I love a good Grant Thomas Bake...

[Saints43]

These blokes, these so called politicians have kept 10 AFl clubs in Victoria, 9 in Melbourne.

The two that went, South in 1981, and Fitzroy in 1996 have both won flags under their new guises.

Footscray, North, Richmond, Melbourne, and St.kilda supporters have all been saved from possible liquidation and oblivion by the AFL set up.

So why are there ex-Fitzroy supporters on this forum? Shouldn't they be in the pool room looking at their recent premiership memorabillia?

Sydney & Brisbane have won flags only with significant concessions from the AFL. Concessions that made it easier for them to beat us. That's great, isn't it?

The AFL should save Melbourne clubs - they are members of the league. Why shouldn't they be funded - if need be - like expansion clubs. They play matches that are televised all over Australia that make up the TV rights payments from networks.

And, how have St Kilda been saved by the AFL? We have never received a penny from them outside the normal distribution channels as far as I am aware.

[joffaboy]

So why are there ex-Fitzroy supporters on this forum? Shouldn't they be in the pool room looking at their recent premiership memorabillia?

There are also Collingwood and WCE supporters on this forum. There are thousands of ex Fitzroy and South members and supporters who support Brisbane and Sydney

Sydney & Brisbane have won flags only with significant concessions from the AFL. Concessions that made it easier for them to beat us. That's great, isn't it?

St.Kilda got significant concessions by being pathetically crap. that allowed us to challenge fir a flag in 09 and 10. That was great wasn't it?

The AFL should save Melbourne clubs - they are members of the league. Why shouldn't they be funded - if need be - like expansion clubs. They play matches that are televised all over Australia that make up the TV rights payments from networks.

So you agree that the AFL commission has done a good job in helping teams that otherwise may well have gone under.

I agree too. Just say Melbourne, Footscray, and North went broke and dies. A combined 600,000 supporters of these teams Australia wide would be disenfranchised, 80,000 paid up members would be without a team, hundreds of people would lose their jobs, and the advertising and revenue pie would shrink for the AFL.

Because we now have 18 teams due to the AFL help the lesser financial clubs, we have this fantastic result of 1.2 billion in TV rights revenue.

terrific isn't it?

And, how have St Kilda been saved by the AFL? We have never received a penny from them outside the normal distribution channels as far as I am aware.

All clubs benefit from the equalisation fund and we recieved revenue from the AFL.

Do you honestly think that the Saints would have anywhere near 40k members if we hadn't benefitted from the AFL and its policies. We were pretty broke before Butters and Waldron took over.

Remember the SoS tin rattling?

How often do you reckon Saints supporters would have kept doing that? How many members would we have if we were broke and couldn't afford players if there was no draft?

When Blight was coach, we had 17,000 paid up members. Through our we have grown that to nearly 40k.

All with the assistance of the AFL. Really it is quite simple and if you didn't know how the AFL have helped clubs like ours, you really haven't been paying attention.

[Johnny Member]

How would you have handled their entry into the competition... given them the picks after the Premier's?

I wouldn't have had them enter the competition in the first place.

That wasn't the question.

Don't dodge.

Well it answers it.

I would have moved a club if it was so neccessary to have another club in Queensland.

North Melbourne backflipped.

We are witnessing Plan B.

But that's sort of my point.

I can't see how that could be called 'well run'. They do this sort of thing all the time.


They insist the sport needs a team in the Gold Coast. Then stuff up with relocating one, then root the competition sideways by creating their own one instead.

They implement a rule to speed the game up one week, then change an interpretation the next week to slow it down!

They increase the bench to 4 one year, then reduce it to 3 the next!


My opinion is simply, that the product itself could be managed by anyone. If anything, these guys make the perfect product and the easiest product in the world to sell - look really difficult.


Aside from comfortable stadiums, I can't see one thing that Demetriou and Anderson have done to improve the game, that wasn't already in place before they arrived.

[Saints43]

So in summary the AFL have not saved us as we have not received any concessions not available to any other member clubs of the competition. And certainly haven't received any special concessions such as relocated or start up teams have received.

In fact, as you say, when the club has been in very real danger of going broke we had to rattle tins. The AFL did f'all for us.

When you say...

When Blight was coach, we had 17,000 paid up members. Through our we have grown that to nearly 40k.

