2011 FIXture ? !!

[Enrico_Misso]

Fairness is not about making money !!!
What a braindead thing to say.

Fairness is about all sides being given equal chances.
That is what the draw should be about.
Anything less is just corrupt.

[plugger66]

Fairness is not about making money !!!
What a braindead thing to say.

Fairness is about all sides being given equal chances.
That is what the draw should be about.
Anything less is just corrupt.

You came up with 2 options for the draw which arent fair so leave it as it is. Either do it completely right or dont change it. As we cant play 34 games we may as well not change it. I am sure you will have some maths theory on this but in the real world footy isnt maths.

By the way love that word corrupt, really emotive but totally wrong but hey i suppose thos types of words will get a few people on your side in this forum.

[Mr Magic]

Fairness is not about making money !!!
What a braindead thing to say.

Fairness is about all sides being given equal chances.
That is what the draw should be about.
Anything less is just corrupt.

You came up with 2 options for the draw which arent fair so leave it as it is. Either do it completely right or dont change it. As we cant play 34 games we may as well not change it. I am sure you will have some maths theory on this but in the real world footy isnt maths.

By the way love that word corrupt, really emotive but totally wrong but hey i suppose thos types of words will get a few people on your side in this forum.

If time constraints make it impossible to produce a 'fari fixture', why not try and come up with something that whilst not 100% fair on everybody, is at least 'fairer' for everybody?

The question comes back to the original one I asked -
What's more important, fairness in the fixture or maximizing crowds?

Until this question is answered then this discussion will just go round in circles without ever ending.

For myself I see merit in both sides of the argument.
But if you choose to go down the 'maximizing crowds' direction why is it so difficult to just say so?

Tell everybody that 'fairness' in the fixture wasn't the most important criteria.

[plugger66]

Fairness is not about making money !!!
What a braindead thing to say.

Fairness is about all sides being given equal chances.
That is what the draw should be about.
Anything less is just corrupt.

You came up with 2 options for the draw which arent fair so leave it as it is. Either do it completely right or dont change it. As we cant play 34 games we may as well not change it. I am sure you will have some maths theory on this but in the real world footy isnt maths.

By the way love that word corrupt, really emotive but totally wrong but hey i suppose thos types of words will get a few people on your side in this forum.

If time constraints make it impossible to produce a 'fari fixture', why not try adn come up with something that whilst not 100% fair on everybody, is at least 'fairer' for everybody?

The question comes back to the original one I asked -
What's more important, fairness in teh fixture or maximizing crowds?

Until this question is answered then this discussion will just go round in circles without ever ending.

For myself I see merit in both sides of the argument.
But if you choose to go down the 'maximizing crowds' direction why is it so difficult to just say so?

Tell everybody that 'fairness' in the fixture wasn't the most important criteria.

I am not sure who are directing the question at. The AFL have always said maximizing the crowds but if it is me then I also said that yesterday when I said if you cant get it 100% right keep it the same so that we dont lose any clubs. People whinged when clubs moved or folded but now they are whinging because the draw is designed to get the most money so all clubs survive and we can even expand. Lets face it there are people who would say the AFL is corrupt if we happened to win 3 flags in a row.

I still would love any person on here who whinges about the draw costing us flags to name a year when the draw has won a flag for a team. As I said yesterday everyone says the pies get the easiest draw but finally when it is a bit harder than the opposition they win a flag. Maybe we have got it all wrong. Maybe a harder draw conditions sides for a big finals series. Playing Geelong round one maybe a great thing for us next season.

[saintbrat]

BTW
looks like Saints may play cats twice next year-
Round 1 2011.. In VICTORIA....................

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/s ... 5942708663

80,000-plus to the MCG.

[Mr Magic]

Fairness is not about making money !!!
What a braindead thing to say.

Fairness is about all sides being given equal chances.
That is what the draw should be about.
Anything less is just corrupt.

You came up with 2 options for the draw which arent fair so leave it as it is. Either do it completely right or dont change it. As we cant play 34 games we may as well not change it. I am sure you will have some maths theory on this but in the real world footy isnt maths.

By the way love that word corrupt, really emotive but totally wrong but hey i suppose thos types of words will get a few people on your side in this forum.

