TalkingCarlton :: View topic - Sinking Blues seek AFL rescue:The Age

Sinking Blues seek AFL rescue.

Main Points

- We will meet with the AFL commission tomorrow to request the league wipe out our debts
- We will seek financial assistance if the AFL don't take over the running of MCLabour Park
- We will ask for an early PP pick if we win four games So we should!
- We want the AFL to pay $6 million upfront to wipe out debt (BT's rumour?)
- Collo would have survived a vote but left to avoid a divided board
- we only received $2.5 million to move to Telstra Dome not the $3 milllion we were promised
- we want the League to pay the $2.5 million for redevelopment of MCLabour Park and the annual $1.8 million upkeep of the ground
- Carlton pay rent of only $100,000 to the League as the main tenant at MCLabour Park

Apart from seeking financial assistance from the AFL one of the best parts of the article is we'll campaign for an early priority pick if we finish on four wins. They ripped us off with that interesting rule change after we finished on 18 points last year.

THey got us into this mess so they should get us out.

So somebody in the Board at Carlton leaks to the Age.

If it isn't Collo then who is it? Note that the strategic paper was co-authored by Rose and Collo.

The PP thing is ambit, designed to present an argument to the AFL that our club is absolutely in serious trouble both on and off the field, and no band-aid solutions will be effective.

It's an old tactic, but it just may work. Because once you go through the entire list, the small matter of 10million dollars starts to seem almost reasonable.

JohnM wrote:

I agree absolutely. There is no way they will change the priority pick rules, and once you add in this year's draft picks our list won't be that far off anyway.

They are just asking for as much as possible so that when the AFL gives us a quarter of what we asked for it's still heaps.

Author:	Kouta [ Tue May 16, 2006 12:36 am ]
Post subject:	Sinking Blues seek AFL rescue:The Age
Sinking Blues seek AFL rescue. Main Points - We will meet with the AFL commission tomorrow to request the league wipe out our debts - We will seek financial assistance if the AFL don't take over the running of MCLabour Park - We will ask for an early PP pick if we win four games So we should! - We want the AFL to pay $6 million upfront to wipe out debt (BT's rumour?) - Collo would have survived a vote but left to avoid a divided board - we only received $2.5 million to move to Telstra Dome not the $3 milllion we were promised - we want the League to pay the $2.5 million for redevelopment of MCLabour Park and the annual $1.8 million upkeep of the ground - Carlton pay rent of only $100,000 to the League as the main tenant at MCLabour Park Apart from seeking financial assistance from the AFL one of the best parts of the article is we'll campaign for an early priority pick if we finish on four wins. They ripped us off with that interesting rule change after we finished on 18 points last year.

Author:	ryan2000 [ Tue May 16, 2006 12:53 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sinking Blues seek AFL rescue:The Age
JuzzCarlton wrote: Sinking Blues seek AFL rescue. Main Points - We will meet with the AFL commission tomorrow to request the league wipe out our debts - We will seek financial assistance if the AFL don't take over the running of MCLabour Park - We will ask for an early PP pick if we win four games So we should! - We want the AFL to pay $6 million upfront to wipe out debt (BT's rumour?) - Collo would have survived a vote but left to avoid a divided board - we only received $2.5 million to move to Telstra Dome not the $3 milllion we were promised - we want the League to pay the $2.5 million for redevelopment of MCLabour Park and the annual $1.8 million upkeep of the ground - Carlton pay rent of only $100,000 to the League as the main tenant at MCLabour Park Apart from seeking financial assistance from the AFL one of the best parts of the article is we'll campaign for an early priority pick if we finish on four wins. They ripped us off with that interesting rule change after we finished on 18 points last year. DAMN - that's asking alot! Not sure how much the AFL will give us on those requests................................

Author:	djnm97 [ Tue May 16, 2006 1:01 am ]
Post subject:
i say we hold them to ransom. THey got us into this mess so they should get us out. We have the upper hand because we can throw in our licence and the AFL will be sued for millions by the TV companies. I just wish the board would realise that and have the courage to threaten them with it. Believe me, if Carlton seriously threatened to throw in their licence, the AFL would give us whatever we wanted. I'd love to do it this way and stick it up the AFL. It is a legitimate option

Author:	BrizzyBlue [ Tue May 16, 2006 1:06 am ]
Post subject:
Bold move by the Board. Not dissimilar to the Presidents in that the AFL mooted 200K, so the Presidents went for $2 Mill. Doubt that they will get it, but will be much more than 200k. So we ask for the Universe and get Earth with Jupiter & Venus thrown in. Better than the Moon and a couple of meteors we got now. Cross fingers.

Author:	klompie [ Tue May 16, 2006 1:42 am ]
Post subject:
interesting article. there's a lot there that we're asking. will be keenly interested in how the AFL will respond. Hopefully they'll take over the ground lease but I can't imagine them relieving our debt. would be nice if they said yes to the PP if we only win 4 though, but I doubt it. I wonder if the Prattmeister is waiting to see how this all pans out before he comes charging in with a killer deal. wishful thinking i suppose. Cheers K

TalkingCarlton http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Sinking Blues seek AFL rescue:The Age http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10267	Page 1 of 7

Author:	klompie [ Tue May 16, 2006 1:46 am ]
Post subject:
djnm97 wrote: THey got us into this mess so they should get us out. I dare say that we had a hand in our own financial and onfield demise that will be hard to hide from the AFL and the football public to effectively throw the blame on the AFL K

Author:	CarltonClem [ Tue May 16, 2006 1:46 am ]
Post subject:
So somebody in the Board at Carlton leaks to the Age. If it isn't Collo then who is it? Note that the strategic paper was co-authored by Rose and Collo.