All with the assistance of the AFL. Really it is quite simple and if you didn't know how the AFL have helped clubs like ours, you really haven't been paying attention.

...how have the AFL specifically assisted St Kilda to grow our membership?

We are treated like less than the 1/17th of the competiton that we should be as a license holder of the league.

Seriously, I never thought I would see Saints supporters applauding decisions that give other clubs better access to winning premierships.

[Johnny Member]

These blokes, these so called politicians have kept 10 AFl clubs in Victoria, 9 in Melbourne.

The two that went, South in 1981, and Fitzroy in 1996 have both won flags under their new guises.

But that's what I don't understand about the current AFL administration.


They keep 10 Victorian clubs in the AFL. Why?

They make the clubs move grounds and round them all up into their own neat little stadiums.
They make them change their jumpers to make them easier to see on TV.
They make them do things exactly the way the AFL wants them done.
They completely own the clubs and everything they do....

But then allow them to stay in Melbourne. Why?

It's another AFL blunder. Keep clubs in Victoria one week and maintain a Victorian league - then insist the comp must be expanded nationally the next!



Anyway, I hate these sorts of discussions. They start out as friendly discussion, then turn into point scoring arguments!

So that's the last I'll say on the topic.

[plugger66]

How exactly is the draw extremely well run.?

It is lopsided.
Full of irregularities.
Certain teams always play each other twice.
Blockbusters.
No attempt to even try and even up the number of games played by each club against each other club over time.

A sports-loving foreigner looking at it would conclude that at best the AFL is extremely backward in producing such an unfair schedule.
At worst they would conclude the AFL is corrupt.

It must be fun thinking everything is corrupt. Apart from playing 34 games, the draw will never be level even if rotated. How about playing the Saints this year compared to last or the WCE this year compared to last. Could go on, Tigers, Essendon, Dogs. The draw isnt corrupt because it isnt hidden, the AFL have always said it is about maximising attendance. But I suppose it is better to whinge and say corruption is everywhere in the AFL. Still cant work out why we get more and more sponsors with a corrupt competition. usually sponsors dont like being associated with things that. Just maybe it is the envy of every other competition in Australia.

Well perhaps the EPL should take a leaf out of the AFL's book and schedule their season around maximising attendances and ratings.

You could have ManU and City playing off 4 times in ratings blockbusters.
Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool could all be scheduled to play more matches against the other Giants.

Won't happen because there would be a massive outcry.
As such a lopsided draw based on revenue is just outrageously unfair.

But that is exactly what the AFL does.
They have no credibility on this whatsoever.
THE DRAW IS A TOTAL AND UNMITIGATED DISGRACE.

If we going to have an intelligent conversation the at least put up how the AFL can have a fair draw with 18 sides. Using the EPL is ridiculous as they fit enough games in 2 play each other twice. Obviously that is impossible for AFL footy. Funny that you use EPL though as that is such a great competition that only 4 sides can ever win the thing. Cant wait till the AFL go down that path.

[stinger]

How exactly is the draw extremely well run.?

It is lopsided.
Full of irregularities.
Certain teams always play each other twice.
Blockbusters.
No attempt to even try and even up the number of games played by each club against each other club over time.

A sports-loving foreigner looking at it would conclude that at best the AFL is extremely backward in producing such an unfair schedule.
At worst they would conclude the AFL is corrupt.

It must be fun thinking everything is corrupt. Apart from playing 34 games, the draw will never be level even if rotated. How about playing the Saints this year compared to last or the WCE this year compared to last. Could go on, Tigers, Essendon, Dogs. The draw isnt corrupt because it isnt hidden, the AFL have always said it is about maximising attendance. But I suppose it is better to whinge and say corruption is everywhere in the AFL. Still cant work out why we get more and more sponsors with a corrupt competition. usually sponsors dont like being associated with things that. Just maybe it is the envy of every other competition in Australia.

Well perhaps the EPL should take a leaf out of the AFL's book and schedule their season around maximising attendances and ratings.

You could have ManU and City playing off 4 times in ratings blockbusters.
Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool could all be scheduled to play more matches against the other Giants.

Won't happen because there would be a massive outcry.
As such a lopsided draw based on revenue is just outrageously unfair.