If time constraints make it impossible to produce a 'fari fixture', why not try adn come up with something that whilst not 100% fair on everybody, is at least 'fairer' for everybody?

The question comes back to the original one I asked -
What's more important, fairness in teh fixture or maximizing crowds?

Until this question is answered then this discussion will just go round in circles without ever ending.

For myself I see merit in both sides of the argument.
But if you choose to go down the 'maximizing crowds' direction why is it so difficult to just say so?

Tell everybody that 'fairness' in the fixture wasn't the most important criteria.

I am not sure who are directing the question at. The AFL have always said maximizing the crowds but if it is me then I also said that yesterday when I said if you cant get it 100% right keep it the same so that we dont lose any clubs. People whinged when clubs moved or folded but now they are whinging because the draw is designed to get the most money so all clubs survive and we can even expand. Lets face it there are people who would say the AFL is corrupt if we happened to win 3 flags in a row.

I still would love any person on here who whinges about the draw costing us flags to name a year when the draw has won a flag for a team. As I said yesterday everyone says the pies get the easiest draw but finally when it is a bit harder than the opposition they win a flag. Maybe we have got it all wrong. Maybe a harder draw conditions sides for a big finals series. Playing Geelong round one maybe a great thing for us next season.

The truth of the matter is that every Club puts in a 'wish-list' for the Fixture adn I'd bet that not one CLub lists 'fairness' as a criteria they're looking for.
Each would be submitting their own 'wish-list' with the 'best' options for themself.

My only point is why give an impression that the fixture is 'fair' when it obviously isn't.
Truthfullness and honesty is all I'm looking for.

What's wrong with publicly admitting
The fixture is set to:-
maximize attendances
and
create greatest tv ratings

[plugger66]

Fairness is not about making money !!!
What a braindead thing to say.

Fairness is about all sides being given equal chances.
That is what the draw should be about.
Anything less is just corrupt.

You came up with 2 options for the draw which arent fair so leave it as it is. Either do it completely right or dont change it. As we cant play 34 games we may as well not change it. I am sure you will have some maths theory on this but in the real world footy isnt maths.

By the way love that word corrupt, really emotive but totally wrong but hey i suppose thos types of words will get a few people on your side in this forum.

If time constraints make it impossible to produce a 'fari fixture', why not try adn come up with something that whilst not 100% fair on everybody, is at least 'fairer' for everybody?

The question comes back to the original one I asked -
What's more important, fairness in teh fixture or maximizing crowds?

Until this question is answered then this discussion will just go round in circles without ever ending.

For myself I see merit in both sides of the argument.
But if you choose to go down the 'maximizing crowds' direction why is it so difficult to just say so?

Tell everybody that 'fairness' in the fixture wasn't the most important criteria.

I am not sure who are directing the question at. The AFL have always said maximizing the crowds but if it is me then I also said that yesterday when I said if you cant get it 100% right keep it the same so that we dont lose any clubs. People whinged when clubs moved or folded but now they are whinging because the draw is designed to get the most money so all clubs survive and we can even expand. Lets face it there are people who would say the AFL is corrupt if we happened to win 3 flags in a row.

I still would love any person on here who whinges about the draw costing us flags to name a year when the draw has won a flag for a team. As I said yesterday everyone says the pies get the easiest draw but finally when it is a bit harder than the opposition they win a flag. Maybe we have got it all wrong. Maybe a harder draw conditions sides for a big finals series. Playing Geelong round one maybe a great thing for us next season.

The truth of the matter is that every Club puts in a 'wish-list' for the Fixture adn I'd bet that not one CLub lists 'fairness' as a criteria they're looking for.
Each would be submitting their own 'wish-list' with the 'best' options for themself.

My only point is why give an impression that the fixture is 'fair' when it obviously isn't.
Truthfullness and honesty is all I'm looking for.

What's wrong with publicly admitting
The fixture is set to:-
maximize attendances
and
create greatest tv ratings

I dont know what you mean. Every person on the radio and TV and i reckon even the AFL admit it is to maximise attendances and get TV ratings and that is why we will have 18 clubs in 2 years.

[OneEyedSainter77]

At last - some fricking news.

This time last year we had the entire round one fixture and nab cup fixture round one and other assorted tidbits.

They get slacker and slacker each year it seems...

Its not like its classified scientific information or something, its a bloody fixture - why all the secrecy?!

