The Luke Sayers board - Sayers steps down 22/1/25

dane · **Joined:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:14 am **Posts:** 22357

kingkerna wrote:

dane wrote:

What does that mean? Provocative?

http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2010/12/inciteful.html

So it does mean provocative?

tap in 79 · **Joined:** Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:58 am **Posts:** 2129

Clayman wrote:

tap in 79 wrote:

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/gillon-mclachlan-informs-afl-clubs-of-standing-in-new-equalisation-strategy/story-fnelctok-1227014543009

More on "equalisation". This is what LoGuidice should be addressing. Forget all the other stuff. Why is Carlton so regularly reamed by the AFL in comparison to other clubs?

If Carlton is forced to hand over anything for "equalisation" then it is the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Equalisation is so selective. one year they want to push North up the ladder so they try and give them a Tasmanian deal like the Hawthorn one, next year they decide Brisbane is their project team etc etc.

Carlton is never their project team that they try and push up the ladder or assist by giving a good draw to. How about a contra-Tasmanian type deal for Carlton with lots of money on the side? or a draw next year that features Carlton playing two games each against the bottom 6 clubs. Or a draw that doesn't feature playing at midnight on Wednesday nights or Monday or Sunday nights.

Stuff playing Essendon*** twice, I would prefer to have a chance at winning more games than playing finals teams twice. How about eradicating Carlton's debt?

Why does Hawthorn only pay $500,000 towards equalisation despite massive profits, a York Park deal that the AFL set up for them that gives them so many benefits that other clubs don't get access to, what about Collingwood? Don't they have 80,000 members or something? Why don't they contribute more to equalisation?

Which club is going to be equalised next year? St Kilda, Melbourne or Brisbane? My tip is Brisbane. They've just won 3 flags, but need some money from Carlton.

Would we rather give North the Pratts and Mathiesons and instead we go to the AFL each year on our hands and knees begging? The AFL gave us sponsors and an interest free loan when we needed it after they nearly killed us. I am sure they would give us the same if we needed it again.

The AFL "gave" Carlton an interest free loan - which Carlton had to pay back.

The AFL "gave" North Melbourne an interest free loan - which they don't have to pay back. plus extra millions year after year.

Who decides what is paid back and what isn't and why?

Where does "equalisation" end and "equalisation" begin?

Is there too much "govt" or AFL intereference in how teams perform?

Would Port Adelaide be in the top 4-5 this year without "government" assistance?

My contention is that people within the AFL still view Carlton as a "strong club" - yet the evidence says otherwise. The evidence of matches won in the last 10-15 years- not a club's history from 30 years ago- is what they should be referring to in determining whether they they are "strong".

I would say Carlton has won about the least amount of games of any team over the last 10-15 years...maybe Melbourne or Richmond has lost just as many - but where are all Carlton's gifts as a result? They are non-existent gifts as Carlton is a "strong club". Let's just keep giving to Hawthorn, North, Brisbane etc instead.

Clayman · **Joined:** Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:02 am **Posts:** 1770

tap in 79 wrote:

Clayman wrote:

tap in 79 wrote:

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/gillon-mclachlan-informs-afl-clubs-of-standing-in-new-equalisation-strategy/story-fnelctok-1227014543009

More on "equalisation". This is what LoGuidice should be addressing. Forget all the other stuff. Why is Carlton so regularly reamed by the AFL in comparison to other clubs?

If Carlton is forced to hand over anything for "equalisation" then it is the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Equalisation is so selective. one year they want to push North up the ladder so they try and give them a Tasmanian deal like the Hawthorn one, next year they decide Brisbane is their project team etc etc.

Carlton is never their project team that they try and push up the ladder or assist by giving a good draw to. How about a contra-Tasmanian type deal for Carlton with lots of money on the side? or a draw next year that features Carlton playing two games each against the bottom 6 clubs. Or a draw that doesn't feature playing at midnight on Wednesday nights or Monday or Sunday nights.

Stuff playing Essendon**** twice, I would prefer to have a chance at winning more games than playing finals teams twice. How about eradicating Carlton's debt?

Why does Hawthorn only pay $500,000 towards equalisation despite massive profits, a York Park deal that the AFL set up for them that gives them so many benefits that other clubs don't get access to, what about Collingwood? Don't they have 80,000 members or something? Why don't they contribute more to equalisation?

Which club is going to be equalised next year? St Kilda, Melbourne or Brisbane? My tip is Brisbane. They've just won 3 flags, but need some money from Carlton.

Would we rather give North the Pratts and Mathiesons and instead we go to the AFL each year on our hands and knees begging? The AFL gave us sponsors and an interest free loan when we needed it after they nearly killed us. I am sure they would give us the same if we needed it again.

