Westaway joins the fray

[Johnny Member]

I am sorry I see the big picture and I am also sorry i want to keep all the clubs in the AFL.

How did you feel about the AFL desperately trying to relocate North to the Gold Coast?

You have previously tole me they didnt try hard enough. Surely you can make up your mind.

How do you feel about the AFL desperately trying to relocate a Melbourne club?

I think it is a good idea if they want to go. They havent desperately done it yet though. They have tried through endorsements but it hasnt been taken up.

So you don't want to keep all clubs? And the AFL doesn't either?


You're all over the place now.

That is a confusing statement. Is sydney not a club? Tell my mate who played at Sth melbourne they have nothing to do with sydney or his dad who also played there.

I've got news for your mate and his dad - South Melbourne has nothing to do with Sydney!

If they did, no club in their right mind wouldn't have snapped up the offer the AFL put out there to get someone to move to the Gold Coast!



For what it's worth, the AL should have moved a club up there, and moved one to Western Sydney. If it's so imperative to have teams there, they absolutely should have used this opportunity to make the comp more National instead of keeping it as a Victorian comp with some teams from other states in it.

There's a reason no one wanted their club to relocate. It's because it's no longer your club.

[plugger66]

I am sorry I see the big picture and I am also sorry i want to keep all the clubs in the AFL.

How did you feel about the AFL desperately trying to relocate North to the Gold Coast?

You have previously tole me they didnt try hard enough. Surely you can make up your mind.

How do you feel about the AFL desperately trying to relocate a Melbourne club?

I think it is a good idea if they want to go. They havent desperately done it yet though. They have tried through endorsements but it hasnt been taken up.

So you don't want to keep all clubs? And the AFL doesn't either?


You're all over the place now.

That is a confusing statement. Is sydney not a club? Tell my mate who played at Sth melbourne they have nothing to do with sydney or his dad who also played there.

I've got news for your mate and his dad - South Melbourne has nothing to do with Sydney!

If they did, no club in their right mind wouldn't have snapped up the offer the AFL put out there to get someone to move to the Gold Coast!



For what it's worth, the AL should have moved a club up there, and moved one to Western Sydney. If it's so imperative to have teams there, they absolutely should have used this opportunity to make the comp more National instead of keeping it as a Victorian comp with some teams from other states in it.

There's a reason no one wanted their club to relocate. It's because it's no longer your club.

Well you better tell my mate and his Dad and while you are at it tell Bob Skilton. He goes up there a lot to see a club that has nothing to do with Sth Melbourne. And what an off er to a club now has to do with whether sth Melbourne people feel pat of Sydney is beyond me. North made a decision and that is the end.

I can imagine if our club was the one to be moved. The way you whinge now whould be ten fold and you certainly wouldnt be saying anything like you are now. And the reason they dont want to relocate is the AFL have said they will support all clubs for the next 5 years and so they think it is worth trying other options. I actually think they should have gone and yes they will lose some members but they will keep alot and get new ones. And the ones they keep will still follow their club.

[Mr Magic]

We should work harder at getting bigger crowds to games involving interstate teams. This will probably mean some over-the-top spruiking like, "Come and see the Saints smash Freo this week", but someone needs to do it.

Maybe we could market a 2/3/4 game membership which gave access only to Docklands games against interstate teams?
A bit like the Hawthorn 4 game Tasmania membership?

[Johnny Member]

Well you better tell my mate and his Dad and while you are at it tell Bob Skilton. He goes up there a lot to see a club that has nothing to do with Sth Melbourne. And what an off er to a club now has to do with whether sth Melbourne people feel pat of Sydney is beyond me. North made a decision and that is the end.

Anyone is welcome to follow and support Sydney - but if they're kidding themselves that it's got anything to do with South Melbourne, then they're delusional.

I can imagine if our club was the one to be moved. The way you whinge now whould be ten fold and you certainly wouldnt be saying anything like you are now. And the reason they dont want to relocate is the AFL have said they will support all clubs for the next 5 years and so they think it is worth trying other options. I actually think they should have gone and yes they will lose some members but they will keep alot and get new ones. And the ones they keep will still follow their club.

