Andrew Demetriou

[Bulldog4life]

The influx of money from TV rights has done plenty for North, Melbourne and the Bulldogs. It has allowed us to exist.

The issues you raise about the iniquity of stadiums deals is another point altogether and nothing to do with TV rights.

You have put Hawthorn in the ranks of the wealthy clubs and rightly so. They are there because of their own efforts in growing their membeship base through their decision to target Tasmania and as a result of their on-field efforts over en extended period of time.

They came into the AFL with North and ourselves and have thrived despite their historical disadvantages including a lousy area of support.

That "lousy area" of support is a relatively wealthy area. This helps when buying memberships.

[LostDoggy]

That "lousy area" of support is a relatively wealthy area. This helps when buying memberships.

It was a geographically small area of stately homes inhabited by people who spent their Saturday afternoons doing tapestry and knocking off the odd glass of sweet sherry. Not a football person in sight.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

It was a geographically small area of stately homes inhabited by people who spent their Saturday afternoons doing tapestry and knocking off the odd glass of sweet sherry. Not a football person in sight.

Hawthorn had 13,000 members at the time of the aborted merger with Melbourne. Since then it has attracted 55,000 members including 8,000 in Tasmania. It's success in the '80's in playing in 7 grand finals in succession plus it's relocation to Waverley gave it penetration into the outer Eastern region apart from its previous inner base. The Hawks were also able to build a team of 400 volunteers as part of a huge membership drive. They had a dynamic President in Ian Dicker who deserves great credit in making Hawthorn, one of the real powerhouses in the AFL. It is a great story.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

The influx of money from TV rights has done plenty for North, Melbourne and the Bulldogs. It has allowed us to exist.

The issues you raise about the iniquity of stadiums deals is another point altogether and nothing to do with TV rights.

You have put Hawthorn in the ranks of the wealthy clubs and rightly so. They are there because of their own efforts in growing their membeship base through their decision to target Tasmania and as a result of their on-field efforts over en extended period of time.

They came into the AFL with North and ourselves and have thrived despite their historical disadvantages including a lousy area of support.

The Bulldogs have struggled to survive ever since it's first finals appearance in 1938. The latest Tv rights will assist our survival but one might ask at what cost?
For example we are the only AFL Club to lose potentially two top six players in Harbrow and Ward. This simply doesn't occur in the top 4-5 clubs who have the resources to retain its better players. We rarely attract a Jolley or a Ball who were able to help Collingwood win a flag two years ago. Our lack of depth continues to be a major problem with perhaps only our six best players considered good enough to make a Geelong, Collingwood and Hawthorn senior team. Apart from North Melbourne we probably have to work harder than any other League Club for its success.
The ability for example to promote at least 4 rookie players like Boyd, Morris, Picken and Daulhaus is symtomatic of the level we go to to unearth talent and to be able to compete.
The introduction of the Suns and GWS again weakens our ability to recruit quality young players in order to compete against the stronger Clubs. I question the wisdom of going to 18 clubs. The generosity of a Channel 7 may not always be there for the AFL as being a licence to print money. I like your passion and argument but at the end of the day are we seriously really any better off on the field and ultimately that is what counts.

[SonofScray]

Vlad has been pretty good for the AFL. One thing that I feel he has been wrong in, yet succeed masterfully at is the ability to make the League bigger than the game, or any club. The purpose of each weekend is to enhance the league's brand amnd its coffers, hence the insatiatable need to monitor behaviour and manage perceptions.

He has exerted a huge level of control over the game itself, not just his League. I don't like that at all. I don't like the homogenisation of Club's under his reign, the loss of autonomy. For mine, the AFL has grown a bit too powerful as its own entity, it is an arrogant organisation which does at it pleases and gets its way regardless.

I fiind the management of the 'bump' under Vlad's reign to be really poor and unbalanced. Incidental high contact while performing a long established skill of the game gets players severely punished yet cowardly and unsportsmanlike acts such as jumper punches and the like go unpunished, or in some cases rewarded where a player retaliates.

It is sympotmatics of a lot of what his team have done, or are doing. Its all about improving the brand and being seen to be doing something, even if it is responding to moral outrage, or reacting to a passing trend, or being dictated to by the networks. It rarely seems as if it is genuine, or neccessary or right. Just a string of business cliches.

[SonofScray]

......at what cost?

That is really the key question. I think it has been their biggest masterstroke, no one is in a position to really consider it and speak up anymore. If they are, they won't because they are the direct beneficiaries.

The integrity of the competion and Club's individual identies are at risk as a result of the system in place now. The game of Aussie Rules certainly has suffered.

[jeemak]

Vlad has been pretty good for the AFL. One thing that I feel he has been wrong in, yet succeed masterfully at is the ability to make the League bigger than the game, or any club. The purpose of each weekend is to enhance the league's brand amnd its coffers, hence the insatiatable need to monitor behaviour and manage perceptions.

He has exerted a huge level of control over the game itself, not just his League. I don't like that at all. I don't like the homogenisation of Club's under his reign, the loss of autonomy. For mine, the AFL has grown a bit too powerful as its own entity, it is an arrogant organisation which does at it pleases and gets its way regardless.

I fiind the management of the 'bump' under Vlad's reign to be really poor and unbalanced. Incidental high contact while performing a long established skill of the game gets players severely punished yet cowardly and unsportsmanlike acts such as jumper punches and the like go unpunished, or in some cases rewarded where a player retaliates.

It is sympotmatics of a lot of what his team have done, or are doing. Its all about improving the brand and being seen to be doing something, even if it is responding to moral outrage, or reacting to a passing trend, or being dictated to by the networks. It rarely seems as if it is genuine, or neccessary or right. Just a string of business cliches.

Your first two paragraphs sum up the situation perfectly for me.

We have been in a lucky position as a football club (as have NM, Melb, Port and a couple of others) with respect to the AFL's mantra of maximising profits for the long term sustainability and development of the game. As soon as they determine that 18 teams doesn't equal value in TV rights and attendances we're going to find ourselves in some trouble.

You can say that Vlad has been good for our club and in a lot of ways you might be right, though as soon as the philosophy of the AFL changes and they decide a Victorian team or two needs to go - and this will happen - you can count on Vlad banging the AFL's drums the hardest.

He knows from which side his bread gets buttered, and I can assure you it isn't ours.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Still don't like him.