you were a company that was looking to sponsor an AFL club, who would you look at: the one that gets prime time tv space every week or the one destined to spend their life getting 6 games a year on free to air and playing eternal Sunday twilights?

Even in the 2008-10 period, when some of the "power" clubs were struggling, we still couldn't get close to their exposure.

Eddie and co. want to stop handing out money? Lets see how willing they are to take only 1/18th share of Anzac Day, Friday night footy, and all of the other Prime time spots instead of the share they currently make up.

Here here. The argument that really got up my goat was the " only good sides get prime slots".
Bet London to a brick in a few years the big boys are still getting the big piece of the pie when they're struggling. Complete joke and an insult

[Hotdog60]

The reality is the horrific injustices in the fixture and broadcasting of games will always cripple a club like ours.

We are the product on the bottom shelf at the supermarket that nobody notices, whilst others get the eye level spot with multiple facings. Guess which one sells? Guess who has the most members and displays the most growth?

If you were a company that was looking to sponsor an AFL club, who would you look at: the one that gets prime time tv space every week or the one destined to spend their life getting 6 games a year on free to air and playing eternal Sunday twilights?

Even in the 2008-10 period, when some of the "power" clubs were struggling, we still couldn't get close to their exposure.

Eddie and co. want to stop handing out money? Lets see how willing they are to take only 1/18th share of Anzac Day, Friday night footy, and all of the other Prime time spots instead of the share they currently make up.

Well put, this should make prime time news and see what the response is. If they don't what to feed us then give us equal rights. The power clubs what their cake and eat too.

Hang on I'm having a flashback
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_TmGZodbj9H0/TL5UkEYjIoI/AAAAAAAAAG8/EUubxnveZNc/s1600/summer-of-love.jpg

[FrediKanoute]

If they want to go down the equalisation route then Eddie and his bum boys would no doubt agree to a salary cap on total footy dept spending. In the spirit of a level playing field and all that...........:rolleyes:

I think this is coming. I think the drugs fiasco will show that the clubs rorting the system aren't the weaker clubes but the richer clubs with the ability to employ more sports science people and spend more on more elaborate/effective supplements.

What the drugs issue has shown is that having more dispodable income doesn't mean you spend it for the good of the game.

[LostDoggy]

I think this is coming. I think the drugs fiasco will show that the clubs rorting the system aren't the weaker clubes but the richer clubs with the ability to employ more sports science people and spend more on more elaborate/effective supplements.

What the drugs issue has shown is that having more dispodable income doesn't mean you spend it for the good of the game.

I'm sure every official — and the players as well — at every club in the land has “play to the spirit of the game” as the very last item on their job description, if it's even there. If we look at AFL as an industry — which it is — and the clubs as rival businesses — which they are — then this is just a classic case of the need for tighter regulations.

If the AFL doesn't want to rein in the bigger clubs in terms of taxing them financially, they need to ensure the following inequalities are resolved:

The fixture
The stadium deals
Enforcing the salary cap to the cent
Ensuring a drug-free environment (both recreational and PE)


To me, taxing the large clubs financially shows the unwillingness of the AFL to look at the items above (amongst other issues). They are simply papering over the cracks.

[Bulldog Joe]

I'm sure every official — and the players as well — at every club in the land has “play to the spirit of the game” as the very last item on their job description, if it's even there. If we look at AFL as an industry — which it is — and the clubs as rival businesses — which they are — then this is just a classic case of the need for tighter regulations.

If the AFL doesn't want to rein in the bigger clubs in terms of taxing them financially, they need to ensure the following inequalities are resolved:

The fixture
The stadium deals
Enforcing the salary cap to the cent
Ensuring a drug-free environment (both recreational and PE)


To me, taxing the large clubs financially shows the unwillingness of the AFL to look at the items above (amongst other issues). They are simply papering over the cracks.

Many of the ineqities would be resolved if we started by sharing ALL gate revenue as the combined income of the 18 clubs.

Collingwood and Essendon do not need a head start with the ANZAC day game. It belongs to the entire competition.

The Stadium deals would not exist if the AFL took all revenue and paid all expenses and then distributed evenly.

[Remi Moses]

Many of the ineqities would be resolved if we started by sharing ALL gate revenue as the combined income of the 18 clubs.

Collingwood and Essendon do not need a head start with the ANZAC day game. It belongs to the entire competition.

The Stadium deals would not exist if the AFL took all revenue and paid all expenses and then distributed evenly.

Right on BJ.
Drives me insane the term "handouts" "AFL Dripfeed".
The only major sporting comp where they deliberately have a revenue raising fixture!
Massive inequality, and the gate receipts of all games should be shared.

[jeemak]

Right on BJ.
Drives me insane the term "handouts" "AFL Dripfeed".
The only major sporting comp where they deliberately have a revenue raising fixture!
Massive inequality, and the gate receipts of all games should be shared.

Powerful clubs will argue that their supporters are producing the revenue, and as such they should benefit from that revenue as a priority.

I can understand that point of view.

What really irks me is the horrible returns our club benefits (sic) from subsidise the purchase of Etihad Stadium long term. If we had a better deal with Etihad Stadium, the AFL's projected purchase of 2025 would be drawn out, unless significant revenues were set aside by the AFL to bring the purchase date to align with 2025.

As a club we need to be wary that any AFL assistance in negotiating a better return on home games for us will be clouded by the AFL understanding that if they want to purchase the stadium it will come at a higher revenue cost prior to 2025, and that clubs like ours will likely have to subsidise that.

It concerns me that the AFL needs a critical mass of games played by tenants of Etihad to satisfy their long term goal of acquiring the stadium as an asset. I can't see the AFL gifting our club the proceeds of the eventual sale of the stadium, or the profit from clean revenue it generates once it's been acquired are realised.

[Bulldog Joe]

Powerful clubs will argue that their supporters are producing the revenue, and as such they should benefit from that revenue as a priority.

I can understand that point of view.

What really irks me is the horrible returns our club benefits (sic) from subsidise the purchase of Etihad Stadium long term. If we had a better deal with Etihad Stadium, the AFL's projected purchase of 2025 would be drawn out, unless significant revenues were set aside by the AFL to bring the purchase date to align with 2025.As a club we need to be wary that any AFL assistance in negotiating a better return on home games for us will be clouded by the AFL understanding that if they want to purchase the stadium it will come at a higher revenue cost prior to 2025, and that clubs like ours will likely have to subsidise that.

It concerns me that the AFL needs a critical mass of games played by tenants of Etihad to satisfy their long term goal of acquiring the stadium as an asset. I can't see the AFL gifting our club the proceeds of the eventual sale of the stadium, or the profit from clean revenue it generates once it's been acquired are realised.

Our deal at Etihad is directly related to the purchase of Etihad by the AFL.

Do you think Collingwood would agree to forgo any benefit that flows from AFL ownership in 2025?

There is no equitable manner of covering the stadium deals and the uneven fixturing without shared gate revenue from every game being split evenly by every club.

The fixture provides benefits to the big clubs over and above gate receipts with the prime time exposure assisting them to sell more memberships and attract more sponsorship.

I don't expect it to happen but shared revenue from the gates is the only equitable option.

[Remi Moses]

Geelong make 700 K for 15 thousand
We write a cheque for getting 20 thousand.
Absolute farce! Anzac Day is an event game attended also by non supporters of the competing teams. They make 700 each for the privelage!
The Gate receipts have to be shared in light of this souped up joke called a fixture.

[WBFC4FFC]

This is the whole problem with the AFL.

They manipulate the draw in order to maximise revenue over fairness. 18 teams with 22 games and no divisions, in order to provide them with maximum leverage to structure the games they want when they want! (3 divisions of 6, where you play each other once and the other teams once each year (rotating home and away very second year is a fairer system with 22 rounds. Top 2 play finals and 2 widcards if you want).

In doing so, the AFL fails to then distribute the proceeds equally over the competition. Hence the have and have nots.

Since the Bullies left Optus Oval, they have never made a profit without AFL assistance, yet in that time the Membership has more than doubled and crowds have nearly tripled (depending on the draw). That is simply not fair and leaves the Bullies (and at least half the comp) reliant on the AFL for their existence in an unfair sporting landscape.

Didn't the Clubs back in the day share the gate, no matter whose home game it was? It would be a start to go back to that system.

Free Agency is an issue when you can pay excesses above the Salary Cap (which not every team can do).

I could go on but I think I have made my point. This problem will rear its ugly head in 20 years, when it will be like European soccer, where you will have 3-5 dominant clubs that the majority of the population will follow, with the rest making up the numbers. When there are no further comps to play (ie: Champs League) it will be the slow demise of the game and comp without a restructure.