The Saints should have gone up there.

What's the difference between moving to Seaford, and moving to the Gold Coast?

The same goes for any AFL club. The way the league is now, there's no reason to want to stay in Melbourne. What are clubs holding on to?

They all have varying home grounds - none of which are their original homes.
The jumpers are all different. They all have coaches from other clubs.


So what's the difference between having a base in Seaford that no one visits, and playing 'home' games at a ground that has no significance to the club and is shared by about 4 others - or having a base in the Gold Coast that no one down here would visit, and playing 'home' games at a brand new custom built stadium that would be full of home fans every week?

[plugger66]

Well you better tell my mate and his Dad and while you are at it tell Bob Skilton. He goes up there a lot to see a club that has nothing to do with Sth Melbourne. And what an off er to a club now has to do with whether sth Melbourne people feel pat of Sydney is beyond me. North made a decision and that is the end.

Anyone is welcome to follow and support Sydney - but if they're kidding themselves that it's got anything to do with South Melbourne, then they're delusional.

I can imagine if our club was the one to be moved. The way you whinge now whould be ten fold and you certainly wouldnt be saying anything like you are now. And the reason they dont want to relocate is the AFL have said they will support all clubs for the next 5 years and so they think it is worth trying other options. I actually think they should have gone and yes they will lose some members but they will keep alot and get new ones. And the ones they keep will still follow their club.

The Saints should have gone up there.

What's the difference between moving to Seaford, and moving to the Gold Coast?

The same goes for any AFL club. The way the league is now, there's no reason to want to stay in Melbourne. What are clubs holding on to?

They all have varying home grounds - none of which are their original homes.
The jumpers are all different. They all have coaches from other clubs.


So what's the difference between having a base in Seaford that no one visits, and playing 'home' games at a ground that has no significance to the club and is shared by about 4 others - or having a base in the Gold Coast that no one down here would visit, and playing 'home' games at a brand new custom built stadium that would be full of home fans every week?

i have now put you in the confirmed list.

[desertsaint]

gotta laugh at the argument re number of clubs and chance to win.

every club, all other things being equal, will have a 17/1 chance (1 win out of 18) to win the flag next year.

the 'best' club in any particular year may indeed have the same chance or better as a slightly lesser 'best' club in an earlier year in a smaller field (geelong 2007 more chance than hawthorn in 1971), this argument hardly counters the fact that:

Every clubs chance to be the best club has been reduced from 15/1 to 17/1 with the two new teams, all other things being equal.

And thinking GC has no effect on a teams ability to win the prem this year - bollocks - it's unknowable given all the variables, but likely it has an effect - will the cats win without ablett/ would they win with him, will a team getting the suns just once, miss out on a spot in the 4 or 8 or a home final to a team that plays them twice?

You CAN just reduce all the unknowables and use the odds when arguing the theory - the more teams in the comp the less chance each team has.
Bring in all the other variables and certain clubs have even less chance than this - but ALL clubs have less chance than they previously had.

any other argument is just pissing into the wind and hoping not to get wet and smelly!

[plugger66]

gotta laugh at the argument re number of clubs and chance to win.

every club, all other things being equal, will have a 17/1 chance (1 win out of 18) to win the flag next year.

the 'best' club in any particular year may indeed have the same chance or better as a slightly lesser 'best' club in an earlier year in a smaller field (geelong 2007 more chance than hawthorn in 1971), this argument hardly counters the fact that:

Every clubs chance to be the best club has been reduced from 15/1 to 17/1 with the two new teams, all other things being equal.

And thinking GC has no effect on a teams ability to win the prem this year - bollocks - it's unknowable given all the variables, but likely it has an effect - will the cats win without ablett/ would they win with him, will a team getting the suns just once, miss out on a spot in the 4 or 8 or a home final to a team that plays them twice?

You CAN just reduce all the unknowables and use the odds when arguing the theory - the more teams in the comp the less chance each team has.
Bring in all the other variables and certain clubs have even less chance than this - but ALL clubs have less chance than they previously had.

any other argument is just pissing into the wind and hoping not to get wet and smelly!