Anyway, stoked to have Geelong first up and at the MCG!

And twice!

That's at LEAST two MCG games... looing good for the four or five I wanted!

[plugger66]

At last - some fricking news.

This time last year we had the entire round one fixture and nab cup fixture round one and other assorted tidbits.

They get slacker and slacker each year it seems...

Its not like its classified scientific information or something, its a bloody fixture - why all the secrecy?!

Anyway, stoked to have Geelong first up and at the MCG!

And twice!

That's at LEAST two MCG games... looing good for the four or five I wanted!

How do we know we play them twice an d how do we know we have 2 games at the G? I think there has been holdups due to grounds not being available for periods and working out when best to fit the bye's in.

[Ghost Like]

34 rounds is out of the question so let's just have a 17 round season with home games alternating each year...most season's the top 6 is decided by round 17, make also lessen the blight that is tanking. It would also allow for a couple of breaks during the year & may incorporate things such as State of Origin, the TAC round robin, perhaps the Internation games.

Playing a flawed fixture to generate money does not sit well with me. This is either a competition, in which case everything done by the administrators should make it as fair as possible OR it's a charity and we just play exhibition games to make money...not much fun in that, just like there is not much fun watching the 'big' clubs get what they want whilst the smaller ones fight over scraps...no wonder some clubs struggle.

[plugger66]

34 rounds is out of the question so let's just have a 17 round season with home games alternating each year...most season's the top 6 is decided by round 17, make also lessen the blight that is tanking. It would also allow for a couple of breaks during the year & may incorporate things such as State of Origin, the TAC round robin, perhaps the Internation games.

Playing a flawed fixture to generate money does not sit well with me. This is either a competition, in which case everything done by the administrators should make it as fair as possible OR it's a charity and we just play exhibition games to make money...not much fun in that, just like there is not much fun watching the 'big' clubs get what they want whilst the smaller ones fight over scraps...no wonder some clubs struggle.

They are never going to go back to 17 games. Some clubs wouldnt generate enough money to survive as the TV rights would be cut by millions of dollars. Secondly it still isnt fair playing one year at home and the next away so why change it. Would you have rather played Freo at their home in 2009 or 2010.

By the way the big clubs were big before all these favours as you call it. Instead of being negative we should be trying to become a big club like the Hawks have become. It can happen.

[Dr Spaceman]

By the way the big clubs were big before all these favours as you call it. Instead of being negative we should be trying to become a big club like the Hawks have become. It can happen.

And whether people like it or not, the move to Seaford, combined with success on the field, will give us the best chance to do that.

[matrix]

so do we have a link on the draw yet?
i really cant be assed reading about cleaners and editing

[saintbrat]

so do we have a link on the draw yet?
i really cant be assed reading about cleaners and editing

Friday Matrix.
just the AFL drawing attention....

[Ghost Like]

34 rounds is out of the question so let's just have a 17 round season with home games alternating each year...most season's the top 6 is decided by round 17, make also lessen the blight that is tanking. It would also allow for a couple of breaks during the year & may incorporate things such as State of Origin, the TAC round robin, perhaps the Internation games.

Playing a flawed fixture to generate money does not sit well with me. This is either a competition, in which case everything done by the administrators should make it as fair as possible OR it's a charity and we just play exhibition games to make money...not much fun in that, just like there is not much fun watching the 'big' clubs get what they want whilst the smaller ones fight over scraps...no wonder some clubs struggle.

They are never going to go back to 17 games. Some clubs wouldnt generate enough money to survive as the TV rights would be cut by millions of dollars. Secondly it still isnt fair playing one year at home and the next away so why change it. Would you have rather played Freo at their home in 2009 or 2010.

By the way the big clubs were big before all these favours as you call it. Instead of being negative we should be trying to become a big club like the Hawks have become. It can happen.

With due respect, I don't believe the TV rights would be cut by millions. It's a bit like gold or diamonds, people will pay for it's value, not driven by quantity. It would not worry me where we played Freo, at least I would know we play them the same amount of times whether they are good or bad.

Yes, those clubs were big but that was due to a raft of reasons, alot which the AFL has tried to stamp out. You are right, it is paramount on all clubs to become as big as they can but that is where a good, strong administration and culture comes into it. If clubs do not want to do the hard work & just sit back and receive handouts I'm not sure that is good for the competition or their supporters. Surely though if the actual competition is fair, starting with the draw then the rest is up to the individual clubs.