In saying all this, a tax on rich clubs will not help. The AFL must get the excess revenue before it gets into the dominant clubs hands.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Salt in the wounds- Collingwood are set to announce a bumper multi-million dollar deal with the MCG.

[Ghost Dog]

One Carlton mate reckons it would be a ratings disaster if we ever became a dynasty.

I think he underestimates the latent support for our club across the AFL community.

[w3design]

If clubs were to retain their membership income, but then split the gate receipts 50/50, would that even things up a bit?

[jeemak]

Our deal at Etihad is directly related to the purchase of Etihad by the AFL.

Do you think Collingwood would agree to forgo any benefit that flows from AFL ownership in 2025?

There is no equitable manner of covering the stadium deals and the uneven fixturing without shared gate revenue from every game being split evenly by every club.

The fixture provides benefits to the big clubs over and above gate receipts with the prime time exposure assisting them to sell more memberships and attract more sponsorship.

I don't expect it to happen but shared revenue from the gates is the only equitable option.

Of course not. And the brutal reality we face as a club is we'll pay for the stadium alongside the other tenants, and receive an unfair level of compensation on the basis that we couldn't have done that without the support of the opposition clubs we played against there. Therein lies the hypocrisy of the current distribution setup.

A purely equal draw would never be met with equal distribution of gate receipts. Our club is in a position where it must choose between equality associated with an equal draw, or benefiting from sharing the gate receipts from a fixture that is geared towards maximising revenues.

If we choose the latter we forego all the benefits of equal exposure, but for the short term and medium term we'd be better off doing so rather than building revenue and having to capitalise on the brand exposure we'd benefit from.

We're in a crap situation, either way, though each scenario is better than the current one.

[Eastdog]

Do you agree jeemak that clubs that have handled there finances well and have more money should not be expected to bailout clubs who haven't handled their finances well. Really every club should stand of there own two feet. How did we end up with the huge debt we have and should we follow the other clubs who have had debt in clearing it of the books. How can we generate revenue and can we get some deal done with Etihad for the betterment of our club.

[westdog54]

Do you agree jeemak that clubs that have handled there finances well and have more money should not be expected to bailout clubs who haven't handled their finances well. Really every club should stand of there own two feet. How did we end up with the huge debt we have and should we follow the other clubs who have had debt in clearing it of the books. How can we generate revenue and can we get some deal done with Etihad for the betterment of our club.

First things first, there is nothing to suggest that we've 'handled our finances poorly'.

Secondly we are trying to eliminate our debt but when your income from gate receipts is so limited its challenging.

Thirdly, its not in Etihad's interest to 'do a deal' with us as it won't make them any money.

In the environment that the AFL has created, to say that clubs should be able to stand on their own two feet is simplistic in the extreme.

[Guido]

Has there ever been a truly successful organisation with such a "woe is me" attitude?

Seems everything is somehow everyone else's fault. Is the club's management responsible for ANYTHING? The "big bad AFL and big bad AFL clubs and the big bad stadiums are the only reason we're not strong" ... can ANY aspect of the position the club finds itself in be attributed to, y'know, the people directly responsible for running it?

When we were a top 4 team, we received our spread of high exposure games - 2/3/4 Friday night games is MORE than our fair share - and received our fair share of games against the bigger Melbourne clubs. But what did we do with a popular, top 4 team, getting high exposure, record memberships and millions in AFL assistance during those years? Somehow, somehow, we came out of that successful period a few more million in debt than what we went in with. Melbourne, over the same time frame, with less AFL assistance, less members, less exposure, less attendances, a rubbish bottom 4 team deliberately trying to lose, wiped $5million off their debt.

Nah, we were the one's with the financial geniuses at the helm.

The list management decisions that have cost premierships, and in turn thousands of new members and millions in additional revenues - it's the fault of these nasty clubs who always want our good players, not idiots put in place by club's management. But if it wasn't for these other clubs wanting a competitive advantage, we'd be fine! The draft picks, spots on the list and millions in salary cap space on those recycled players? Oh, we were just spooked into those mistakes .... y'know, literally fifty times... it won't happen again, we've put systems in place to avoid these screw ups, don't you worry ... and these cast offs we've picked up in 2012 are gonna different, just you wait and see!

The stadium deals ... figureheads yelling from the rooftops that we "can't wait to move down Footscray Rd to Doglands!!!" before even beginning contract negotiations with Colonial Stadium, that was the AFL's fault.

The strategic decisions in looking at moving games and investing thousands of dollars and man hours into Sydney, Darwin and South East Queensland when other clubs have signed contracts worth tens of millions a 40 minute flight away in Tassie. Hawthorn apparently "sold their soul", according to our president at the time - those deals have propelled them to having $30mil in the bank, 50,000+ members (almost 10,000 of them from Tassie), and pretty much guaranteed their future in Victoria for eternity - but nah, we'll be the self righteous ones dishing out advice on how to best manage a club.

And of course, everything's the fixture's fault. If the fixture was 100% fair and our stadium deal ensured we got played every team the same number of times over a three year period and received fair compensation (full match takings minus full expenses) equally from games against Collingwood/Essendon/Richmond as well as against GC/ GWS/ Freo/ Port, we'd be much better off than the discrationary $2.5mil the club receives from the AFL.

At the end of the day, IMO we've had a good opportunity to change the club's destiny but it hasn't happened. Other's may disagree, but when on the cusp of merger, I don't think Hawthorn (under Ian Dicker) in 1996 had an attitude on waiting on the AFL to improve exposure/fixturing/match returns, they got themselves out of it through quality management. St Kilda under Plympton, didn't say "How can we be more reliant on the AFL to get ourselves out of this massive hole". Under Frank Costa, Geelong in 1999 didn't say "the AFL's decisions will dictate how successful we can be. We simply can't get out of this $10mil debt unless the AFL change everything to suit our clearly flawed business model".

So which direction does the club take? Because if it maintains this "woe is us" attitude from the top down, it will not succeed, can absolutely guarantee it. But I have to say that EVERYTHING I've seen from Gordon is very much along the lines of the attitudes displayed by the three presidents/clubs above, and it's the attitude I want displayed by the president of my club. An absolute breath of fresh air and gives me a hell of a lot more confidence in the club's management and future than I've had in years.

[Mofra]

I agree with alot of what you said Guido - we have to find a way to control the controllables and stop whining about the externalities.

We have had some wins in recent history - the WO development is huge, eclipsing most other clubs - but we've had our fair share of cock-ups too, as have many other clubs (Bulldog Hilton any closer yet?).

[bornadog]

GUIDO, the trouble is the AFL have created the monster that is Collingwood, Essendon, etc by allowing more exposure on free to air TV, blockbuster games, Friday nights, stadium delas etc.

Yes agree that we have not managed our club well and we have had some bad luck with drafting (yes luck as its a lottery out there with these young kids) and some bad list management. The AFL took over the negotiations for Eithad and stuffed it up. Should we have allowed that at the time.- NO, but I believe our hands were tied. I don't think anyone is saying we are faultless and lets blame everything on the AFL. However, the AFL negotiated the TV rights and we were just making up the numbers and the TV networks dictate who they want during prime time etc. This is where the AFL should have though long term, but all they care about is now. so we have the situation where these clubs are just continually growing and we are going backwards.

[Maddog37]

I for one really enjoyed watching the Collingwood membership launch on Fox Footy during our NAB Cup game. I also enjoyed listening to Daisy Thomas crap on about all things Collingwood during the game, hell we even got to see his holiday snaps. Actually who was that other team playing again? The full strength Bulldogs with Brad Boyd as captain.


No doubt the over the top propaganda slanted towards Collingwood was all the fault of the Bulldogs hierarchy. The constant references to the Big Four clubs which by extension means all the other clubs are little is also the Bulldogs hierachys fault.

The lure of the dollar and bloody minded pursuit of higher crowds by the AFL is solely to blame for the transformation of a level playing field, draw based competition into an inequitable, self serving media machine. Hang on, I am sure the Bulldogs hierachy can be blamed for that one as well if we think hard enough.

Open your eyes to what is happening right now Guido because before you know it we will not really have an AFL competition as such. It will be just like the EPL with Man U, Chelsea etc and then the rest fighting for the scraps.

Actually, it is too late,we are already there. Bring on the divisions with relegation and promotion and be done with it.

[Guido]

No doubt the over the top propaganda slanted towards Collingwood was all the fault of the Bulldogs hierarchy. The constant references to the Big Four clubs which by extension means all the other clubs are little is also the Bulldogs hierachys fault.
In your own sarcastic way, you're making the exact point I'm trying to get across.

Bulldogs management can't control what Foxtel, Channel 7, the AFL or Collingwood do. Expecting these third parties to somehow have our back and do what's best for us instead of themselves is rank stupidity. We do know for a fact that businesses will all act in their own self interest, do you expect them to change that philosophy? To go against human nature, for the sake of the poor clubs? Good luck with that.