Toyally agree if all things were equal then it would increase our odds but they arent equal for many reasons so it has very little effect at all. i have seen many reason why we could or couldnt win the flag this year or next year but the increasing of the competition has never been one of them because it is so minor. And when someone uses odds to say we will only win 4 in our lifetime well you have to laugh. 4 in our life time. Can we get them now. We have won one in 3 lifetimes and someone is worried that we will drop from 6 to 4 in our life time. Give me a break.

[SainterSoul]

So...in the long run, it was a bad deal to sign?

Considering it may have saved us from going under, not really.


Having the gate guaranteed in the dark times may have saved the club.

The AFL weren't going to let another club fail after the Fitzroy debarcle. I think we need to be careful to make excuses for what was and is essentially a bad deal that we signed up to.

I understand that the initial cash injection would have been a enormous benefit, however that just indicates to me that short term thinking was the prevailing factor.

I would have preferred to sell more games, and play the majority of games at the G.

[Johnny Member]

So...in the long run, it was a bad deal to sign?

Considering it may have saved us from going under, not really.


Having the gate guaranteed in the dark times may have saved the club.

The AFL weren't going to let another club fail after the Fitzroy debarcle. I think we need to be careful to make excuses for what was and is essentially a bad deal that we signed up to.

I understand that the initial cash injection would have been a enormous benefit, however that just indicates to me that short term thinking was the prevailing factor.

I would have preferred to sell more games, and play the majority of games at the G.

I'm not resally sure what you're arguing on this thread.

I can only assume that the Board at the time believed it was the right thing to do to.

The fact that we're very profitable now, received no cash handouts, have nearly 40k members, no debt, a shiny new home and have played in the last 2 GFs, may mean that they made a good call.

[Junction Oval]

Johnny Member said in part :

The fact that we're very profitable now, received no cash handouts, have nearly 40k members, no debt, a shiny new home and have played in the last 2 GFs, may mean that they made a good call.

I think that the Saints have taken up a considerable part of a Commercial Bill Facilty that they have for $5m. The fact that the President has for once made a public statement about the inequality of AFL revenue arrangements and how poor the returns are from the Etihad agreement, underscores some concerns.

[dcstkfc]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... 1imvp.html

''We're talking about fixturing; one, we're talking stadia … where you play; and two, the fixturing, which is also very important right. They're the two big matters to be addressed,'' said Westaway, whose comments follow North Melbourne chairman James Brayshaw's description of Eddie McGuire (Collingwood) and Jeff Kennett (Hawthorn) as ''fat cats'' who were unwilling to share their riches.

''[The AFL is] saying these clubs are battling and we're prepared to help them right, but we don't just want to hand it out and see them waste it right, we want to know what they're going to do with it so that they can invest in something that makes their footy club a better place and improves their future right.

''That's what they're after and it's a very noble and sensible approach, and that's the way it should be right.

''But that's ignoring the biggest part of the whole problem. The biggest part of the problem are those two right - stadia and fixturing right.''

Edited for accuracy

[gringo]

We were blackmailed on Etihad and were receiving money from the AFL to underwrite games, we were told we would wear the cost of Waverley entirely by ourselves including updating or move to Etihad, Bombers negotiated early took the cream and any losses they made on Essendon were picked up by us.

[Johnny Member]

We were blackmailed on Etihad and were receiving money from the AFL to underwrite games, we were told we would wear the cost of Waverley entirely by ourselves including updating or move to Etihad, Bombers negotiated early took the cream and any losses they made on Essendon were picked up by us.

Well the AFL built this shiny new (pathetically administered, grass wouldn't grow etc. etc.) stadium, and they needed someone to play there!

[Johnny Member]

Johnny Member said in part :

The fact that we're very profitable now, received no cash handouts, have nearly 40k members, no debt, a shiny new home and have played in the last 2 GFs, may mean that they made a good call.

I think that the Saints have taken up a considerable part of a Commercial Bill Facilty that they have for $5m. The fact that the President has for once made a public statement about the inequality of AFL revenue arrangements and how poor the returns are from the Etihad agreement, underscores some concerns.