[3rd generation saint]

Gee Plugger was it unfair when everyone use play each twice?, is it unfair that everyone in the premier league play each other twicw.
Ploease advise what the hell is unfair about the proposal of each team palying each other the same number of times over a three year period, what the hell is unfair about it.
Or is it fair that Essendon and Collingwood get the Anzac Day game evdery year, that Collingwood and Essendon travel less than the other Melbourne teams every year, or that certain teams are guaranteed 2 games against each other each year that maximises their profitability at the EXPENSE OF THE OTHER TEAMS IN THE COMPETITION!!!!!!
As I said, which game do you think the majority of the football world would have preferred to have seen for Anzac Day 2010, Essendon and Collingwood again, I don't watch it anymore because it become monotonously boring, or would the general football public prefer to see Geelong St.Kilda, which would drawn 85-90,000 people, and would have been a much better game.
The games the AFL deems as blockbusters don't exist, blockbusters happen because of how the season pans out.
For example, at the start of the 2009 the round 13 clash between us and Geelong would not have been perceived as a blockbuster, but hell it turned out to be a much bigger one the Anzac game, or the showdowns or Derbys.
So again, what in the hell is unfair about teams playing each other the same amount of times over a three year period, and it is not the money, if you think it is, well there's more to life and sport than money.

[plugger66]

Gee Plugger was it unfair when everyone use play each twice?, is it unfair that everyone in the premier league play each other twicw.
Ploease advise what the hell is unfair about the proposal of each team palying each other the same number of times over a three year period, what the hell is unfair about it.
Or is it fair that Essendon and Collingwood get the Anzac Day game evdery year, that Collingwood and Essendon travel less than the other Melbourne teams every year, or that certain teams are guaranteed 2 games against each other each year that maximises their profitability at the EXPENSE OF THE OTHER TEAMS IN THE COMPETITION!!!!!!
As I said, which game do you think the majority of the football world would have preferred to have seen for Anzac Day 2010, Essendon and Collingwood again, I don't watch it anymore because it become monotonously boring, or would the general football public prefer to see Geelong St.Kilda, which would drawn 85-90,000 people, and would have been a much better game.
The games the AFL deems as blockbusters don't exist, blockbusters happen because of how the season pans out.
For example, at the start of the 2009 the round 13 clash between us and Geelong would not have been perceived as a blockbuster, but hell it turned out to be a much bigger one the Anzac game, or the showdowns or Derbys.
So again, what in the hell is unfair about teams playing each other the same amount of times over a three year period, and it is not the money, if you think it is, well there's more to life and sport than money.

What are you about. Of course it is fair when you play each other twice in a season but it isnt fair playing each other 5 times in 3 seasons for the reasons I have already given so why change something that will still be broken. You can live in la la land and think only certain clubs make money on big games but the facts are the most money by far and away is made in TV rights and they would be no where near as big if we didnt Derby's, blockbusters etc. This helps the poorer teams survive. You may not want that but I certainly do.

There may be more to life than money but sorry certain clubs futures are decided by money.

I am still waiting for someone to give me an example where this horrible draw has seen a side win a Gf when they clearly werent the best side that year.

[3rd generation saint]

Here plugger, it is fair because we would play Collingwood 5 times over the 3 years, we would play Essendon, we would play Geelong etc etc, just as those teams would play everybody 5 times, just as fair if everyone played each other 6 times because we played each other twice in a season.
For trhe last time too, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO WINS THE PREMIERSHIP!!!! I GUESS YOU CAN READ THAT IN CAPITALS.
Gee whiz, the big networks in the US don't squabble over the draw for the NFL, they still pay big money because people watch.
People in Perth will watch their sides no matter who they play they don't need a couple of Derby's every year to increase their interest, as goes for the folks Adelaide.
People in Brisbane started watching because their team was winning and won premierships, not because they we're scheduled with blockbuster games.
As faer as I'm concerned every game we play is a blockbuster and I'll bet every other passionate supporter of any club feels the same way.
You think the TV stations wont still pay big money for the most watched competition in Australia just because of the draw.
Plus as I said, blockbuster games are determined by the season as it unfolds, let's face it some of the traditional big games haven't been that big over the last 10 years because those so called big teams have been very ordinary, while games that you don't expect turn into massive ones.
For example, earlier this year, who would have predicted that the Fremantle Collingwood game would have been a big Friday night game, nobady on this forum or in the press.
So again, why is every body playing each other the same number of times unfair, how the hell will it reduce profitability?
But if you like the system the way it is, well that's your choice.