I've only been critical of decisions directly under the club's control which IMO could/should have made major contributions to it's underlying viability. I think management have made poor choices, and I also think that no-one within the club ever accepts responsibility for these screw ups - like on these forums, it always seems to be someone else's fault. If you disagree, well fine, but I'm only going on the evidence in front of me.


The lure of the dollar and bloody minded pursuit of higher crowds by the AFL is solely to blame for the transformation of a level playing field, draw based competition into an inequitable, self serving media machine.
"Good old days" syndrome.

Not old enough to have lived through it, but history tells me that the dogs had next to no chance being a thriving club in last 20 years of the pre-salary cap era. Since it and draft equalisation came into the mix, despite financial limitations, we've made the finals more than the average team has, which is exactly as it should be. We've had chances for premierships which IMO were sabotaged by our own hand (short sighted list management decisions), not anyone else's balance sheet or money in invested in their footy departments (except maybe for Collingwood in 2010, but fact is that they had also managed their list better than we had).

And the fact is that with one or two majorly ballsy, forward thinking decisions (maybe appointing Brian Cook, maybe jumping on Tasmania rather than foray's into Sydney/Darwin, a debt demolition campaign in 1998 rather than 2008, which would have saved the club over $5mill in interest payments, a good footy manager who wasn't dimwitted) it's all "with hindsight" type stuff, but we most definitely had the means to be debt free and ultra successful with a premiership or two and demanding the premier slots for exposure.

The boat has sailed, but there is no reason, not the AFL, not the fixture, not Collingwood and Essendon hogging the spotlight, that dictates that we cannot reach that point in 10/20/30 years. There's weaknesses and shortcomings, but only way to beat these limitations is to outsmart richer clubs on every level, not through whinging and moaning about their existing strengths. And in the long term, IMO it's pivotal to be less/non reliant on discretionary AFL funding, not more as some people are suggesting.


Open your eyes to what is happening right now Guido because before you know it we will not really have an AFL competition as such. It will be just like the EPL with Man U, Chelsea etc and then the rest fighting for the scraps.

Actually, it is too late,we are already there. Bring on the divisions with relegation and promotion and be done with it.
Can I put in </defeatist bullshit> tags to end that little puppy?

My eyes are wide open. We mixed with all of the big boys at the top of our cycle. West Coast has tens on millions to spend, they've finished bottom 4 a number of times in the last decade.

Ten years ago the "interstate clubs were going to take over and it was the end for Victorian clubs." Enter Hawthorn, Geelong, Collingwood.

It is cyclical, it just happens that a few of the clubs at the bottom of the cycle at the moment are the poorer clubs. The draft will do it's job, as it has in countless upon countless of examples.

This club has had the tools available to it to gets itself out of debt, to mix it on the field, to make itself a powerhouse. A catchment with 500,000 people and growing, an insanely loyal supporter base, a lot of good people fighting for the cause, but it has to look in the mirror and acknowledge past (and guard against future) dumb off field decisions - both at board and footy department level.

It's going to contribute infinitely more to the club surviving in the long term than a micro-shift (which is the best we can realistically hope for) in equalisation policies.

[westdog54]

Guido, you're clarly passionate about the club and you seem adamant that our management have got a lot wrong over the last few years.

Two questions:

Do you attend the AGM?

If so, what questions have you asked of the board?

[Remi Moses]

Even Collingwood have made poor investments .
The Beach Hotel Anyone?
What irks me is that we were gaining big crowds at Etihad in the 08-10 period and made no money.
Now that should not be happening.

[Mofra]

Guido, you're clarly passionate about the club and you seem adamant that our management have got a lot wrong over the last few years.
I'm not sure we have got that much wrong over the past few years (you don't make 3 prelims in a row unless you're getting a few things right), but Guido hits the nail on the head with actually wanting the club to take responsibility for what it can change as opposed to adopting a defeatist attitude and hoping the generosity of 3rd parties will help us.

[westdog54]

I'm not sure we have got that much wrong over the past few years (you don't make 3 prelims in a row unless you're getting a few things right), but Guido hits the nail on the head with actually wanting the club to take responsibility for what it can change as opposed to adopting a defeatist attitude and hoping the generosity of 3rd parties will help us.

With all due respect its a bit contradictory to say we haven't got much wrong and then say the club needs to take more responsibility.

Let's face it. We have no control over when, where or who we play and those decisions are directly impacting our bottom line.

[Mofra]

With all due respect its a bit contradictory to say we haven't got much wrong and then say the club needs to take more responsibility.
It would be if that was what I said, which I didn't.

I said we need to take responsibility for what we can change. Complaining about what we cannot change gets us nowhere. We'd be far better off looking at alternate revenue streams (ie getting Bulldog Hilton right, attracting more people to the WO as a precinct) than hoping the AFL will complete a 180 degree turn on fairness with fixturing and networks (who are not charities) start showing more Bulldog games whilst we are in a redevelopment phase.

[Maddog37]

In your own sarcastic way, you're making the exact point I'm trying to get across.

Bulldogs management can't control what Foxtel, Channel 7, the AFL or Collingwood do. Expecting these third parties to somehow have our back and do what's best for us instead of themselves is rank stupidity. We do know for a fact that businesses will all act in their own self interest, do you expect them to change that philosophy? To go against human nature, for the sake of the poor clubs? Good luck with that.

I've only been critical of decisions directly under the club's control which IMO could/should have made major contributions to it's underlying viability. I think management have made poor choices, and I also think that no-one within the club ever accepts responsibility for these screw ups - like on these forums, it always seems to be someone else's fault. If you disagree, well fine, but I'm only going on the evidence in front of me.

"Good old days" syndrome.

Not old enough to have lived through it, but history tells me that the dogs had next to no chance being a thriving club in last 20 years of the pre-salary cap era. Since it and draft equalisation came into the mix, despite financial limitations, we've made the finals more than the average team has, which is exactly as it should be. We've had chances for premierships which IMO were sabotaged by our own hand (short sighted list management decisions), not anyone else's balance sheet or money in invested in their footy departments (except maybe for Collingwood in 2010, but fact is that they had also managed their list better than we had).

And the fact is that with one or two majorly ballsy, forward thinking decisions (maybe appointing Brian Cook, maybe jumping on Tasmania rather than foray's into Sydney/Darwin, a debt demolition campaign in 1998 rather than 2008, which would have saved the club over $5mill in interest payments, a good footy manager who wasn't dimwitted) it's all "with hindsight" type stuff, but we most definitely had the means to be debt free and ultra successful with a premiership or two and demanding the premier slots for exposure.

The boat has sailed, but there is no reason, not the AFL, not the fixture, not Collingwood and Essendon hogging the spotlight, that dictates that we cannot reach that point in 10/20/30 years. There's weaknesses and shortcomings, but only way to beat these limitations is to outsmart richer clubs on every level, not through whinging and moaning about their existing strengths. And in the long term, IMO it's pivotal to be less/non reliant on discretionary AFL funding, not more as some people are suggesting.

Can I put in </defeatist bullshit> tags to end that little puppy?

My eyes are wide open. We mixed with all of the big boys at the top of our cycle. West Coast has tens on millions to spend, they've finished bottom 4 a number of times in the last decade.

Ten years ago the "interstate clubs were going to take over and it was the end for Victorian clubs." Enter Hawthorn, Geelong, Collingwood.

It is cyclical, it just happens that a few of the clubs at the bottom of the cycle at the moment are the poorer clubs. The draft will do it's job, as it has in countless upon countless of examples.

This club has had the tools available to it to gets itself out of debt, to mix it on the field, to make itself a powerhouse. A catchment with 500,000 people and growing, an insanely loyal supporter base, a lot of good people fighting for the cause, but it has to look in the mirror and acknowledge past (and guard against future) dumb off field decisions - both at board and footy department level.

It's going to contribute infinitely more to the club surviving in the long term than a micro-shift (which is the best we can realistically hope for) in equalisation policies.

Nice measured reply. Happy to concede all of the points raised even if some are hindsight based as you acknowledge. My only really passion and major sticking point is the draw. It s simply unfair to not only us but all clubs at some stage. People will come to the games regardless and a neutral draw will throw up blockbusters of its own accord. The AFLs insistence on a fixture is putting the cart before the horse.

[Hotdog60]

The Club has lodged it's equalisation report and I found it a interesting read on how we have been bent over and given a good you know what.

Here a link REPORT (http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/WesternBulldogs/Articles/General%202013/Final210213_WesternBulldogsEqualisationPaperSubmission.pdf)

.

[Remi Moses]

Nice to get my question answered.

[Murphy'sLore]

Very interesting reading and some proposals worth thinking about. Apparently Gideon Haigh helped write the submission, it's certainly more clearly expressed than most stuff I've seen come out of the club.

