TalkingCarlton
http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

The AFL Grand Plan...Where do we fit in?
http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4264		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  BrizzyBlue [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:26 am ]
Post subject:  The AFL Grand Plan...Where do we fit in?
I’ve been doing some investigative work in the past few months to suss out a rumour I heard about the AFL’s Grand Plan to Relocate/Merge Victorian teams. What I have found out is mind-blowing if it comes together. My sources are impeccable and if you consider how this has been orchestrated over time by Wacko Jacko-Ovans-Demitrispew and Angry, you will be as distraught as I am. :shock:

There is no secret that the AFL has desired to expand/consolidate the competition in the developing states for some time.

They have openly been responsible for:
1. Investing huge dollars in a Western Sydney training/playing complex.
2. A feasibility study in bringing Carrara on the Gold Coast to life again.
3. Discussions with the ACT about upgrading facilities at Manuka Oval.
4. Similar discussions with the Tasmanian government about York Park.

Most people wouldn’t be suspicious about any of this as they would probably think that the game needs to be more nationalised and by having AFL standard facilities in these outposts, preseason games, exhibition matches and the odd H & A fixture would show the AFL are doing there job by taking footy to the people of Australia.

Can we trust their motives? This will answer that question. Remember South Melbourne, Fitzroy, North Melbourne and Footscray? South as they are still affectionately referred to by diehard supporters is really dead but the AFL spin is that they have life as the Sydney Swans. The Roy boys were killed off too and Merged with that other rabble (the Yogi Bears) to become the Brisbane Lions. What part of South and Fitzroy are left intact other than memories? Why have I mentioned North Melbourne and Footscray? Simple, because they both underwent name changes with the assistance and urging of the AFL to fit into the Grand Plan. The same Grand Plan that saw South and the Roys disappear. The AFL would really like to see The Carrara Kangaroos or the Canberra Kangaroos and no doubt the naming of Footscray as the Western Bulldogs is perfect, is it not for the western suburbs of Sydney. :evil:

The AFL will not stop there. The word is that they are of the opinion that 10 teams are far too many in 1 state. They certainly are laying the groundwork to spread us all out somewhat to fit their Grand Plan. Before the next TV rights contracts are determined the slimy bastards are gunna suggest to struggling clubs that their future lies in either Merging or Relocating. The AFL really wants a 12 team National competition, but will settle for 14 within the next couple of years. How have they been sneakily going about and how will they achieve this you may ask? :?

Fairly simple answer again folks. Break the clubs down to the lowest common denominator. Break the weak clubs wills so that they are reliant on the AFL. Have the weak clubs begging for assistance to survive (Competitive Balance Fund), remove the weak clubs home ground advantage by refusing to upgrade/sanction their suburban venues (2 stadiums in Melbourne), fixture them in time slots/venues that won’t attract/keep sponsors. Of course do the reverse with Essendon* and Collingwood. All this has already happened, has it not? The Scum and Filth play most of the Friday night games plus Anzac Day etc. at either the G or the Dome and of course rarely have to go interstate except for more blockbusters. They simply have too many supporters, too much money, sponsors lining up and influence in the halls of power (AFL, business and TV land). Untouchable!

It is a widely held belief that the Aints are the AFL’s lovechild and are the model of their ridiculous communist system. Nothing that Rotten Ronnie and his ilk would like more than for the Aints to have a sustained period of success, so they can smirk and put them on a pedestal that says “The System Worksâ€
Author:  TheGame [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:42 am ]
Post subject: 
The AFL might not like us but we make them a lot of $ from the massive crowds we draw. The AFL like $ so we are safe.
Author:  79Vintage [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Ten teams in one city is too many in a national competition. Melbourne clubs have seen one relocation and a merger relocation. Both Sydney and Brisbane have strong supporter bases in Melbourne. Once passions settle, a merger between Melbourne teams would work. If we merged with the Kangaroos, Bulldogs or Hawks, I wouldn't have a problem, they are all hardworking football clubs with decent cultures.
Author:  Synbad [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:57 am ]
Post subject: 
Id rather be re located (Greece only though ) than merged....
Author:  Abaddon [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:58 am ]
Post subject: 
Hawthorn & Carlton in danger?
St Kilda safe???

with 16 teams, not everyone can be in the top 4 at once...
Author:  jenx [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Some interesting thoughts there BB,

The way professional sport in a global sense is moving, I too expect some major changes in the way our game will be structured. And whether we like it or not it ultimately comes down to dollars.

As a general rule, those clubs with superior off field setup will spend more time at the top of the pile. Look at the trend over the past 5-6 years. Off field success breeds on field success. And yes, some teams may experience sustained periods of mediocrity, e.g. Scum, filth and even eagles but these clubs are able to withstand these lean periods due to membership numbers, prime time TV slots, sponsorships, nepotistic deals, conflicts of interest (oops, forgot about Collo and the Dome), diligent financial management, access to bigger markets etc etc. The blues need to work towards placing themselves in this clique and I see no reason why we can't.

A couple of my mates are Roos supporters and they have pretty much accepted the fate of their club and a relocation as opposed to a merge is their preferred scenario, as it appears to be a much better option in terms of maintaining identity. The Blues are not the Roos but it doesn't mean we should arrogantly dismiss the possibility.