[plugger66]

Here plugger, it is fair because we would play Collingwood 5 times over the 3 years, we would play Essendon, we would play Geelong etc etc, just as those teams would play everybody 5 times, just as fair if everyone played each other 6 times because we played each other twice in a season.
For trhe last time too, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO WINS THE PREMIERSHIP!!!! I GUESS YOU CAN READ THAT IN CAPITALS.
Gee whiz, the big networks in the US don't squabble over the draw for the NFL, they still pay big money because people watch.
People in Perth will watch their sides no matter who they play they don't need a couple of Derby's every year to increase their interest, as goes for the folks Adelaide.
People in Brisbane started watching because their team was winning and won premierships, not because they we're scheduled with blockbuster games.
As faer as I'm concerned every game we play is a blockbuster and I'll bet every other passionate supporter of any club feels the same way.
You think the TV stations wont still pay big money for the most watched competition in Australia just because of the draw.
Plus as I said, blockbuster games are determined by the season as it unfolds, let's face it some of the traditional big games haven't been that big over the last 10 years because those so called big teams have been very ordinary, while games that you don't expect turn into massive ones.
For example, earlier this year, who would have predicted that the Fremantle Collingwood game would have been a big Friday night game, nobady on this forum or in the press.
So again, why is every body playing each other the same number of times unfair, how the hell will it reduce profitability?
But if you like the system the way it is, well that's your choice.

Firstly comparing us to American sport is not relevent at all but if we are going to our money generated by TV per population probably exceeds it but that whole arguement is irrelevent anyway.

I have an Idea, lets have at least 2 clubs in each state but every 3 years you will only play each other once. Dont worry about the long term future of the game or clubs but at least Gold Coast will play Freo 2 out of every 3 years. Dont worry that in the year you play them once one of sides are good but the 2 years you play them twice one of the sides is bad.

Can I ask why do you think the TV rights have gone through the roof in the last 10 years? Maybe it is the blockbusters and Derby's attrack a bigger sponsorship and they need to be decided before the season. Other blockbusters that werent programmed before the season are icing on the cake.

[3rd generation saint]

Fine Plugger let's keep doing it this way, however the teams that don't get the guaranteed games, like us, Hawthorn, Bulldogs, North, Richmond and even Geelong when they have there inevitable slide down the ladder have to find new ways to raise revenue, like sell their home games interstate to tassie, or NT, or far north qld, or play GWS or Gold coast twice ionterstate.
Gee does that sound familiar, is that fair.
The problem with the draw the way it is is that makes these clubs ability to be profitable more difficult, which will make it harder for them to attract good sponsorship and hang on to their good players.
We are lucky because we have got a strong supporter base, but sometime over the next 10 years, North, Melbourne or Bulldogs may disappear or be forced to relocate, or more than likely will have to merge with the financial black hole that will be GWS for the next 10-20 years.
By the way it is reasonable to compare us with other sporting bodies and other codes, afterall, doesn't the AFL go overseas regularly to study how they do things and try and learn from them.
I am sure Andrew has been to a few Superbowls in his time as an administrator.
And so what if Gold Coast meet Fremantle twice, it is suppose to be a national competition isn't it? Guess what even with the draw the way it is that could still happen, it's just the luck of the draw.

[plugger66]

Fine Plugger let's keep doing it this way, however the teams that don't get the guaranteed games, like us, Hawthorn, Bulldogs, North, Richmond and even Geelong when they have there inevitable slide down the ladder have to find new ways to raise revenue, like sell their home games interstate to tassie, or NT, or far north qld, or play GWS or Gold coast twice ionterstate.
Gee does that sound familiar, is that fair.
The problem with the draw the way it is is that makes these clubs ability to be profitable more difficult, which will make it harder for them to attract good sponsorship and hang on to their good players.
We are lucky because we have got a strong supporter base, but sometime over the next 10 years, North, Melbourne or Bulldogs may disappear or be forced to relocate, or more than likely will have to merge with the financial black hole that will be GWS for the next 10-20 years.
By the way it is reasonable to compare us with other sporting bodies and other codes, afterall, doesn't the AFL go overseas regularly to study how they do things and try and learn from them.
I am sure Andrew has been to a few Superbowls in his time as an administrator.
And so what if Gold Coast meet Fremantle twice, it is suppose to be a national competition isn't it? Guess what even with the draw the way it is that could still happen, it's just the luck of the draw.