The AFL "gave" Carlton an interest free loan - which Carlton had to pay back.

The AFL "gave" North Melbourne an interest free loan - which they don't have to pay back. plus extra millions year after year.

Who decides what is paid back and what isn't and why?

Where does "equalisation" end and "equalisation" begin?

Is there too much "govt" or AFL intereference in how teams perform?

Would Port Adelaide be in the top 4-5 this year without "government" assistance?

My contention is that people within the AFL still view Carlton as a "strong club" - yet the evidence says otherwise. The evidence of matches won in the last 10-15 years- not a club's history from 30 years ago- is what they should be referring to in determining whether they they are "strong".

I would say Carlton has won about the least amount of games of any team over the last 10-15 years...maybe Melbourne or Richmond has lost just as many - but where are all Carlton's gifts as a result? They are non-existent gifts as Carlton is a "strong club". Let's just keep giving to Hawthorn, North, Brisbane etc instead.

As soon as you start relying on the welfare system then we have lost our imagination. I would rather we follow the Hawthorn, Collingwood, Essendon*, Richmond model in getting stronger off the field. We have a massive fan base and it is up to our club to bring the members back on board and make them feel part of it again. We lost our way which is not the AFLs fault.

The AFL gifted us a few Friday night games last year. Prime time TV which helps maximise sponsorships $$$. I am sure North would have loved our prime time spots.

SurreyBlue · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:32 am **Posts:** 10479

Clayman - I agree with everything you said, except losing our way wasn't the AFL's fault.
That was all the AFL's fault.

Clayman · **Joined:** Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:02 am **Posts:** 1770

SurreyBlue wrote:

Clayman - I agree with everything you said, except losing our way wasn't the AFL's fault.
That was all the AFL's fault.

Then why have Richmond et al found their way.

We cheated and cheated many times. We even got away with cheating which the AFL didn't even investigate. We were bad and we cannot blame the AFL for that. We cheated the salary cap worse than any other team in history. This is not the AFLs fault.

We had a conflicted president who signed us up to Etihad. Again, we are to blame not the AFL.

And imagine if we had of invested all the funds we put into the legends stand into a relocation to the MCG and into the football department. We would be a massive power house now. Not the AFL's fault either.

frank dardew · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:38 pm **Posts:** 7640

Agree in part with you Clayman but also with Surrey - still some misunderstanding of issues

Bloody Elliott should have not sunk that amount of money into legends stand at that time but sought a social club in the stands at the G - DUMB business decision - to go to G would have underpinned the club financially into the future but also improve the branding being a home tenant at the best sporting stadium in the world

Complete rubbish about Etihad move -AFL were going to seek repayment of loan they gave us after crippling salary cap sanctions if we did not agree to go and play at Etihad and make it our home ground - Board wanted to go to G -AFL said even if we struck deal with management of G we will not fixture you there - of course if they pulled the loan we were dead in the water -
Moreover unlike in other circumstances AFL just gave club monies they made it a loan in our case -whole matter here involved AFL BASTARDRY

SurreyBlue · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:32 am **Posts:** 10479

Frankie,

Elliott is not the best business man going round, we all agree to that but he was taken for a ride with the PP rebuild. He was guaranteed backing and future redevelopment. Unfortunately, as I said not the best business man around and didn't have his i's dotted or t's crossed.

Just remember the break away league designed by JE is now what is know as the AFL. Even then the AFL couldn't get it right.

Clayman · **Joined:** Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:02 am **Posts:** 1770

SurreyBlue wrote:

He was guaranteed backing and future redevelopment.

Only problem was that the guarantee was not in writing.

SurreyBlue · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:32 am **Posts:** 10479

Clayman wrote:

SurreyBlue wrote:

He was guaranteed backing and future redevelopment.

Only problem was that the guarantee was not in writing.

camel · **Posted:** Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:25 pm

He should have read the small print. I think it said something like: "This guarantee is not worth the paper it's not written on."

choo · **Posted:** Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:32 pm

'99 Prelim
we beat Essendon*
but
Kennett lost
we lost Princes Park
THE END

tap in 79 · **Joined:** Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:58 am **Posts:** 2129

Clayman wrote:

As soon as you start relying on the welfare system then we have lost our imagination. I would rather we follow the Hawthorn, Collingwood, Essendon**, Richmond model in getting stronger off the field. We have a massive fan base and it is up to our club to bring the members back on board and make them feel part of it again. We lost our way which is not the AFLs fault.

The AFL gifted us a few Friday night games last year. Prime time TV which helps maximise sponsorships $$$. I am sure North would have loved our prime time spots.

Hawthorn has this squeaky clean image as a team that built itself up from the depths of depression and how courageous etc they were.
Each time someone says that they completely ignore the gifts the AFL gave them with Waverley Park and that exclusive deal for Tasmania for 10 plus years.