But that is exactly what the AFL does.
They have no credibility on this whatsoever.
THE DRAW IS A TOTAL AND UNMITIGATED DISGRACE.

i reckon the way to go would be ..


...rounds 1 to 17.....each team plays the other team once.....rounds 18 to 22...the top six play each other a second time.....same for the next 6 ....and then the bottom six....simple....and fair....don't have to be albert einstein to work that out....


or ..on reflection and better still.....after 17 rounds...have the competition divided into three groups of 6....DRAWN AT RANDOM..for the last 5 rounds...

[plugger66]

How exactly is the draw extremely well run.?

It is lopsided.
Full of irregularities.
Certain teams always play each other twice.
Blockbusters.
No attempt to even try and even up the number of games played by each club against each other club over time.

A sports-loving foreigner looking at it would conclude that at best the AFL is extremely backward in producing such an unfair schedule.
At worst they would conclude the AFL is corrupt.

It must be fun thinking everything is corrupt. Apart from playing 34 games, the draw will never be level even if rotated. How about playing the Saints this year compared to last or the WCE this year compared to last. Could go on, Tigers, Essendon, Dogs. The draw isnt corrupt because it isnt hidden, the AFL have always said it is about maximising attendance. But I suppose it is better to whinge and say corruption is everywhere in the AFL. Still cant work out why we get more and more sponsors with a corrupt competition. usually sponsors dont like being associated with things that. Just maybe it is the envy of every other competition in Australia.

Well perhaps the EPL should take a leaf out of the AFL's book and schedule their season around maximising attendances and ratings.

You could have ManU and City playing off 4 times in ratings blockbusters.
Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool could all be scheduled to play more matches against the other Giants.

Won't happen because there would be a massive outcry.
As such a lopsided draw based on revenue is just outrageously unfair.

But that is exactly what the AFL does.
They have no credibility on this whatsoever.
THE DRAW IS A TOTAL AND UNMITIGATED DISGRACE.

i reckon the way to go would be ..


...rounds 1 to 17.....each team plays the other team once.....rounds 18 to 22...the top six play each other a second time.....same for the next 6 ....and then the bottom six....simple....and fair....don't have to be albert einstein to work that out....

Yep that makes so much sense. So come round 17 and you are in 6th spot and a loss will put you 7th you delibatrably lose so you get the easier draw and the eventually pass the a couple of sides in front of you because they had the harder draw. Also the interstate sides may play each other once. Yep that would make a lot of sense. As you said you dont have to be Einstein and you just proved it. GTLS.

[Enrico_Misso]

You can make the draw fair in three ways.

1) Just have 17 rounds so each side plays each other once and alternate between home and away each year.

2) You can make it fair by having a three year draw.
Over those 66 H&A games you could play each side 4 times less two teams drawn at random that you only play 3 times (17x4-2=66)

3) Or as mentioned by Stinger you play the other 17 teams over 17 rounds then your next 5 games are totally random,
Sure you might have bad luck and draw the top 5 teams. But over time that should average out.


Any of these options would be better than the current institutionalised favouritism which is nothing short of corrupt.

[stinger]

You can make the draw fair in three ways.

1) Just have 17 rounds so each side plays each other once and alternate between home and away each year.

2) You can make it fair by having a three year draw.
Over those 66 H&A games you could play each side 4 times less two teams drawn at random that you only play 3 times (17x4-2=66)

3) Or as mentioned by Stinger you play the other 17 teams over 17 rounds then your next 5 games are totally random,
Sure you might have bad luck and draw the top 5 teams. But over time that should average out.


Any of these options would be better than the current institutionalised favouritism which is nothing short of corrupt.

...a very good summary of all the reasonable.......and fair ....options....

[plugger66]

You can make the draw fair in three ways.

1) Just have 17 rounds so each side plays each other once and alternate between home and away each year.

2) You can make it fair by having a three year draw.
Over those 66 H&A games you could play each side 4 times less two teams drawn at random that you only play 3 times (17x4-2=66)

3) Or as mentioned by Stinger you play the other 17 teams over 17 rounds then your next 5 games are totally random,
Sure you might have bad luck and draw the top 5 teams. But over time that should average out.


Any of these options would be better than the current institutionalised favouritism which is nothing short of corrupt.