It's a total farce that the AFL basically gets rid of all the grounds except 2. And then they stuff up the dealings with the stadiums so the clubs that are at each ground don't get the same deals!

In reality, it's not like clubs really get to choose! There's 2 grounds. And 10 clubs - the AFL had to ensure that someone played at Docklands!

So they did - but then they stuff up the deals! It's just appalling really. Just another in the long line of AFL debacles.

[plugger66]

Johnny Member said in part :

The fact that we're very profitable now, received no cash handouts, have nearly 40k members, no debt, a shiny new home and have played in the last 2 GFs, may mean that they made a good call.

I think that the Saints have taken up a considerable part of a Commercial Bill Facilty that they have for $5m. The fact that the President has for once made a public statement about the inequality of AFL revenue arrangements and how poor the returns are from the Etihad agreement, underscores some concerns.

It's a total farce that the AFL basically gets rid of all the grounds except 2. And then they stuff up the dealings with the stadiums so the clubs that are at each ground don't get the same deals!

In reality, it's not like clubs really get to choose! There's 2 grounds. And 10 clubs - the AFL had to ensure that someone played at Docklands!

So they did - but then they stuff up the deals! It's just appalling really. Just another in the long line of AFL debacles.

Why would they want more than 2 grounds. Works perfectly. They even get to own one of the grounds in 13 years. Deals could be better that was up to the clubs. Dont see Essendon complain about their deal. Sometimes you just have to be a strong club. Anyway I would love to know which ground you would have kept considering Waverley need millions to fix it up and I even doubt Etihad would have been built if Waverley was still there. Anyway you are very consistant.

[Johnny Member]

Johnny Member said in part :

The fact that we're very profitable now, received no cash handouts, have nearly 40k members, no debt, a shiny new home and have played in the last 2 GFs, may mean that they made a good call.

I think that the Saints have taken up a considerable part of a Commercial Bill Facilty that they have for $5m. The fact that the President has for once made a public statement about the inequality of AFL revenue arrangements and how poor the returns are from the Etihad agreement, underscores some concerns.

It's a total farce that the AFL basically gets rid of all the grounds except 2. And then they stuff up the dealings with the stadiums so the clubs that are at each ground don't get the same deals!

In reality, it's not like clubs really get to choose! There's 2 grounds. And 10 clubs - the AFL had to ensure that someone played at Docklands!

So they did - but then they stuff up the deals! It's just appalling really. Just another in the long line of AFL debacles.

Why would they want more than 2 grounds. Works perfectly. They even get to own one of the grounds in 13 years. Deals could be better that was up to the clubs. Dont see Essendon complain about their deal. Sometimes you just have to be a strong club. Anyway I would love to know which ground you would have kept considering Waverley need millions to fix it up and I even doubt Etihad would have been built if Waverley was still there. Anyway you are very consistant.

It doesn't work perfectly at all.

As per usual, the did a half arsed job of it.


Sure, if we must get rid of suburban grounds and move everyone into 2 grounds, that's fine.

But why on earth do they do this, then leave the deals 'up to the clubs'!!??

It's staggering. They completely run everything, and clubs can't fart without the AFL wanting to know why, how, when, and then fining them for it - but they allow the most important part of the centralisation process to be 'up to the clubs' which then naturally creates an inbalance!

It's just perplexing the way they do things.


If it's so obvious to you, that "Sometimes you just have to be a strong club", then why would the AFL have not known that these deals were not going to be good for all clubs and for the comp in the long run?

[SainterSoul]

So...in the long run, it was a bad deal to sign?

Considering it may have saved us from going under, not really.


Having the gate guaranteed in the dark times may have saved the club.

The AFL weren't going to let another club fail after the Fitzroy debarcle. I think we need to be careful to make excuses for what was and is essentially a bad deal that we signed up to.

I understand that the initial cash injection would have been a enormous benefit, however that just indicates to me that short term thinking was the prevailing factor.

I would have preferred to sell more games, and play the majority of games at the G.

I'm not resally sure what you're arguing on this thread.