Yes they will still meet twice on some years but what will definitely happen is GC will play Brisbane twice every year and so it should. Why would you have 2 teams in the one state and every third year only play them once. How will that help grow the game.

As for your comment about sides being forced to fold well i would guess they may have already happened had the AFL not made every effort to increase TV revenue. So lets cut the revenue to clubs by making the TV rights less appealing and thus guarantee either clubs fold or relocate. At least the draw will be fairer though.

[saintspremiers]

Fine Plugger let's keep doing it this way, however the teams that don't get the guaranteed games, like us, Hawthorn, Bulldogs, North, Richmond and even Geelong when they have there inevitable slide down the ladder have to find new ways to raise revenue, like sell their home games interstate to tassie, or NT, or far north qld, or play GWS or Gold coast twice ionterstate.
Gee does that sound familiar, is that fair.
The problem with the draw the way it is is that makes these clubs ability to be profitable more difficult, which will make it harder for them to attract good sponsorship and hang on to their good players.
We are lucky because we have got a strong supporter base, but sometime over the next 10 years, North, Melbourne or Bulldogs may disappear or be forced to relocate, or more than likely will have to merge with the financial black hole that will be GWS for the next 10-20 years.
By the way it is reasonable to compare us with other sporting bodies and other codes, afterall, doesn't the AFL go overseas regularly to study how they do things and try and learn from them.
I am sure Andrew has been to a few Superbowls in his time as an administrator.
And so what if Gold Coast meet Fremantle twice, it is suppose to be a national competition isn't it? Guess what even with the draw the way it is that could still happen, it's just the luck of the draw.

Yes they will still meet twice on some years but what will definitely happen is GC will play Brisbane twice every year and so it should. Why would you have 2 teams in the one state and every third year only play them once. How will that help grow the game.

As for your comment about sides being forced to fold well i would guess they may have already happened had the AFL not made every effort to increase TV revenue. So lets cut the revenue to clubs by making the TV rights less appealing and thus guarantee either clubs fold or relocate. At least the draw will be fairer though.

Honestly plugger, stuff the friggin GC playing Brisbane twice and all your rubbish.

WHAT ABOUT ST KILDA?

Are you happy they we hardly ever get blockbuster status like Pies/Blues/Essenscum?

I'm NOT!

So what you think Einstein, or are you happy the "other" teams cop it up the arse every year???

Yep, let's grow the game, and continually let the poorer Melbourne teams wipe the richer clubs arses and pray the AFL bail them out.

Yep, great plan

[plugger66]

Fine Plugger let's keep doing it this way, however the teams that don't get the guaranteed games, like us, Hawthorn, Bulldogs, North, Richmond and even Geelong when they have there inevitable slide down the ladder have to find new ways to raise revenue, like sell their home games interstate to tassie, or NT, or far north qld, or play GWS or Gold coast twice ionterstate.
Gee does that sound familiar, is that fair.
The problem with the draw the way it is is that makes these clubs ability to be profitable more difficult, which will make it harder for them to attract good sponsorship and hang on to their good players.
We are lucky because we have got a strong supporter base, but sometime over the next 10 years, North, Melbourne or Bulldogs may disappear or be forced to relocate, or more than likely will have to merge with the financial black hole that will be GWS for the next 10-20 years.
By the way it is reasonable to compare us with other sporting bodies and other codes, afterall, doesn't the AFL go overseas regularly to study how they do things and try and learn from them.
I am sure Andrew has been to a few Superbowls in his time as an administrator.
And so what if Gold Coast meet Fremantle twice, it is suppose to be a national competition isn't it? Guess what even with the draw the way it is that could still happen, it's just the luck of the draw.