[Eastdog]

First things first, there is nothing to suggest that we've 'handled our finances poorly'.

Secondly we are trying to eliminate our debt but when your income from gate receipts is so limited its challenging.

Thirdly, its not in Etihad's interest to 'do a deal' with us as it won't make them any money.

In the environment that the AFL has created, to say that clubs should be able to stand on their own two feet is simplistic in the extreme.

What would explain our debt in the first place? What did we do to get it? If Etihad aren't interested in doing a deal like ive said before why couldn't we play some home games at the MCG which has served clubs well who play home games there.

[Bulldog Joe]

The Club has lodged it's equalisation report and I found it a interesting read on how we have been bent over and given a good you know what.

Here a link REPORT (http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/WesternBulldogs/Articles/General%202013/Final210213_WesternBulldogsEqualisationPaperSubmission.pdf)

.

That is an excellent submission and highlights a lot of points about the inequality of stadium deals.

It is incredible that 8500 reserved seats at Etihad cost the Bulldogs $700K but Collingwood/Hawthorn/Richmond can get the first 18,000 seats at the MCG for NOTHING.

Puts us a loooong way behind before we even start.

[Remi Moses]

The whole " Woe is me" doesn't wash with me on this issue.
The whole situation just stinks to high heaven and the sooner some justice and fairness is done the better. This has to have a decent fair ending for the poorer clubs .

[Remi Moses]

That is an excellent submission and highlights a lot of points about the inequality of stadium deals.

It is incredible that 8500 reserved seats at Etihad cost the Bulldogs $700K but Collingwood/Hawthorn/Richmond can get the first 18,000 seats at the MCG for NOTHING.

Puts us a loooong way behind before we even start.

Dead right BJ . The dogs in all fairness should have made a killing in the 08 - 10 period, instead we're living on fumes.

[Topdog]

That is an excellent submission and highlights a lot of points about the inequality of stadium deals.

It is incredible that 8500 reserved seats at Etihad cost the Bulldogs $700K but Collingwood/Hawthorn/Richmond can get the first 18,000 seats at the MCG for NOTHING.

Puts us a loooong way behind before we even start.

That is such a massive difference. Costing us millions per game surely?

[WBFC4FFC]

That is such a massive difference. Costing us millions per game surely?

And Eddie Everywhere states that his club has acquiesced enough!!!!

The AFL have done nothing for too long and appear to (belatedly) realise they are damaging the competition's long-term viability by having a few clubs having to deal with the onerous Dockland Stadium arrangements on behalf of the entire comp.

Let's see the AFL put some of these perceived bigger clubs in their place, reminding them that if it wasn't for the favourable draw the AFL provides them, they would not be as profitable.

[bornadog]

Bid for level playing field (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bid-for-level-playing-field-20130517-2js4f.html)

The AFL has strategically hand-picked six club chiefs to join bosses Andrew Demetriou and Gillon McLachlan on a July mission to New York to investigate American football's sophisticated equalisation formula. The aim is to close the growing divide between rich and poor clubs.

Eddie McGuire and Andrew Newbold, the presidents of powerful Collingwood and Hawthorn who have both strongly resisted calls for a tax on the wealthier clubs, will join a 10-man deputation searching for methods to equalise the competition, which after seven rounds this season sees close to one-third of clubs already out of finals contention.
It now seems beyond doubt that the AFL is seriously investigating a new and more significant tax on the wealthier clubs as part of a reformed and more complex equalisation structure, with the growing divide described by outgoing Sydney chairman Richard Colless in a paper to the AFL late last year as ''a ticking time bomb''.

The AFL travelling party will also include Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon and will meet NFL chiefs - whose clubs contribute one-third of their gate takings into a central equalisation pool - at that sport's New York head office. Meetings have also been scheduled with Major League Baseball, which recently introduced a new luxury tax, and American basketball bosses.

The AFL's deputy chief McLachlan agreed that McGuire and Newbold, along with West Coast chief Trevor Nisbett, were crucial members of the group ''because they will be faced with more of a philosophical challenge than the others''.
''This [equalisation] is a huge strategic and philosophical plank of where we've been and where we'll go in the future and the point about these big American sports is that all have strengthened their equalisation in recent years and all are more equal than we are,'' McLachlan said.

Club chief executives Brendon Gale (Richmond) and Keith Thomas (Port Adelaide) will make up the club representatives with AFL Commissioner Paul Bassett and AFL Players Association boss Matt Finnis also on board.

McLachlan described the NFL competition - in which a significantly larger proportion of its revenue is placed in the equalisation pool - as the most similar in structure to the AFL compared with the NBA and American baseball. He said that while a fixed equalisation formula had been guaranteed until the end of 2014, a radical review of that formula was crucial. ''Equalisation is central to our competition,'' he said.

Significantly the AFL party will also travel to Boston to meet US business magnate Robert Kraft, the owner of the powerhouse New England Patriots - one of the wealthier NFL clubs to have strongly supported sacrificing profits for the sake of equalisation.
Nisbett, whose Eagles remain one of the AFL's wealthiest and most powerful clubs, said he considered himself fortunate to be taking part in the one-week trip, but added: ''I'm hoping it's not just a fact-finding mission about taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
''I'm open and interested to see what some of the owners of these clubs say. I think it's a genuine attempt to make sure everyone understands why the NFL is the best competition in the world. We need to know what are the many number of things that make an even competition, including exploring new ways of earning extra revenues. What the AFL wants to do is to create an equal competition but we don't want a competition where instead of six clubs losing money every year we see 11 or 12 clubs losing money. We want to equalise up - we don't want to equalise down.''

McGuire and Newbold were part of the so-called ''bloc'' of wealthier Victorian clubs which met in February to voice misgivings about a potential luxury tax to aid clubs that had been poorly administered or suffered from disadvantages which could be remedied by the AFL, such as buying Etihad Stadium.
McGuire said at the time: ''So far, the best ideas I have heard have been to reach into the pockets of clubs who have acted in a responsible manner and if that is the best some clubs can come up with, then no wonder we are in this situation. We have acquiesced and acquiesced, but enough is enough.''

Said Newbold: ''Why are Hawthorn - who are innovative and have worked bloody hard to get ourselves to where we are now - being penalised because the Bulldogs have to write out cheques each year to play games at Etihad Stadium?''

[SonofScray]

Bid for level playing field (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bid-for-level-playing-field-20130517-2js4f.html)



Said Newbold: ''Why are Hawthorn - who are innovative and have worked bloody hard to get ourselves to where we are now - being penalised because the Bulldogs have to write out cheques each year to play games at Etihad Stadium?''

:rolleyes:

So our position is directly and exclusively the result of not working "bloody hard" or being "innovative." Thats some Herald Sun, 3AW logic right there. Can't believe the stuff that comes out of these guys mouths, they honestly believe their own bullshit.

[bulldogtragic]

Memo to Newbold,


Go F*** Yourself.


Regards,

Western Bulldogs Members & Supporters.

[WBFC4FFC]

Memo to Newbold,


Go F*** Yourself.


Regards,

Western Bulldogs Members & Supporters.

Well said.

Staggering the lack of logic from an AFL Club President. Must have Jeff's hand firmly up his butt.

[KT31]

Memo to Newbold,


Go F*** Yourself.


Regards,

Western Bulldogs Members & Supporters.

Well said bt.

[Remi Moses]

Memo to Newbold,


Go F*** Yourself.


Regards,

Western Bulldogs Members & Supporters.

Ditto for me. Yeah remember how strong Hawthorn are after a few down years.
Melbourne Hawks anyone?

[Remi Moses]

:rolleyes:

So our position is directly and exclusively the result of not working "bloody hard" or being "innovative." Thats some Herald Sun, 3AW logic right there. Can't believe the stuff that comes out of these guys mouths, they honestly believe their own bullshit.

Why should Tassie taxpayers pay for Hawthorn to play games there? Talk about consuming your own bath water

[LostDoggy]

Just a very insular view. He would have Hawthorn playing Hawthorn if he had his way.

As much as you can´t stand them at times, guys like McGuire, Colless and Sheedy have the game of AFL as a top priority and understand that it does take other teams to make up a competition.

[bornadog]

AFL ground deals make it far from level playing field (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-ground-deals-make-it-far-from-level-playing-field-20130531-2nh9n.html)

Will be interesting once the trip is complete and what the AFL decide on equalisation.

[Remi Moses]

I get the feeling the big boys are being disengenous.
Do they really want an even playing field?
We hear noises, but I'm not sure.

[Hotdog60]

I can't imaging the AFL to receive basically nothing and 85% going to the clubs.