I can only assume that the Board at the time believed it was the right thing to do to.

The fact that we're very profitable now, received no cash handouts, have nearly 40k members, no debt, a shiny new home and have played in the last 2 GFs, may mean that they made a good call.

I'm just not sure what we are complaining about when we signed up to what was essentially a bad deal in the long term.

Like I said, rather than sign up to the Docklands, myabe we should have gone to the G and sold a few more interstate games for a couple of years. Instead, we locked ourselves into the Docklands.

I could be wrong, but it just seems to be that we should have taken another course of action at the time. How could we have not seen that this deal was going to bad for us in the long-term?

[Johnny Member]

I'm just not sure what we are complaining about when we signed up to what was essentially a bad deal in the long term.

Like I said, rather than sign up to the Docklands, myabe we should have gone to the G and sold a few more interstate games for a couple of years. Instead, we locked ourselves into the Docklands.

I could be wrong, but it just seems to be that we should have taken another course of action at the time. How could we have not seen that this deal was going to bad for us in the long-term?

North's home ground is the MCG.

That's what the thread is about. Westaway has chimed in on the debate on fixturing and 'stadia'.

Doesn't mean anyone is neccessarily complaining about our situation. It's the situation that is being debated.

It's a completely relevant discussion to be had.



Only a few clubs have the mentality of 'we're Ok so everything is fine'. It seems that we aren't a club that takes that approach.

As Brayshaw said, do Collingwood and Hawthorn want such a huge slice of the pie (regardless of how they got it) that they end up just playing each other?

It seems Westaway doesn't want a comp like that - regardless of what our own situation as a club looks like.

[bozza1980]

I like Westaway's comments here.

In the wake of the AFL commiting to pour money into clubs he is saying we are doing more of the heavy lifting with regard to the AFL's stadium agreements and that our load should be lessened or our share of the wealth generated should be greater in line with our greater investment.

[perfectionist]

We should work harder at getting bigger crowds to games involving interstate teams. This will probably mean some over-the-top spruiking like, "Come and see the Saints smash Freo this week", but someone needs to do it.

Maybe we could market a 2/3/4 game membership which gave access only to Docklands games against interstate teams?
A bit like the Hawthorn 4 game Tasmania membership?

That's not a bad thought. Even at a discount rate (say, $30 for three games), some money is better than no money. It shouldn't detract from normal memberships.

[plugger66]

Johnny Member said in part :

The fact that we're very profitable now, received no cash handouts, have nearly 40k members, no debt, a shiny new home and have played in the last 2 GFs, may mean that they made a good call.

I think that the Saints have taken up a considerable part of a Commercial Bill Facilty that they have for $5m. The fact that the President has for once made a public statement about the inequality of AFL revenue arrangements and how poor the returns are from the Etihad agreement, underscores some concerns.

It's a total farce that the AFL basically gets rid of all the grounds except 2. And then they stuff up the dealings with the stadiums so the clubs that are at each ground don't get the same deals!

In reality, it's not like clubs really get to choose! There's 2 grounds. And 10 clubs - the AFL had to ensure that someone played at Docklands!

So they did - but then they stuff up the deals! It's just appalling really. Just another in the long line of AFL debacles.

Why would they want more than 2 grounds. Works perfectly. They even get to own one of the grounds in 13 years. Deals could be better that was up to the clubs. Dont see Essendon complain about their deal. Sometimes you just have to be a strong club. Anyway I would love to know which ground you would have kept considering Waverley need millions to fix it up and I even doubt Etihad would have been built if Waverley was still there. Anyway you are very consistant.

It doesn't work perfectly at all.

As per usual, the did a half arsed job of it.


Sure, if we must get rid of suburban grounds and move everyone into 2 grounds, that's fine.

But why on earth do they do this, then leave the deals 'up to the clubs'!!??

It's staggering. They completely run everything, and clubs can't fart without the AFL wanting to know why, how, when, and then fining them for it - but they allow the most important part of the centralisation process to be 'up to the clubs' which then naturally creates an inbalance!

It's just perplexing the way they do things.