Firstly the AFL, the players and the clubs will never agree to 17 games but even then it isnt fair because I certainly would have rather played WCE in Perth last year compared to this year. Secondly as I mentioned a 3 year rolling draw is just as unfair as it is now and the Stinger suggestion is just plain stupid. So you say it isnt fair now and you have also proposed a draw that isnt fair either but you say is better. If you cant come with a draw that is fair then why change it. Also how is it good for the competition if the interstate sides dont play each other twice every year.

[Leo.J]

The AFL is now purely a form of entertainment, it not a sport anymore.

You may as well watch the wrestling.

[plugger66]

The AFL is now purely a form of entertainment, it not a sport anymore.

You may as well watch the wrestling.

Could have sworn it was a sport. Maybe you should tell the players as I am pretty sure they think they are playing sport.

[Leo.J]

The AFL is now purely a form of entertainment, it not a sport anymore.

You may as well watch the wrestling.

Could have sworn it was a sport. Maybe you should tell the players as I am pretty sure they think they are playing sport.

Its a sport in it's purest form, but the current handicap system that the AFL has developed is barely a sport.

[desertsaint]

the afl don't have a draw - they have a 'plan'.
bugger fairness, there's bonuses to be earned - they go for the money.
any draw, any at all, if an actual draw, would be fairer!

[jonesy]

The AFL...they're a hard one. On one hand they've done a great job at promoting the game and making the competition grow. Yet on the other hand,they've managed to water down the game and have also watched it lose it's personality slowly but surely over the past decade.

What would you give to have the old suburban days back? It was 3 times better. Now it's just the same ground every week,same keepings off game each week,same boring purified crowd sitting in the same seat each week,the variation has completly gone.

[Dr Spaceman]

The AFL...they're a hard one. On one hand they've done a great job at promoting the game and making the competition grow. Yet on the other hand,they've managed to water down the game and have also watched it lose it's personality slowly but surely over the past decade.

What would you give to have the old suburban days back? It was 3 times better. Now it's just the same ground every week,same keepings off game each week,same boring purified crowd sitting in the same seat each week,the variation has completly gone.

I'm very glad I got to experience the grand old days of suburban Footy.

But I'm also extremely glad to still be around to enjoy the game as it is presented now.

It's all Red, Black & White to me.

[Moods]

The AFL...they're a hard one. On one hand they've done a great job at promoting the game and making the competition grow. Yet on the other hand,they've managed to water down the game and have also watched it lose it's personality slowly but surely over the past decade.

What would you give to have the old suburban days back? It was 3 times better. Now it's just the same ground every week,same keepings off game each week,same boring purified crowd sitting in the same seat each week,the variation has completly gone.

Interesting post Jonesy. For someone who finds the game so boring it certainly has drawn some passionate responses from you via this forum in the past.

Look I loved aspects of suburban footy as well. I loved running onto the ground, loved having a kick during the reserves - loved watching the reserves for that matter.

I never enjoyed sitting in drenching rain though. I never enjoyed watching footy on absolute bog heaps either. I reckon if the AFLwent back in time and decided that suburban footy was best, then there would be howls of protests and crowds not much bigger than 10,000 like they have in rugby.

What ppl forget is the VFL was dying a slow death in 1985,1986 - crowds were starting to drop on a consistent basis, something needed to be done. Saturday afternoons at 2pm always was held dear to Victorians but something else was happening which I mentioned earlier - ppl were finding other things to entertain themselves with. We were finding the situation that only the powerful clubs had any real sniff of winning a flag. I recall just being ecstatic that the Roys made a prelim in 1986. They never had a realistic chance of winning the thing (maybe in 83) Carlton had a down year and just went over the borders with a truckload of money and recruited Kernahan, Bradley, Motlop, Dorovitch.

How you can say saints43 that the AFL give the saints less of a chance of winning a flag staggers me. We were rewarded for our ineptness in the early 2000's like no other era. We were smart enough to capitalise on that and absolutely had a genuine shot at winning a flag. Just as the blues do now, just as the hawks did with their flag in 2008.

[Enrico_Misso]

You can make the draw fair in three ways.

1) Just have 17 rounds so each side plays each other once and alternate between home and away each year.

