I like to deal with facts.
Fact1: We travelled, Freo travelled.
Fact2: This year when Freo has travelled and the other team has not had to travel Freo come up doughnuts.
Fact3: Our travel arrangements changed after 3 losses in a row interstate.
Fact4: We have as good a record as any club at Etihad this year.

I can't say that we would have won but what I can say is that our chances would have improved significantly if our players took a car into Etihad and Freo flew in. That scenario for Freo has resulted in doughnuts, even against Melbourne.
The decision which the club controlled was strictly for fiscal reasons. As a result of losing that game and the 4 points, the $400,000 we gained has the potential of being eroded as it has impacted on our ladder postion.

Youre theorising and calling it "fact".....

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Take this to the bank: We will not be playing Freo or anybody else for that matter on the Gold Coast in 2010.

_________________
2002:> "In their Masters Chambers
They Gathered for their Feast
They Stabbed us with their Steely Knives
But They Just Can't Kill The Beast!" <2016

THE BLUEBAGGER BEAST IS BAACKK!!

FWIW I can't see the Lions Beating Sydney.
As has been said, they're sending off 3 premiership players.
And also, Bradshaw and Merrett are out.
So even if we lose I think we will play Brisbane in Melbourne, not such a bad result.
But I think we will beat Adelaide anyway.
Having said that I would have preferred if we hadn't sold the home game.
Imagine if we were sitting on the verge of finals now?? We'd really be cursing the move then

_________________

Yep, that is what I am doing.
Doesn't everyone do that here?

Sadly.....yes

Regards Cazzesman

_________________
Ricky Gervais - “Everyone has the right to hold whatever beliefs they want. And everyone else has the right to find those beliefs f***ing ridiculous.”

We lost to Essendon* twice. Calculate that. Much bigger price.

_________________
No matter how long it takes Carlton to rebuild, they will still win a premiership before Essendon* and Collingwood.

Fev's poster

_________________

You are missing the point. We lost to a few inferior teams during the year and I don't have an issue with that. I only have an issue with the loss where the board sold our advantage.

I am sure the sponsors were happy that their brands were splashed across free to air tv on a Saturday night. Probably would have been shunted to a Saturday 2pm game on Fox Sports had it been in Melbourne...

We trashed their brands and our brand that night.
I reckon the sponsors would prefer to have their brands splashed around in the second week or even third week of finals going national and international on TV and playing against a big club like Collingwood.
That logic is not sound.

I bet if Fev hadn't hit the post against Haw, and/or if we'd taken our opportunities in the 1st half against Ess in Rd 3 & Syd in Rd 4, we wouldn't even be having this discussion...

_________________
It's never as good as it looks and it's never as bad as it seems.

That's just being selective.

Any one of the losses could be considered to have cost us.

The Essendon* losses and Sydney loss were far more damaging, IMO.

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.

Yup, if we played in Melbourne, Gwenyth Paltrow would have come off the rookie list to kick 8.

_________________
Patrick Smith - Just another reason to HATE Essendon*!

It is not sinking in.
Our board made a decision which it had total control over which comprimised 4 premiership points being won ,even Brett Ratten will tell you that. The competition is comprimised enough and we don't need the club giving our competitors an edge. It has nothing to do with someone missing a goal or a bad umpiring decision. The board has no control over that and as supporters we have to cop it. We got the $400,000 but it comprimised us getting 4 points.
It will be no different to the Kangas trying to sell a game in WA next year. They have a better chance at beating Freo or West Coast over here compared to Subi. They get money for it but the 4 points get comprimised.

AN extra 3 wins would have us sitting a game behind Geelong and this thread would be about how the Gold Coast game has cost us 2nd spot on the ladder

FWIW, I support playing a home game on the Gold Coast. If we were worthy of finishing in 2nd place, or Top 4, we'd have won the game regardless of where it was played.

_________________
"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." Qui-Gon Jinn 15-05-2005

"there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party." Julia Gillard 18-05-2010

The Directors, and the Executive, have a responsibility to ensure the solvency of the club. Of course they need to balance that with the need to win on the field, but make no mistake: it's a balancing act that all clubs (save for West Coast and a couple of others) must engage in.

So there are always going to be compromises. Getting $400,000 to play a home game on the GC is merely a very visible compromise, but most clubs will always be weighing up fiscal responsibility vs spending to win games.

Would our club win more games if we leased our own jet to fly at low-altitude to interstate games? What if every single player had his own personalised coach and physiotherapist? Maybe far-fetched examples, but there will always be choices that need to be made.

Maybe that $400,000 buys us our own hyperbaric chamber in the new facilities, which gets Fev up for a game he'd otherwise miss, which wins us 4 points somewhere down the track.

It's just not as simple as the 'we sold 4 points for 400 grand' argument.

Can't disagree with that John M. As long as the benefit outweighs the cost it is all good.