[Ghost Dog]

When I take international clients from abroad ( africa, asia ) they look at the small crowds behind the goals and ask, why is everyone away today? It's an impossible situation to have 18 teams but only 10 or so with reasonable crowds and the rest making up the numbers. Any given sunday is a great idea.

[bornadog]

AFL signs sports drinks deal to promote club equalisation

(http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-signs-sports-drinks-deal-to-promote-club-equality-20131112-2xeks.html)

The second initiative as part of equalisation.

[Murphy'sLore]

Heard Eddie this morning on SEN pontificating about equalisation and hoping that the clubs on "handouts" wouldn't take it as a licence to sit back and accept charity, instead of "working hard" to become self-sufficient and independent, like Collingwood have done.
Great, I know Collingwood have worked hard (and I know Eddie has stuck up for us in the past), but there was no acknowledgment of the golden fixture that is handed to them every year, with every opportunity to maximise exposure and revenue. At some point it becomes a self-fulfilling cycle, with the big getting bigger and the small dwindling away in the shadows.
It's just so frustrating to hear this self-congratulatory line from the big clubs without any mention of the huge leg-up they are gifted every season from the AFL in the form of the rigged draw.

[hujsh]

Heard Eddie this morning on SEN pontificating about equalisation and hoping that the clubs on "handouts" wouldn't take it as a licence to sit back and accept charity, instead of "working hard" to become self-sufficient and independent, like Collingwood have done.
Great, I know Collingwood have worked hard (and I know Eddie has stuck up for us in the past), but there was no acknowledgment of the golden fixture that is handed to them every year, with every opportunity to maximise exposure and revenue. At some point it becomes a self-fulfilling cycle, with the big getting bigger and the small dwindling away in the shadows.
It's just so frustrating to hear this self-congratulatory line from the big clubs without any mention of the huge leg-up they are gifted every season from the AFL in the form of the rigged draw.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120828080023-we-built-it-gop-convention-gi-story-top.jpg

[Eastdog]

Heard Eddie this morning on SEN pontificating about equalisation and hoping that the clubs on "handouts" wouldn't take it as a licence to sit back and accept charity, instead of "working hard" to become self-sufficient and independent, like Collingwood have done.
Great, I know Collingwood have worked hard (and I know Eddie has stuck up for us in the past), but there was no acknowledgment of the golden fixture that is handed to them every year, with every opportunity to maximise exposure and revenue. At some point it becomes a self-fulfilling cycle, with the big getting bigger and the small dwindling away in the shadows.
It's just so frustrating to hear this self-congratulatory line from the big clubs without any mention of the huge leg-up they are gifted every season from the AFL in the form of the rigged draw.

At least we are not being used as a guniea pig by the AFL for Sunday night football but I agree playing on Sunday at 4:40pm more frequently is very unfair for us as members. Dissapointing we are a playing Collingwood mid season again Sunday arvo smack bang when my uni exams are on. I wish we got a better time slot on a Saturday arvo to play Collingwood.

[Remi Moses]

McGuire should get his facts right.
Slams clubs not making money for going for altitude training.
Message Eddie those clubs players paid for the trip!
A bit rich telling clubs not to get "lazy" and sits back and enjoys his compromised revenue raising arm chair ride !

[Eastdog]

McGuire should get his facts right.
Slams clubs not making money for going for altitude training.
Message Eddie those clubs players paid for the trip!
A bit rich telling clubs not to get "lazy" and sits back and enjoys his compromised revenue raising arm chair ride !

Do you think though its a concern RM that we rely to much on the AFL to help us out and therefore we are indebted to them which means we won't get good deals on our terms. What do you think?

[bornadog]

. At some point it becomes a self-fulfilling cycle, with the big getting bigger and the small dwindling away in the shadows..

You are absolutely right, this is my biggest beef and something the AFL just doesn't get, as all they think of is short term gain, but forget that this competition will only survive if all clubs have an equal chance to survive and therefore get an equal proportion of the pie.

Let Collingwood play in Launceston, Geelong, Canberra and Skoda Stadium, let Collingwood not have ANZAC day, play Sunday at 4.40 or whatever time on Sundays and no Friday night or any other blockbuster. Let Collingwood get a pittance for playing at Eithad and then we will see what their profit looks like. :mad:

[LostDoggy]

The fact that clubs like ours are even still in existence given the way the fixture has looked after popular clubs for years is evidence we are well run. Usually agree with Eddie but he's out of line on this one.

[Prince Imperial]

It's not just the draw. Eddie doesn't complain about the large amount of annual funding that the AFL gives the MCC as part of the agreement to build the northern stand. This was $6m in 2011 and is increasing with inflation each year. The agreement allows the MCC to give home clubs including Collingwood their better financial returns than the Docklands club get (a venue that will become a huge AFL asset subsidised largely by the poor returns to us and other tenants). In 2011, the AFL reported that clubs were approximately $100000 better off with an identical crowd at the MCG compared to Docklands. ‎

See slide 7 at: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmm.afl.com.au%2Fportals%2F0%2F2011%2Ffinals %2Fclub_funding_presentation_260911.pdf&ei=dyiUUrXBIoiMiQfGsYHQBA&usg=AFQjCNEjdespLJyDMALGtjuFnEYjMa2-Qg&bvm=bv.57155469,d.aGc

[Eastdog]

It's not just the draw. Eddie doesn't complain about the large amount of annual funding that the AFL gives the MCC as part of the agreement to build the northern stand. This was $6m in 2011 and is increasing with inflation each year. The agreement allows the MCC to give home clubs including Collingwood their better financial returns than the Docklands club get (a venue that will become a huge AFL asset subsidised largely by the poor returns to us and other tenants). In 2011, the AFL reported that clubs were approximately $100000 better off with an identical crowd at the MCG compared to Docklands. ‎

See slide 7 at: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmm.afl.com.au%2Fportals%2F0%2F2011%2Ffinals %2Fclub_funding_presentation_260911.pdf&ei=dyiUUrXBIoiMiQfGsYHQBA&usg=AFQjCNEjdespLJyDMALGtjuFnEYjMa2-Qg&bvm=bv.57155469,d.aGc

In that case why don't we then play some home games at the MCG. Who cares if we don't get the biggest crowds at least will make a profit.

[Remi Moses]

Do you think though its a concern RM that we rely to much on the AFL to help us out and therefore we are indebted to them which means we won't get good deals on our terms. What do you think?

We're indebted no doubt, but this issue is the dog chasing its own tail( pardon the crap pun )
While these compromised fixtures exist, and terrible stadium arrangements continue we will struggle.
As Demetriou said a week ago , do the big clubs want to play each other 5 times a season?
As far as I see each club contributes to the massive TV rights money( not just the big boys)
I'll hasten it say our viewing figures during the 08 to 10 period were very high also.

Eddie and the big Boys keep harping on about stifling initiative.
Does he really believe the small clubs aren't trying to initiate extra revenue?
Just utter nonsense

[Eastdog]

We're indebted no doubt, but this issue is the dog chasing its own tail( pardon the crap pun )
While these compromised fixtures exist, and terrible stadium arrangements continue we will struggle.
As Demetriou said a week ago , do the big clubs want to play each other 5 times a season?
As far as I see each club contributes to the massive TV rights money( not just the big boys)
I'll hasten it say our viewing figures during the 08 to 10 period were very high also.

Eddie and the big Boys keep harping on about stifling initiative.
Does he really believe the small clubs aren't trying to initiate extra revenue?
Just utter nonsense

Would you agree that the AFL has made it difficult in the current environment for clubs like ours to get ahead and make revenue. Interested to know how our debt demolition is going.

[LostDoggy]

The fixed distribution system is locked in until end 2014 at which point I suspect radical changes will actually occur. It's not possible to deny we are are actively discriminated against via playing fixture (60 playing weeks without a Friday must be a record surely) and stadium deals alone. I think now that the failed GWS experiment has been left to drift along the AFL will make some real progress in the equalisation area.

I'm prepared to be patient for a year. If Gordon gets a sense we aren't going to see real progress thereafter then I'm just as prepared to grab my pitchfork and torch and stand beside him. I love having him back in the presidents chair. Feel like he'll get an outcome or he'll enlist the mob to start tearing down the walls....

[Prince Imperial]

In that case why don't we then play some home games at the MCG. Who cares if we don't get the biggest crowds at least will make a profit.

The AFL controls the draw and where teams play in Melbourne. At the least, we really should get a home game there once a year against a big club to help us make some significant dosh - it wouldn't hurt from a playing perspective for us to get this experience on the MCG either.

[w3design]

I see the existence of a company dedicated wholly and solely to maximising it's own profits, controlling the Docklands Stadium, as the major barrier to the tenant clubs chances of ever being self funded or profitable.

For mine the very first step towards equalization needs to be the AFL buying them out of their lease, immediately if not sooner. They can then reset the major costs barrier to the struggling clubs surely.