2) You can make it fair by having a three year draw.
Over those 66 H&A games you could play each side 4 times less two teams drawn at random that you only play 3 times (17x4-2=66)

3) Or as mentioned by Stinger you play the other 17 teams over 17 rounds then your next 5 games are totally random,
Sure you might have bad luck and draw the top 5 teams. But over time that should average out.


Any of these options would be better than the current institutionalised favouritism which is nothing short of corrupt.

Firstly the AFL, the players and the clubs will never agree to 17 games but even then it isnt fair because I certainly would have rather played WCE in Perth last year compared to this year. Secondly as I mentioned a 3 year rolling draw is just as unfair as it is now and the Stinger suggestion is just plain stupid. So you say it isnt fair now and you have also proposed a draw that isnt fair either but you say is better. If you cant come with a draw that is fair then why change it. Also how is it good for the competition if the interstate sides dont play each other twice every year.

1) 17 Rounds
Agree that the AFL would not want to shorten the season to 17 rounds.
Though given Dimwit's comments at the Press Club luncheon today we may wind up with 21 teams.

2) 3 year draw
How can you dismiss a locked-in 3 year draw where everyone plays each other 4 times as "unfair" ????
It is about as fair as you can get with 17 teams and 22 rounds.
At the moment there are a large number of pairings - you know who they are - who will play each other SIX times over the next 3 years when it should be FOUR.
How is that fair??????????

3) 17 then 5 random
You dismiss this as stupid!!!
Can you understand that Random IS Fair.
Because random doesn't discriminate.

One thing is certain.
Options 2) and 3) are far preferable to the current RORT.

[jonesy]

The AFL...they're a hard one. On one hand they've done a great job at promoting the game and making the competition grow. Yet on the other hand,they've managed to water down the game and have also watched it lose it's personality slowly but surely over the past decade.

What would you give to have the old suburban days back? It was 3 times better. Now it's just the same ground every week,same keepings off game each week,same boring purified crowd sitting in the same seat each week,the variation has completly gone.

Interesting post Jonesy. For someone who finds the game so boring it certainly has drawn some passionate responses from you via this forum in the past.

Look I loved aspects of suburban footy as well. I loved running onto the ground, loved having a kick during the reserves - loved watching the reserves for that matter.

I never enjoyed sitting in drenching rain though. I never enjoyed watching footy on absolute bog heaps either. I reckon if the AFLwent back in time and decided that suburban footy was best, then there would be howls of protests and crowds not much bigger than 10,000 like they have in rugby.

.

I'm a passionate person when it comes to the saints Moods...renownedly so,but I have toned it down a lot in the past 5-6 years(last 6 months in particular)....having said that add in the 09 campaign and last years drawn GF and that's a complete lie . Unless the league ever booted us out of the comp,there is no way I'd ever turn my back on the game,it's to far entrenched into the soul. I still love it,always will,but it's diminishing

As time go's by,the game is losing it's spirit. I wonder where the game will be at in 20 years time. It will be far more prosperous than now financially...but will it be more appealing for the supporter? I doubt it if the last 5-10 years is anything to go by.

The days of tribal suburban encounters,colourful characters,and dominating forwards are behind us,and that is a shame,as it was simply better back then,and I'm not an old geezer either,I'm only 31...

I also worry about us and where we will be at. All the clubs have had to pick up there game and move with the modern era,but in doing this they've lost there identity. The smaller clubs have anyway. What will be our identity in 20 years time? We all play on the same two grounds now,the club has no personality anymore. I love watching Macadam05s video's he's been posting up recently. A great reminder of what we used to have,clubs supporters bases with there own personality's,so much more passion.Anyhow,I'm getting off track,just reminisant ramblings really...

[plugger66]

You can make the draw fair in three ways.

1) Just have 17 rounds so each side plays each other once and alternate between home and away each year.

2) You can make it fair by having a three year draw.
Over those 66 H&A games you could play each side 4 times less two teams drawn at random that you only play 3 times (17x4-2=66)

3) Or as mentioned by Stinger you play the other 17 teams over 17 rounds then your next 5 games are totally random,
Sure you might have bad luck and draw the top 5 teams. But over time that should average out.


Any of these options would be better than the current institutionalised favouritism which is nothing short of corrupt.