Author:	Skippers Blues [ Tue May 16, 2006 2:14 am ]
Post subject:
i think the most important one after the wiping out our debt and taking over MC Labour park, is the priority draft ask, if we could get 2 top 5 picks in the super draft omg that would be amazing!!!

Author:	Speedy [ Tue May 16, 2006 8:22 am ]
Post subject:
CarltonClem wrote: So somebody in the Board at Carlton leaks to the Age. If it isn't Collo then who is it? Note that the strategic paper was co-authored by Rose and Collo. So Marcus Rose is really the leaker????

Author:	TruBlueBrad [ Tue May 16, 2006 8:26 am ]
Post subject:
Is there any reason why the AFL wouldn't want Richard Pratt paying our debt? Would they be against private ownership if that was part of his conditions? Would be an interesting way of showing their hand by saying if you don't pay our debt then Pratt will.

Author:	bluechucky [ Tue May 16, 2006 8:56 am ]
Post subject:
Interesting. What would peoples views of Smorgon be if he pulls this one off?

Author:	JohnM [ Tue May 16, 2006 9:06 am ]
Post subject:
Don't hold your breath on the priority pick. There's no way known the AFL could make an exception for us on this rule. Can you imagine the argument: "our list is stuffed because (a) we recruited poorly for years and (b) we cheated, got caught and lost picks". Yeah, right. I'm sure Essendon* would like a first round PP this year too. And Adelaide would like the AFL to make an exception on Bryce Gibbs. The PP thing is ambit, designed to present an argument to the AFL that our club is absolutely in serious trouble both on and off the field, and no band-aid solutions will be effective. It's an old tactic, but it just may work. Because once you go through the entire list, the small matter of 10million dollars starts to seem almost reasonable.

Author:	bluechucky [ Tue May 16, 2006 9:10 am ]
Post subject:
No doubt John, but one could argue we deserve it based on crappy performance over a long time, not like Essendon* who have just sunk this season. Sometimes all you need to do is bluff though and every now and then you might just win.

Author:	Blue Bird [ Tue May 16, 2006 9:14 am ]
Post subject:
Now that's what I call an ambit claim!

Page 1 of 7	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Pafloyul [ Tue May 16, 2006 9:16 am ]
Post subject:
I think we should be asking if we could be given a PP if we win five games or less. I really think we are a special case at the moment.

Author:	nightcrawler [ Tue May 16, 2006 9:17 am ]
Post subject:
JohnM wrote: The PP thing is ambit, designed to present an argument to the AFL that our club is absolutely in serious trouble both on and off the field, and no band-aid solutions will be effective. It's an old tactic, but it just may work. Because once you go through the entire list, the small matter of 10million dollars starts to seem almost reasonable. I agree absolutely. There is no way they will change the priority pick rules, and once you add in this year's draft picks our list won't be that far off anyway. They are just asking for as much as possible so that when the AFL gives us a quarter of what we asked for it's still heaps.

Author:	Sydney Blue [ Tue May 16, 2006 9:19 am ]
Post subject:
Nice to see the board showing a bit of confidence in the playing group again. Mr Spew can we please have another pick if we only win four games this year - Pretty please. We are shit Mr Spew and we really need another pick Go away you fool its only round 7 and you have already won 2 that puts you on track for at least 6 wins . A what you think I am going to give you extra picks after taken them off you a few years back -

Author:	marciblue [ Tue May 16, 2006 9:20 am ]
Post subject:
Well very bold demands by the club but good on'em. The PP is the contentious one for me. I think the rule should be a bit more accomodating in that instead of 16 points for 2 seasons running (which would essentially eliminate any pre-1st round PP's, it should be an accumulation of 32 points over 2 years. Whilst the win on Sunday may lead to us getting 4 or perhaps 5 wins for the year and maybe precluding us from the PP full stop, let alone a pre-1st round PP, if we somehow manage to only get another win for the year and manage 12 points, then added to the 18 we managed last year should really qualify a club for a pre-1st round PP. It would be ludicrous to deny this for obtaining 2 more points in one of the 2 qualification years. It goes against the spirit of the rule and denies a club much needed draft assistance for extended poor performance.

Author:	bluehammer [ Tue May 16, 2006 9:24 am ]
Post subject:
"We want an additional priority pick if we don't make the eight" That's our demand. It must be.

Author:	Elwood Blues1 [ Tue May 16, 2006 9:28 am ]
Post subject:
nightcrawler wrote: JohnM wrote: The PP thing is ambit, designed to present an argument to the AFL that our club is absolutely in serious trouble both on and off the field, and no band-aid solutions will be effective. It's an old tactic, but it just may work. Because once you go through the entire list, the small matter of 10million dollars starts to seem almost reasonable. I agree absolutely. There is no way they will change the priority pick rules, and once you add in this year's draft picks our list won't be that far off anyway. They are just asking for as much as possible so that when the AFL gives us a quarter of what we asked for it's still heaps. Agree..its the old tactic of asking for plenty but expecting to recieve a lot less in reality...dont see the other clubs wearing a change to the priority pick rules..