[Remi Moses]

Would you agree that the AFL has made it difficult in the current environment for clubs like ours to get ahead and make revenue. Interested to know how our debt demolition is going.

Well playing on Foxtel ( limited audience ) Sunday twighlight ( smaller attendance) Foxtel again isn't great for the bottom line. No maximum exposure on prime time TV is a killer as well as the stadium disgrace.

[Bulldog4life]

Heard Peter Gordon on SEN this morning. He said there some exciting announcements coming up. Also another good point he mentioned was that along with ourselves, North & St.Kilda playing their home games at Etihad we are the teams who are helping the AFL eventually gain a billion dollar stadium. So in effect we are helping pay off Etihad more than Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond etc.Unfortunately I didn't hear all he had to say.

[Murphy'sLore]

I can't remember all he said, but he did mention that he thought it was better to talk about 'revenue sharing' than 'equalisation.' The big and small clubs will never be on an equal footing and that's not the aim, the aim is to ensure that all clubs can remain competitive at around the same level.
The point about the smaller clubs paying off Etihad for the ultimate benefit of the whole competition was well made, I thought.

[bulldogtragic]

My concerns about 'equalisation' still stand.


From The Age today:


AFL, power clubs ready for showdown over equalisation

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire is leading the charge against a tax on club revenues.

A showdown is looming on Thursday with the AFL and its most powerful clubs at loggerheads as Andrew Demetriou and his team strive to push through a series of new Robin Hood-style taxes in a bid to reshape the competition.

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire, who last week angrily refused to sign off on a number of new equalisation principles, is leading the charge against a tax on club revenues with several other clubs confirming staff will lose their jobs next season with overseas camps and study opportunities abandoned once the AFL places a cap upon football department spending.

The yet-to-be-rolled out equalisation measures seem likely to include:

■A 50¢ in the dollar tax on clubs breaking the new football department spending cap.

■The rapid phasing out of Sydney's cost-of-living allowance.

■The removal of the playing veterans' allowance - a move which would have stripped $1 million from Geelong's salary cap last season.

■Another significant pay increase across the board for players.

■A tax on the wealthier club revenues, which would hit hard on clubs such as Collingwood, Hawthorn and West Coast.

■An AFL undertaking not to burden the other 16 clubs in any funding increase to GWS and the Gold Coast.

■The early purchase of Etihad Stadium to lift that financial burden from the Bulldogs, St Kilda and North Melbourne.

Demetriou conceded late on Tuesday that the AFL faced a tough task in its bid to sign off on the series of equalisation principles at Thursday's last-ditch attempt to seek some resolution before next week's Adelaide season launch meeting with all 18 clubs. It is understood that the league had believed it had been close to reaching a resolution before last week's flare-up.

''The meeting was as robust as others I've been involved in, but I wouldn't say it was over the top,'' Demetriou said. ''It probably got a bit heated here and there … It's one of the most significant and important issues facing the industry.

''It's not easy. It's complex and it's challenging, but we need to achieve uncertainty of outcome. As you head more and more down that path towards an outcome the actual detail becomes more challenging.''

Under the proposed socialistic measures, Fairfax Media understands the AFL has proposed to tax clubs 50¢ out of every dollar spent over the football department spending ceiling, which on current figures would cost Collingwood and West Coast between $750,000 to $1.25 million respectively depending on whether the cap was set at $20 million or $21 million.

But it has been the proposed tax on overall club revenues which has angered the Magpies. McGuire's Collingwood is one of five clubs represented on the AFL's working party on equalisation. At least four clubs - the Magpies, Hawthorn, West Coast and Essendon - are becoming increasingly concerned at the AFL's radical plans to improve the poorer, less successful clubs.

Last week's meeting also broke up with several parties increasingly frustrated at the lack of detail. When asked why clubs - including those represented on the working party - had been kept in the dark regarding the costings of the equalisation proposals, Demetriou said significant detail would be unveiled on Thursday.

''We might not reach the final numbers on Thursday,'' he said. ''But the aim is to sign off on a series of principles which we hope to take to all the clubs next week. We just want, as an executive, to take to all the club presidents and chief executives a position but the final numbers will be up to the commission.''

The veterans' allowance sees an additional $118,000 per 10-year, one-club player placed into a club's salary cap. Geelong had nine veterans last season and will field six this year following the departures of Joel Corey, Paul Chapman and Josh Hunt.

But the AFL Players Association is to negotiate an across-the-board increase in total player payments as part of a mid-year collective bargaining agreement review.

While Sydney looks certain to lose its cost-of-living allowance despite commissioning a paper on the issue, its cross-city rivals the Giants will continue to boast a higher salary cap based on its expansion status.

[Bulldog Joe]

I repeat my often stated position.

The first and easy step is for the AFL to take ALL gate receipts and cover all stadium costs.

While an equal distribution from there would be a start, the AFL has the option of then distributing on a needs basis.

It does not require the AFL to tax richer clubs.

The proposals are those of a bureaucrat and create complexity where it isn't required.

[bulldogtragic]

I repeat my often stated position.

The first and easy step is for the AFL to take ALL gate receipts and cover all stadium costs.

While an equal distribution from there would be a start, the AFL has the option of then distributing on a needs basis.

It does not require the AFL to tax richer clubs.

The proposals are those of a bureaucrat and create complexity where it isn't required.

True. It makes you wonder why this path is preferred to others. The conspiracy theorist part of me thinks if it gets too hard and too complex then everyone can say it's too hard and thus put it on the never-never. But I'll bang on again, bigger clubs don't care about us. They need a variety of teams to play, and want TV exposure and the cash it generates. I see this going one way, and that is enough support to keep clubs like ours viable to have a variety of oppositions across the season, but not enough that teams near on their knees will be a serious competition to their position in the industry. And whatever morsels they throw our way, they will demand our greatfullness for teams ability to merely exist.

[lemmon]

I repeat my often stated position.

The first and easy step is for the AFL to take ALL gate receipts and cover all stadium costs.

While an equal distribution from there would be a start, the AFL has the option of then distributing on a needs basis.

It does not require the AFL to tax richer clubs.

The proposals are those of a bureaucrat and create complexity where it isn't required.

Is that the NFL system?

[Bulldog Joe]

Is that the NFL system?

No.

The NFL system is (I think)70% of all revenue is split equally. That includes membership, sponsorship and gates.

[Remi Moses]

True. It makes you wonder why this path is preferred to others. The conspiracy theorist part of me thinks if it gets too hard and too complex then everyone can say it's too hard and thus put it on the never-never. But I'll bang on again, bigger clubs don't care about us. They need a variety of teams to play, and want TV exposure and the cash it generates. I see this going one way, and that is enough support to keep clubs like ours viable to have a variety of oppositions across the season, but not enough that teams near on their knees will be a serious competition to their position in the industry. And whatever morsels they throw our way, they will demand our greatfullness for teams ability to merely exist.
McGuire gives lip service about equalisation at every corner.
I like BJ's proposal but you can see the likes of Eddie and Newbloke at Hawthorn complaining about creating the most revenue.

[bulldogtragic]

McGuire gives lip service about equalisation at every corner.
I like BJ's proposal but you can see the likes of Eddie and Newbloke at Hawthorn complaining about creating the most revenue.

I'm happy to publicly apologise (on WOOF) to those you just mentioned if they prove me wrong. But there won't be a genuine equalisation. They may funnel clubs like ours some cash, but that doesn't make up for the fact they will give the Good Friday games to others, an over representation of Sunday avo games and a general shabby fixture. Until we get access to avenues to generate more exposure, we won't get the sponsorship dollars to really pump the club up and we also won't attract and retain the membership base. I think of it like this, if we were relocated to Udnadata, would the big clubs really care? They need the requisite number of teams for a large fixture and enough TV games to spread around to maximise income. I don't for a second think anyone really cares about our club other than what they can get from us. This exercise feels like Tessio telling us he's brokered a peace meeting with Barzini and that everything will be ok. Believe it at your own risk.

I hate that goddamn Barzini.

[bornadog]

The AFL has created this situation because they never ever think about the long term good of the game. By giving Collingwood (and other so called big clubs), the best TV coverage, Fridays night football, the blockbusters including ANZAC day, the best stadium deals and all the publicity over the past 15 years (even further back), they have now created a monster to the detriment of the rest of the competition. Collingwood now have over 60,000 members, all created by the above. One can say they have always had a large supporter base, but the AFL has more than boosted it, they have given them the biggest leg up of all time in an uneven competition.

Imagine all those kids sitting in front of the telly, on their day off (ANZAC DAY), and the stadium is full of people, their little eyes open up and stare at Collingwood and Essendon on the big stage. Who do you think they are going to follow in the future. I am of the firm belief, the AFL has played a huge part in making these clubs bigger than they would have been without all the interference. At least other clubs could have had a share of the action and the pie could have been shared more.