Firstly the AFL, the players and the clubs will never agree to 17 games but even then it isnt fair because I certainly would have rather played WCE in Perth last year compared to this year. Secondly as I mentioned a 3 year rolling draw is just as unfair as it is now and the Stinger suggestion is just plain stupid. So you say it isnt fair now and you have also proposed a draw that isnt fair either but you say is better. If you cant come with a draw that is fair then why change it. Also how is it good for the competition if the interstate sides dont play each other twice every year.

1) 17 Rounds
Agree that the AFL would not want to shorten the season to 17 rounds.
Though given Dimwit's comments at the Press Club luncheon today we may wind up with 21 teams.

2) 3 year draw
How can you dismiss a locked-in 3 year draw where everyone plays each other 4 times as "unfair" ????
It is about as fair as you can get with 17 teams and 22 rounds.
At the moment there are a large number of pairings - you know who they are - who will play each other SIX times over the next 3 years when it should be FOUR.
How is that fair??????????

3) 17 then 5 random
You dismiss this as stupid!!!
Can you understand that Random IS Fair.
Because random doesn't discriminate.

One thing is certain.
Options 2) and 3) are far preferable to the current RORT.

Can I ask how is the current system any worse than the last 2 systems you mentioned? imagine playing the tigers, Essendon and WCE twice this year compared to another side playing Footscray and us this year. Yes the other draw may have set matches this year but using the pies as an example, they play Carlton and Essendon twice ever year. Probably not a good year for that. In the end it all ends up pretty even and you havent even acknowledged that onterstate sides must play each other twice each year. Surely that is obvious for the good of the game. Of course you dont care about that though. You probably want to go back to 12 Victorian sides.

[Saints43]

How you can say saints43 that the AFL give the saints less of a chance of winning a flag staggers me. We were rewarded for our ineptness in the early 2000's like no other era. We were smart enough to capitalise on that and absolutely had a genuine shot at winning a flag. Just as the blues do now, just as the hawks did with their flag in 2008.

We have had shots at a flag before the AFL 'rewarded out ineptness' and gave us a team. Even won one once.

Prior to the 'Equalisation Era' it had never been the league administration that stopped St Kilda winning premierships. Under the zone system it was our off-field administration. From 1965 we had access to crowds (and therefore gate receipts & sales) the equal of any other suburban club. Any lack of success was down to own poor administration. We had our future in our own hands. Our internal arrangements between social club & football club that did as much to keep us poor on the field as anything else. We were a particularly poor team off-field in comparison to the successful clubs. That's our own doing - no-one to blame but St Kilda.

In the Equalisation Era:

Sydney salary cap cost of living bonus. Sydney able to pay more to attract players. It had nothing to do with cost of living as Adelaide & Brisbane had the same salary cap as Melbourne clubs.
Brisbane merge of Fitzroy. Created a superteam. This reduced our chances of winning a premiership.
Added licensees with access to whole city markets (eventually with one competitor each). This reduced our chances of winning a premiership.

Add to these:
Access to Blockbuster dates for selected clubs which increases their cash flow, access to advertise brand, ability to spend more on football/marketing departments and requires less interstate travel. This has reduced our chances of winning a premiership.
Stadium deals. Negotiated by the AFL. AFL Negotiated a far better deal for one licensee (EFC) at Docklands than for other licensees (StK, WB). This has reduced our chances of winning a premiership.


I can't believe that as ex-Fitzroy supporter you are lauding the organisation that drove the last nail into that clubs coffin by disallowing a Schweppes sponsorship due to 'ambush marketing' - the conflict between that brand and the AFL major sponsor Coca-Cola. And yet sat back watching West Coast run around with 'Hungry Jacks' on their jumpers while a major sponsor of the AFL was McDonalds. I suppose you rested easy knowing that one day your new team would be shite enough to be given Nick Riewoldt.

[Moods]

How you can say saints43 that the AFL give the saints less of a chance of winning a flag staggers me. We were rewarded for our ineptness in the early 2000's like no other era. We were smart enough to capitalise on that and absolutely had a genuine shot at winning a flag. Just as the blues do now, just as the hawks did with their flag in 2008.

We have had shots at a flag before the AFL 'rewarded out ineptness' and gave us a team. Even won one once.