Where are Carlton's gifts?

If Carlton isn't to rely on the welfare system as you state - then I want to see at the very least an end to the gifts to Brisbane (3 premierships in a row), Hawthorn (two premierships after the AFL set them up) and North Melbourne (extra millions)....but the AFL is going the other way and asking more of Carlton to fund other clubs. With all the pain Carlton supporters have gone through in the last 15 years I just don't see the logic in asking Carlton to GIVE EVEN MORE to the AFL's project clubs.

Clayman · **Joined:** Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:02 am **Posts:** 1770

tap in 79 wrote:

Each time someone says that they completely ignore the gifts the AFL gave them with Waverley Park and that exclusive deal for Tasmania for 10 plus years.

Nobody wanted Waverly. The AFL had to entice somebody to go out there. Some gift :donk:

. Jeffrey K got the Tassie deal done. :thumbsup:

We lack an imagination and have for a while. Maybe the AFL can gift us an imagination so we can make good decisions which are unique and different from the other sides.

AGRO · **Posted:** Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:58 pm

Clayman wrote:

tap in 79 wrote:

Each time someone says that they completely ignore the gifts the AFL gave them with Waverley Park and that exclusive deal for Tasmania for 10 plus years.

Nobody wanted Waverly. The AFL had to entice somebody to go out there. Some gift :donk:

. Jeffrey K got the Tassie deal done. :thumbsup:

We lack an imagination and have for a while. Maybe the AFL can gift us an imagination so we can make good decisions which are unique and different from the other sides.

Hawthorn have created a heartland in the Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne.

We have the same opportunity in the Northern Suburbs, but we haven't started to even scratch the surface with it yet.

Clayman · **Joined:** Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:02 am **Posts:** 1770

AGRO wrote:

Hawthorn have created a heartland in the Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne.

We have the same opportunity in the Northern Suburbs, but we haven't started to even scratch the surface with it yet.

Problem is we might have Brunswick, Coburg, Lalor and Epping covered but Collingwood has the rest of the Northern Suburbs.

tap in 79 · **Joined:** Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:58 am **Posts:** 2129

Clayman wrote:

tap in 79 wrote:

Each time someone says that they completely ignore the gifts the AFL gave them with Waverley Park and that exclusive deal for Tasmania for 10 plus years.

Nobody wanted Waverly. The AFL had to entice somebody to go out there. Some gift :donk:

. Jeffrey K got the Tassie deal done. :thumbsup:

We lack an imagination and have for a while. Maybe the AFL can gift us an imagination so we can make good decisions which are unique and different from the other sides.

So do you think that Hawthorn paying $1 a year in rent for Waverley is a just result from what was once an AFL resource? It didn't start off as a Hawthorn resource...it was once an AFL resource - as such did the money from that resource get distributed in an equitable manner or did Hawthorn benefit more than ANY other club with its sale...and if so, why?

The money from that once AFL resource when it was sold- where did that money go? Did any of it go towards clubs such as Carlton or did it stay in the AFL's coffers and therefore make its way to Hawthorn..didn't Carlton help to make Waverley what it was?

And do you think that Carlton getting shafted in the Docklands deal - with no compensation from the AFL - is a just result?

http://www.austadiums.com.au/news/news.php?id=224

frank dardew · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:38 pm **Posts:** 7640

In the light of the Jeffy and Robbo debacle on top of white misdemeanour opportune time for Subjudice to talk about having a strong truthful and transparent culture

Over to you SUB

Stone Free · **Posted:** Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:37 pm

Clayman wrote:

AGRO wrote:

Hawthorn have created a heartland in the Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne.

We have the same opportunity in the Northern Suburbs, but we haven't started to even scratch the surface with it yet.

Problem is we might have Brunswick, Coburg, Lalor and Epping covered but Collingwood has the rest of the Northern Suburbs.

I don't need to tell you which club has a high proportion of supporters in the housing commission houses around Reservoir.

Clayman · **Joined:** Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:02 am **Posts:** 1770

Stone Free wrote:

Clayman wrote:

AGRO wrote:

Hawthorn have created a heartland in the Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne.

We have the same opportunity in the Northern Suburbs, but we haven't started to even scratch the surface with it yet.

Problem is we might have Brunswick, Coburg, Lalor and Epping covered but Collingwood has the rest of the Northern Suburbs.

I don't need to tell you which club has a high proportion of supporters in the housing commission houses around Reservoir.

Well we have a few in the housing commission area in Coburg

Rod Waddell · **Joined:** Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:49 am **Posts:** 1650

yeah and we had heaps in the Carlton Housing Commission area

The Luke Sayers board - Sayers steps down 22/1/25

Who is online