When is the last time Collingwood played at Geelong, or Launceston, or Darwin, or Canberra? The whole think stinks and the outcome of the AFL giving everything to the bigger clubs is more members, more dollars, more spend on the football department and Eddie has the cheek to whinge and squeal when he has got everything given to him on a platter.

[Remi Moses]

The AFL has created this situation because they never ever think about the long term good of the game. By giving Collingwood (and other so called big clubs), the best TV coverage, Fridays night football, the blockbusters including ANZAC day, the best stadium deals and all the publicity over the past 15 years (even further back), they have now created a monster to the detriment of the rest of the competition. Collingwood now have over 60,000 members, all created by the above. One can say they have always had a large supporter base, but the AFL has more than boosted it, they have given them the biggest leg up of all time in an uneven competition.

Imagine all those kids sitting in front of the telly, on their day off (ANZAC DAY), and the stadium is full of people, their little eyes open up and stare at Collingwood and Essendon on the big stage. Who do you think they are going to follow in the future. I am of the firm belief, the AFL has played a huge part in making these clubs bigger than they would have been without all the interference. At least other clubs could have had a share of the action and the pie could have been shared more.

When is the last time Collingwood played at Geelong, or Launceston, or Darwin, or Canberra? The whole think stinks and the outcome of the AFL giving everything to the bigger clubs is more members, more dollars, more spend on the football department and Eddie has the cheek to whinge and squeal when he has got everything given to him on a platter.
The irony is you never hear Eddie raising these points.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

My concerns about 'equalisation' still stand.


From The Age today:


AFL, power clubs ready for showdown over equalisation

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire is leading the charge against a tax on club revenues.

A showdown is looming on Thursday with the AFL and its most powerful clubs at loggerheads as Andrew Demetriou and his team strive to push through a series of new Robin Hood-style taxes in a bid to reshape the competition.

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire, who last week angrily refused to sign off on a number of new equalisation principles, is leading the charge against a tax on club revenues with several other clubs confirming staff will lose their jobs next season with overseas camps and study opportunities abandoned once the AFL places a cap upon football department spending.

The yet-to-be-rolled out equalisation measures seem likely to include:

■A 50¢ in the dollar tax on clubs breaking the new football department spending cap.

■The rapid phasing out of Sydney's cost-of-living allowance.

■The removal of the playing veterans' allowance - a move which would have stripped $1 million from Geelong's salary cap last season.

■Another significant pay increase across the board for players.

■A tax on the wealthier club revenues, which would hit hard on clubs such as Collingwood, Hawthorn and West Coast.

■An AFL undertaking not to burden the other 16 clubs in any funding increase to GWS and the Gold Coast.

■The early purchase of Etihad Stadium to lift that financial burden from the Bulldogs, St Kilda and North Melbourne.

Demetriou conceded late on Tuesday that the AFL faced a tough task in its bid to sign off on the series of equalisation principles at Thursday's last-ditch attempt to seek some resolution before next week's Adelaide season launch meeting with all 18 clubs. It is understood that the league had believed it had been close to reaching a resolution before last week's flare-up.

''The meeting was as robust as others I've been involved in, but I wouldn't say it was over the top,'' Demetriou said. ''It probably got a bit heated here and there … It's one of the most significant and important issues facing the industry.

''It's not easy. It's complex and it's challenging, but we need to achieve uncertainty of outcome. As you head more and more down that path towards an outcome the actual detail becomes more challenging.''

Under the proposed socialistic measures, Fairfax Media understands the AFL has proposed to tax clubs 50¢ out of every dollar spent over the football department spending ceiling, which on current figures would cost Collingwood and West Coast between $750,000 to $1.25 million respectively depending on whether the cap was set at $20 million or $21 million.

But it has been the proposed tax on overall club revenues which has angered the Magpies. McGuire's Collingwood is one of five clubs represented on the AFL's working party on equalisation. At least four clubs - the Magpies, Hawthorn, West Coast and Essendon - are becoming increasingly concerned at the AFL's radical plans to improve the poorer, less successful clubs.

Last week's meeting also broke up with several parties increasingly frustrated at the lack of detail. When asked why clubs - including those represented on the working party - had been kept in the dark regarding the costings of the equalisation proposals, Demetriou said significant detail would be unveiled on Thursday.

''We might not reach the final numbers on Thursday,'' he said. ''But the aim is to sign off on a series of principles which we hope to take to all the clubs next week. We just want, as an executive, to take to all the club presidents and chief executives a position but the final numbers will be up to the commission.''

The veterans' allowance sees an additional $118,000 per 10-year, one-club player placed into a club's salary cap. Geelong had nine veterans last season and will field six this year following the departures of Joel Corey, Paul Chapman and Josh Hunt.

But the AFL Players Association is to negotiate an across-the-board increase in total player payments as part of a mid-year collective bargaining agreement review.

While Sydney looks certain to lose its cost-of-living allowance despite commissioning a paper on the issue, its cross-city rivals the Giants will continue to boast a higher salary cap based on its expansion status.
We owe Peter Gordon a debt of gratitude for endeavouring to force the AFL to at least discuss the points raised in today's Age as an attempt towards equalization. Gordon is well aware of the mounting pressures from the likes of Collingwood and Hawthorn to retain the status quo. Clubs like GWS Gold Coast Brisbane Lions and Port Adelaide due to their poor financial returns simply puts extra pressure on the survival of the Victorian based clubs that includes the WB St Kilda and North Melbourne. Etihad has been a noose around our neck for far to long. We play too many twilight games there against Interstate clubs that prove to be financial disasters. Peter Gordon has a hell of a fight on his hands to convince the AFL Commission that we deserve better.

[Remi Moses]

Maybe it's time that president stopped interfering in the running of the comp and concerned himself on the outrageous situation of playing a footballer found guilty of Assault!!

[Remi Moses]

We owe Peter Gordon a debt of gratitude for endeavouring to force the AFL to at least discuss the points raised in today's Age as an attempt towards equalization. Gordon is well aware of the mounting pressures from the likes of Collingwood and Hawthorn to retain the status quo. Clubs like GWS Gold Coast Brisbane Lions and Port Adelaide due to their poor financial returns simply puts extra pressure on the survival of the Victorian based clubs that includes the WB St Kilda and North Melbourne. Etihad has been a noose around our neck for far to long. We play too many twilight games there against Interstate clubs that prove to be financial disasters. Peter Gordon has a hell of a fight on his hands to convince the AFL Commission that we deserve better.
We know Peter gets on here on occasions, and hope he keeps fighting the good fight.
Enough is Enough

[Greystache]

Maybe it's time that president stopped interfering in the running of the comp and concerned himself on the outrageous situation of playing a footballer found guilty of Assault!!

Inflicting grievous bodily harm actually. The court had the option of finding him guilty of the lesser offence of assault and decided his crime was too serious for that charge. It's a disgrace Collingwood are playing him while waiting to be sentenced. I saw the little turd playing against Williamstown last year and that he has been convicted of a serious crime before his 21st birthday comes as no surprise to me.

Funny that Eddie was so keen to get involved in equalisation in the first instance, but is now looking to fight it. In his usual self-serving style he wanted the benefits to Collingwood realised, in the the removal of Sydney's COLA, but none of the negatives like sharing the proceeds from the ridiculously favourable fixture and stadium deal he gets.

[bulldogtragic]

Inflicting grievous bodily harm actually. The court had the option of finding him guilty of the lesser offence of assault and decided his crime was too serious for that charge. It's a disgrace Collingwood are playing him while waiting to be sentenced. I saw the little turd playing against Williamstown last year and that he has been convicted of a serious crime before his 21st birthday comes as no surprise to me.

And the AFL investigation into his public racial slur of the now Australian of the Year went where now??

[Remi Moses]

Inflicting grievous bodily harm actually. The court had the option of finding him guilty of the lesser offence of assault and decided his crime was too serious for that charge. It's a disgrace Collingwood are playing him while waiting to be sentenced. I saw the little turd playing against Williamstown last year and that he has been convicted of a serious crime before his 21st birthday comes as no surprise to me.

Funny that Eddie was so keen to get involved in equalisation in the first instance, but is now looking to fight it. In his usual self-serving style he wanted the benefits to Collingwood realised, in the the removal of Sydney's COLA, but none of the negatives like sharing the proceeds from the ridiculously favourable fixture and stadium deal he gets.
Just ventured to the world of teenage footy site of big footy.
Hawthorn fans talking about how there are to many Victorian sides.
Must have all been born before 1996.
Of course the Dayle Garlett story is a media beat up.
Just can't wait for a few crap years and they're back to getting nobody at their games

[Remi Moses]

And the AFL investigation into his public racial slur of the now Australian of the Year went where now??