If it's so obvious to you, that "Sometimes you just have to be a strong club", then why would the AFL have not known that these deals were not going to be good for all clubs and for the comp in the long run?

Can you tell us exactly how these deals were done and can you tell us the clubs didnt want to negotiate themselves. You seem to know all the facts. Have you got it all written down somewhere. Just maybe the clubs actually thought they were getting a good deal and wanted to do it all themselves. I dont know but you seem to know all of this so have you got something in front of you that tells you how it was negotiated. People who assume as they say. And in this case the saying is proven.

[Johnny Member]

Can you tell us exactly how these deals were done and can you tell us the clubs didnt want to negotiate themselves. You seem to know all the facts. Have you got it all written down somewhere. Just maybe the clubs actually thought they were getting a good deal and wanted to do it all themselves. I dont know but you seem to know all of this so have you got something in front of you that tells you how it was negotiated. People who assume as they say. And in this case the saying is proven.

My 4yo wants to have strawberry ice cream for breakfast everyday.

She thinks it's a great idea. But seeing as I run the show, and I'll be looking after her for the next 20 odd years, I've made the call that it's in everyone's best interests that she doesn't eat ice cream for breakfast everyday.

She doesn't like my decision, and thinks she is capable of making the decision herself.

[maverick]

Johnny Member said in part :

The fact that we're very profitable now, received no cash handouts, have nearly 40k members, no debt, a shiny new home and have played in the last 2 GFs, may mean that they made a good call.

I think that the Saints have taken up a considerable part of a Commercial Bill Facilty that they have for $5m. The fact that the President has for once made a public statement about the inequality of AFL revenue arrangements and how poor the returns are from the Etihad agreement, underscores some concerns.

It's a total farce that the AFL basically gets rid of all the grounds except 2. And then they stuff up the dealings with the stadiums so the clubs that are at each ground don't get the same deals!

In reality, it's not like clubs really get to choose! There's 2 grounds. And 10 clubs - the AFL had to ensure that someone played at Docklands!

So they did - but then they stuff up the deals! It's just appalling really. Just another in the long line of AFL debacles.

Why would they want more than 2 grounds. Works perfectly. They even get to own one of the grounds in 13 years. Deals could be better that was up to the clubs. Dont see Essendon complain about their deal. Sometimes you just have to be a strong club. Anyway I would love to know which ground you would have kept considering Waverley need millions to fix it up and I even doubt Etihad would have been built if Waverley was still there. Anyway you are very consistant.

All good in theory, but the AFL organised the current deals not the individual clubs, except the bomber$ of course

[plugger66]

Can you tell us exactly how these deals were done and can you tell us the clubs didnt want to negotiate themselves. You seem to know all the facts. Have you got it all written down somewhere. Just maybe the clubs actually thought they were getting a good deal and wanted to do it all themselves. I dont know but you seem to know all of this so have you got something in front of you that tells you how it was negotiated. People who assume as they say. And in this case the saying is proven.

My 4yo wants to have strawberry ice cream for breakfast everyday.

She thinks it's a great idea. But seeing as I run the show, and I'll be looking after her for the next 20 odd years, I've made the call that it's in everyone's best interests that she doesn't eat ice cream for breakfast everyday.

She doesn't like my decision, and thinks she is capable of making the decision herself.

So in other words you have no idea who why or how negotiations went when giving us stadium deals. Consistent would have to be your middle name.

[Johnny Member]

So in other words you have no idea who why or how negotiations went when giving us stadium deals. Consistent would have to be your middle name.

I have absolutely no idea.

I was basing my post on your statements (granted they were barely legible so I may have misinterpreted them) that "Deals could be better that was up to the clubs".

If the AFL left it up to the clubs, to which you responded by saying "Just maybe the clubs actually thought they were getting a good deal and wanted to do it all themselves", then the AFL are totally and outrageously negligent to let the clubs do deals of such magnitude and significance to the competition in the long term - merely because the clubs wanted to! (according to you).


If the AFL did the deals, then they are simply incompetent and complete amateurs to get it so wrong.


Either way, it was yet another example of the AFL stuffing up and now having to fix it.