Yes they will still meet twice on some years but what will definitely happen is GC will play Brisbane twice every year and so it should. Why would you have 2 teams in the one state and every third year only play them once. How will that help grow the game.

As for your comment about sides being forced to fold well i would guess they may have already happened had the AFL not made every effort to increase TV revenue. So lets cut the revenue to clubs by making the TV rights less appealing and thus guarantee either clubs fold or relocate. At least the draw will be fairer though.

Honestly plugger, stuff the friggin GC playing Brisbane twice and all your rubbish.

WHAT ABOUT ST KILDA?

Are you happy they we hardly ever get blockbuster status like Pies/Blues/Essenscum?

I'm NOT!

So what you think Einstein, or are you happy the "other" teams cop it up the arse every year???

Yep, let's grow the game, and continually let the poorer Melbourne teams wipe the richer clubs arses and pray the AFL bail them out.

Yep, great plan

You just dont get it. The reason all the clubs still are all around is because of TV rights. If we dont get the big games then the TV dollars drop off and then many clubs will struggle.

I will never question your love for the saints but my love would hopefully be similar. Unlike you though i see the bigger picture because without all the money coming in there would be many clubs probably including ours, struggling. And also instead of being negative I refuse to believe that eventually we cant become a bigger club and then get the blockbusters.

[saintspremiers]

Fine Plugger let's keep doing it this way, however the teams that don't get the guaranteed games, like us, Hawthorn, Bulldogs, North, Richmond and even Geelong when they have there inevitable slide down the ladder have to find new ways to raise revenue, like sell their home games interstate to tassie, or NT, or far north qld, or play GWS or Gold coast twice ionterstate.
Gee does that sound familiar, is that fair.
The problem with the draw the way it is is that makes these clubs ability to be profitable more difficult, which will make it harder for them to attract good sponsorship and hang on to their good players.
We are lucky because we have got a strong supporter base, but sometime over the next 10 years, North, Melbourne or Bulldogs may disappear or be forced to relocate, or more than likely will have to merge with the financial black hole that will be GWS for the next 10-20 years.
By the way it is reasonable to compare us with other sporting bodies and other codes, afterall, doesn't the AFL go overseas regularly to study how they do things and try and learn from them.
I am sure Andrew has been to a few Superbowls in his time as an administrator.
And so what if Gold Coast meet Fremantle twice, it is suppose to be a national competition isn't it? Guess what even with the draw the way it is that could still happen, it's just the luck of the draw.

Yes they will still meet twice on some years but what will definitely happen is GC will play Brisbane twice every year and so it should. Why would you have 2 teams in the one state and every third year only play them once. How will that help grow the game.

As for your comment about sides being forced to fold well i would guess they may have already happened had the AFL not made every effort to increase TV revenue. So lets cut the revenue to clubs by making the TV rights less appealing and thus guarantee either clubs fold or relocate. At least the draw will be fairer though.

Honestly plugger, stuff the friggin GC playing Brisbane twice and all your rubbish.

WHAT ABOUT ST KILDA?

Are you happy they we hardly ever get blockbuster status like Pies/Blues/Essenscum?

I'm NOT!

So what you think Einstein, or are you happy the "other" teams cop it up the arse every year???

Yep, let's grow the game, and continually let the poorer Melbourne teams wipe the richer clubs arses and pray the AFL bail them out.

Yep, great plan

You just dont get it. The reason all the clubs still are all around is because of TV rights. If we dont get the big games then the TV dollars drop off and then many clubs will struggle.

I will never question your love for the saints but my love would hopefully be similar. Unlike you though i see the bigger picture because without all the money coming in there would be many clubs probably including ours, struggling. And also instead of being negative I refuse to believe that eventually we cant become a bigger club and then get the blockbusters.

Ok, I'll agree on your last point - IF we do get blockbuster status more than once a year, then maybe my POV will change.....

[dcstkfc]

I can't remember a side winning the flag because of a soft draw.

Sometimes you might finish 1-2 spots higher or lower due to your draw.

Sydney probably came closest in 2006, had a very easy draw with 12 games in Sydney, one in Canberra and only played one either finalist twice.
Pinched 4th spot (should've been ours ) and then beat the Eagles at Subi by a point, avoiding their bogey side Adelaide in the finals, beat Freo in a prelim at Homebush and lost the GF by a point.