moshe25 wrote:
Mosquito Fleet wrote:
moshe25 wrote:
Mosquito Fleet wrote:
Thats your opinion. The fact that no premierships have been won is a fact ...because the clubs are damaged because of etihads on and off field constraints.
Essendon****** 2000 was an abberation in that etihads constraints have not fully kicked in its first year but they got the best financial deal as the first tenant.
Wtf are you talking about? You said playing at Etihad makes you not win flags. Essendon***** played there and won a flag. Ergo, what you said is incorrect.
Now, playing at Junction Oval, that's another story.
I gave the reason why Essendon**** won the flag in 2000 - it was the first year- when all the on field and off field constraints have not kicked in as yet
agree to disagree
I see. So you're saying that Carlton, Footscray, North, and Essendon*** didn't win flags the past 15 years because....... they played home games at Etihad???
You sure it couldn't have had the tiniest bit to do with that they were shithouse?
You're taking things in common and attributing false cause without any evidence. That's a logical fallacy.
there are various reasons why Carlton, Footscray, North, and Essendon*** are shithouse in your words - but my take is that there are c
ommon factors that apply to all home teams at Etihad that constrain the clubs to the point where they dont win premierships
this thread has thrashed it out:
1 poor playing surface
2. lack of playing space
- 1 and 2 contributing to more serious injuries - see the link to the article I pasted above
3. financial killer - appears to involve that a club leases the ground for the home game on a game basis - which sets up a debt for that daily use - the membership cards of members literally swipe a fee off the debt for that game - which sets up the critera that north and footscray have to get 30,000 attendances to break even. Couple that with AFL control of etihad with the broadcasting rights in the hands of the AFL, the AFL has 3 income streams from Etihad (1) tv rights (2) gate receipts (3) merchandising and food.
Thats why if we had a Carlton Board with some onions and big vision we would build Princes park, so we can take the entire gate receipts and control our revenue - that could be one reason why we have a continual debt presently at 6.4m
[as a related point - hawks get 35 million for Tasmania]
4. not the ground where the grand final is played
so what i am trying to say my carlton friend is that if you combine all of the above they act a counterweight/factor to make us a poor performer on and off field and prevent us from winning a premiership
Fair enough. That's actually a pretty good argument for your proposition, and believe it or not, has made me think about it. Not sure I agree entirely, but I now see your point.