Prior to the 'Equalisation Era' it had never been the league administration that stopped St Kilda winning premierships. Under the zone system it was our off-field administration. From 1965 we had access to crowds (and therefore gate receipts & sales) the equal of any other suburban club. Any lack of success was down to own poor administration. We had our future in our own hands. Our internal arrangements between social club & football club that did as much to keep us poor on the field as anything else. We were a particularly poor team off-field in comparison to the successful clubs. That's our own doing - no-one to blame but St Kilda.

In the Equalisation Era:

Sydney salary cap cost of living bonus. Sydney able to pay more to attract players. It had nothing to do with cost of living as Adelaide & Brisbane had the same salary cap as Melbourne clubs.
Brisbane merge of Fitzroy. Created a superteam. This reduced our chances of winning a premiership.
Added licensees with access to whole city markets (eventually with one competitor each). This reduced our chances of winning a premiership.

Add to these:
Access to Blockbuster dates for selected clubs which increases their cash flow, access to advertise brand, ability to spend more on football/marketing departments and requires less interstate travel. This has reduced our chances of winning a premiership.
Stadium deals. Negotiated by the AFL. AFL Negotiated a far better deal for one licensee (EFC) at Docklands than for other licensees (StK, WB). This has reduced our chances of winning a premiership.


I can't believe that as ex-Fitzroy supporter you are lauding the organisation that drove the last nail into that clubs coffin by disallowing a Schweppes sponsorship due to 'ambush marketing' - the conflict between that brand and the AFL major sponsor Coca-Cola. And yet sat back watching West Coast run around with 'Hungry Jacks' on their jumpers while a major sponsor of the AFL was McDonalds. I suppose you rested easy knowing that one day your new team would be shite enough to be given Nick Riewoldt.

I accept much of what you have written. I thought this thread was on Demetriou and Anderson though? I certainly blame the AFL for allowing the roys to die a slow and painful death, but that was a different organisation. They allowed other clubs to pick the eyes out of the roys so that EVERY decent player we had was picked off by other clubs. Eventually we were left with a team not much better than a good suburban club - literally. So of course the next step was extinction. WE never had a home ground. St kilda Cricket club or whoever ran the Junction oval ripped them off blind, as did the blues when they went to Princes Park, as did the pies at Victoria Park. The doggies were the only club to give them a fair deal - but by then it was too late. There was no ground equalisation fund, no extra assistance to assist to prop them up like there is today. Everyone cheated the salary cap and it wasn't policed like it is today, so the rich clubs still paid way over the odds to their players. The draft was still in it's infancy, and our facilities were so bad anyone who was half decent got out of the joint as soon as they could.

Like I said - different era. My mum and dad now the follow the roos, my eldest brother the dogs, me and my youngest brother the saints and my 2nd eldest brother was so crushed by it all he still doesn't follow any team. One of the few times in my life I've actually seen him cry. Lives on the Sunshine Coast and reckons he may follow the GC Suns. My point is IF the AFL did for clubs what Demetriou and co do now I reckon the Roys would have been given a fighting chance. The AFL's agenda back then was to reduce Victorian clubs. I understand that, as 9 teams in one city is probably too many, but they let the Roys die a withering death without dignity.

I maintain that the AFL is now very fair - yes the draw sucks, but not sure how that can ever be resolved. If the AFL back in the 80's and 90's were in charge today, the roos definitely would have gone, the doggies probably, and the hawks and dees a possibility. I reckon the death of the Roys and the reaction it caused, as well as the passion stirred up by the dees,hawks potential merge has made the AFL have a re think about their position. They realise now that by forcing clubs out against their will only turns the public against them.

[Thinline]

Not sure how the draw can be resolved?

Play everyone ONCE.

It's as simple as that isn't it!!!

[Moods]

Not sure how the draw can be resolved?

Play everyone ONCE.

It's as simple as that isn't it!!!

Ridiculous suggestion imo. Firstly the TV rights deal hinges on more games being played, not less. Without the TV rights no where near as much money is poured into footy and then we would be sooking. Playing everyone once doesn't make anything fairer unless ALL games are played at a neutral venue. You think playing WC or Freo in Perth is the same as playing them here? I don't.

The ficture is the fixture - some years we get a good deal, some years we don't. I know the pies appear as if they always do - but if every club didn't keep requesting to play them in Melbourne as a home game, then maybe they would play interstate a bit more often....