Eddie hubris

[Hotdog60]

Why is it so hard, all the teams are in the competition for the good of the game. All gate takings gets pooled together and dispersed evenly around the clubs. Then the bastardised fixture doesn't hurt as much.

[LostDoggy]

Why is it so hard, all the teams are in the competition for the good of the game. All gate takings gets pooled together and dispersed evenly around the clubs. Then the bastardised fixture doesn't hurt as much.

Because you are competing against other clubs. There has to be reward for doing things better, getting an edge, being smarter....I mean that's why we exist isn't it?. Conversely you should not be rewarded for poor management decisions, otherwise why do anything to improve yourself.

[bornadog]

Because you are competing against other clubs. There has to be reward for doing things better, getting an edge, being smarter....I mean that's why we exist isn't it?. Conversely you should not be rewarded for poor management decisions, otherwise why do anything to improve yourself.

But its not an equal playing field with teams getting preferential treatment, like blockbusters, Friday night, time slots, venues, etc

The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.

[bulldogtragic]

But its not an equal playing field with teams getting preferential treatment, like blockbusters, Friday night, time slots, venues, etc

The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.

This is my issue with the so called equalisation. Giving people or clubs welfare doesn't necessarily equate to equality. Without Friday night games, less Sunday avo's and the Good Friday game or other measures to entice more members and thus sponsorships, we will become dependant on the welfare and our presidents putting in a million dollars cash. This to me is merely existing to make the numbers up for TV games, it's not a future I want for us. If my concerns are accurate about the 'equalisation' philosophy and implementation, then I'm open to the Tassie debate.

[bornadog]

This is my issue with the so called equalisation. Giving people or clubs welfare doesn't necessarily equate to equality. Without Friday night games, less Sunday avo's and the Good Friday game or other measures to entice more members and thus sponsorships, we will become dependant on the welfare and our presidents putting in a million dollars cash. This to me is merely existing to make the numbers up for TV games, it's not a future I want for us. If my concerns are accurate about the 'equalisation' philosophy and implementation, then I'm open to the Tassie debate.

I was invited to a round table forum and lunch with Smorgon some 12 years ago (along with about 20 people) and I said this very thing, but David dismissed it . His philosophy at the time was the AFL was running us and we had to do what we were told. WE were being compensated and staying alive.

12 years down the track, and the big clubs are now monsters. Collingwood turned over $75 million last year, we were less than $30 million, and barely surviving.

[Hotdog60]

Because you are competing against other clubs. There has to be reward for doing things better, getting an edge, being smarter....I mean that's why we exist isn't it?. Conversely you should not be rewarded for poor management decisions, otherwise why do anything to improve yourself.
There can be ways to make sure you do the right things e: your slice of the pie if you are not giving it your all can be reduced so you don't reward poor management. Clubs are out there to get better and bigger if they have equal footing than at least they have half a chance.

But its not an equal playing field with teams getting preferential treatment, like blockbusters, Friday night, time slots, venues, etc

The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.

And because they won't bend with the fixture everyone has to have equal share of the take.

[bulldogtragic]

I was invited to a round table forum and lunch with Smorgon some 12 years ago (along with about 20 people) and I said this very thing, but David dismissed it . His philosophy at the time was the AFL was running us and we had to do what we were told. WE were being compensated and staying alive.

12 years down the track, and the big clubs are now monsters. Collingwood turned over $75 million last year, we were less than $30 million, and barely surviving.

Now this sort of info is stated openly, this is what I'm concerned about. If we are going to be told to live on our knees and not get actual equalisation, then my concern is we need to change the game. I'm open to all ideas, I'm currently annoying the club with ideas, but hyperbole and overreaction to mentioning a Tassie arrangement needs to temper to discussion to how we meaningfully exist. I've heard nothing to make me feel that the process will be anything other than lip service and welfare payments that will hold the sword of damaclese above us.

[bulldogtragic]

Paul Roos with Bombers support talked about young teams being majorly disadvantaged by reducing the runners available to the coach dropping from 2 last year to 1 this year. He mentioned for all the talk of equalisation developing clubs/teams are falling behind experienced teams can to an extent self manage on the ground, but teams (like ours) are further disadvantaged as the ability of (BMAC) to coach or change behaviours in at is cut by 50%.

[bornadog]

Paul Roos with Bombers support talked about young teams being majorly disadvantaged by reducing the runners available to the coach dropping from 2 last year to 1 this year. He mentioned for all the talk of equalisation developing clubs/teams are falling behind experienced teams can to an extent self manage on the ground, but teams (like ours) are further disadvantaged as the ability of (BMAC) to coach or change behaviours in at is cut by 50%.

Even though we have a young team, we have at least 5 players with over 150 games who can direct the players if the situation arises where direction is needed like Roos was talking about.

[bornadog]

Bullish Bulldogs put a bite into equalisation (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bullish-bulldogs-put-a-bite-into-equalisation-20150810-givd7k.html)
The Western Bulldogs' rise this season has been a feel-good story – and an example to others – for many reasons, perhaps none more than it shows what can be done despite an unbalanced equalisation pool.


What the Bulldogs have shown is that the vagaries of equalisation aren't the be-all and end-all when it comes to a club's fortunes.

Equalisation remains one of the key off-field issues, and was a major talking point at last week's gathering of club chief executives and the AFL executive.


The off-field gap and ability to spend between the league's richest clubs, and their so-called poorer brethren, some of whom are sucking on the AFL's teats, remains great, with industry figures suggesting it is more than $6 million. There are various reasons for this, including historical ones.


As Geelong president Colin Carter said recently, Collingwood could probably profit from an idea four times the amount a North Melbourne or Bulldogs could, simply because of their huge fan base. This extra money can then be parlayed into off-field facilities, coaching and other resources, although the new football department tax may quell this gap.


When it's all boiled down though, equalisation is primarily about ensuring players from all clubs have a legitimate chance of playing in the finals and even a grand final at various stages through their careers.


It's part of the Any Given Sunday philosophy of the American NFL, although AFL players are realistic enough to understand that a finals window won't be open every year – by nature sport will always have its strong and weak teams, with injuries and poor form also contributing to on-field performance.


But it's crucial for that opportunity to be a cycle, and not a flatlining norm where your club is mired near the foot of the ladder for years. Just ask what Melbourne supporters think about their past decade.


This cycle is one area of concern noted by club bosses, and it can have long-term repercussions. Poor clubs will retain most of their hardcore supporters, but it's the occasional viewer, the young child with stars in his or her eyes, clubs need to attract to widen their base, in the short and long term.


Sustained poor performances means little, if any, exposure in the marque Friday-night timeslot, or the newish Thursday-night prime-time slot. They are times when a club can spread its appeal.


That's why the Dogs' rise this year is all the more entertaining.


They have not enjoyed that prime-time exposure this year. So low were the expectations from league headquarters that they were not even granted a solitary Friday-night clash.


While they do boast an excellent training facility, the Dogs were said to have had the lowest football department spend of Victorian clubs last season but, under president Peter Gordon, continue to invest in this area.


However, having found the right new coach and capitalised on their shrewd recruiting of recent years, and preached the patience football director Chris Grant called for three years ago, they have emerged as a top-four candidate.


In doing so, they have come good at a time many, including league chiefs, would consider to be the appropriate point of a rebuilding or equalisation cycle, one which hasn't ticked off their loyal fans.


They last featured in the finals in 2010 – the third of three straight trips to a preliminary final. The Dogs then opted to strip back, and here they are a handful of years later boasting one of the most exciting groups of talent young and old.


St Kilda appears to be on the same path. By contrast, Carlton and Essendon opted for a quick fix in recent years, and now find themselves at the foot of a rebuild.


The Dogs have got the two most important areas right – the senior coach, which can be impacted by equalisation in terms of how much a club can spend, and recruiting. The latter has been particularly fruitful.


With the talent of the likes of Luke Dahlhaus and Marcus Bontempelli on show, along with a flourishing and watchable game plan, the Dogs have posted record membership this year and can expect to have a handful of prime-time matches next year.


They have shown that regardless of a club's spot in the financial pecking order, success can be achieved through smart decisions and patience. Now that's something all clubs would wish was equal.

[LostDoggy]

Thanks for this article. Good read. I reflected on 3 points;

- When we look at our Club's recent success, it should be noted that a lot of good decisions have been made since Chris Grant was appointed football director a few years ago.

- How great our draft selections have been over the years of the compromised drafts where it was supposed to be nigh on impossible for established clubs to get access to a consistent base of quality talent. Just makes the effort of the recruiters/list managers all the more amazing.

- How sweet it is to read about how the patch up jobs of arrogant Carlton and Essendon are just settling them in the mire.