The reality is Melbourne will be a 6 team town within 15 years and I pray the powers that be at CFC do the right things to ensure we are one of those 6 in our current, unmerged state.

We as a club need to ensure the building blocks are in place to give us every chance of sustained on field success. IMO, this process has already begun. Here is the evidence:

Carrazzo
Fisher
Waite
Walker
Simpson
Betts
Russell
Thornton
Hartlett
Bentick
Blackwell
Raso
O'hailpins * 2
plus 3 talented yougsters from the 2005 draft
plus 2/3 talented yougsters from the 2006 draft

That's 19/20 kids with foundations to be 10 yr players. Ok, maybe only 14-15 will make the cut, but I'll take those odds any day.

This off field success will see our membership grow to 40,000, sponsors come running, more Friday night footy etc. I just can't see the likes of the Dees, Hawks, Dogs, Roos and even tigers ever nudging 40,000 members so in this respect we are ahead of the pack.

And if the off field stuff festers and brings the club to it's knees, we could always go cap in hand to Richard Pratt and beg for a smidgeon of his billions (I think he is currently no.4 in Australias rich list) :wink:

I guess in some ways it's a bonus we're going through this shit now. If it were to happen in 10 years from now, I would really fear the worst.

Go Blues
Author:  Locke [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
It is time to realize that these are all possibilities, unless we improve our performance in a number of areas: Corporately, On-field and Members. I believe that we will be markedly improved on the field as early as next year. I trust the Pago Pago Plan. I also think that Collo and co. are foxing as well and we will miraculously return to solid trading soon. That leaves our huge support base. We must all play our parts in turning supporters into Members. With say 40,000 financial Members, we will be able to stick it up the AFL. More Corporate money will come on line. With better game performances, we will have proved we should get a better fixture. We can turn this around, if we are really as passionate as we make out sometimes. Do we have the stomach for this fight? We are the famous Old Dark Navy Blues!! We must!


Were not going too bad in terms of members. SOme clubs truggle to get to 25 000, but then I guess most of them are in the DANGER column anyway.

However generally I think you could be right. We need to imporve in a lot of areas before we are in the SAFE column. Despite what peole say about if any of the "Big 3" go the AFL will go down the toilet.

I dont reckon that is true. Ever since the competetion turned into the AFL the Big 3 have meant nothing and It wouldnt be hard to make another
club from S.A or Perth to replace them. I still dont reckon anything of what you said will happen, but you could be right, though I hope your not.

I dont recon we would ever be merged, the supoorters wouldnt allow it. A relocation I could maybe handle but not a merge. We would lose our identity and, perhaps, our winning cultures (although that has been ruined over the past few years)

P.S go you bulldogs, i picked em and there not letting me down, sorry if i ruined the game for anyone.
Author:  BrizzyBlue [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Abaddon wrote:
Hawthorn & Carlton in danger?
St Kilda safe???

with 16 teams, not everyone can be in the top 4 at once...


As usual, you don't read all the details of a post!! The AFL have made sure that the Aints will be safe, but are leaving us to our own devices. That is where the danger is. :shock:
Author:  BrizzyBlue [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
Synbad wrote:
Id rather be re located (Greece only though ) than merged....


Just might get what you secretly wish for Sailor Boy!!

The Kalamari Blues...hmmm :?
Author:  Locke [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Pago Pago, definately ain't no fool
He knows we gunna reap the pool
Don't you think Pago Pago is fading
He's getting ready for monster trading
We daren't say that Pago Pago is daft
He wants numbers 1, 3, 5 & 7 in the draft"


:lol: :lol: :lol:
By the way, great post
Author:  James Bond [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
BrizzyBlue wrote:
Abaddon wrote:
Hawthorn & Carlton in danger?
St Kilda safe???

with 16 teams, not everyone can be in the top 4 at once...


As usual, you don't read all the details of a post!! The AFL have made sure that the Aints will be safe, but are leaving us to our own devices. That is where the danger is. :shock:


Crap. Sorry but some of this sounds like over emotional dribble. Why would the AFL want to keep a team like St Kilda which has a terrible history, low supporter base and brings in weak crowds, and then try and get rid of power houses like Carlton or Richmond? Where is the proof? TheGame quite rightly said, "we make them a lot of $......
Author:  The Shag [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
where is the proof?


maybe the fact that the priority pick system was "fair' until stkilda were on top and carlton down the bottom....
Author:  Laserkid [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
Brizz, how come the Federal Government, the State Govenment and the AFL are promising the Dogs $ 10 M or more if the AFL has already pencilled them in to become the Western Sydney Bulldogs ?
Author:  Locke [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Brizz, how come the Federal Government, the State Govenment and the AFL are promising the Dogs $ 10 M or more if the AFL has already pencilled them in to become the Western Sydney Bulldogs ?


You cant argue with logic 8)
Author:  James Bond [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Locke wrote:
Quote:
Brizz, how come the Federal Government, the State Govenment and the AFL are promising the Dogs $ 10 M or more if the AFL has already pencilled them in to become the Western Sydney Bulldogs ?


You cant argue with logic 8)


Good point....by both of them
Author:  BrizzyBlue [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 6:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Laserkid wrote:
Brizz, how come the Federal Government, the State Govenment and the AFL are promising the Dogs $ 10 M or more if the AFL has already pencilled them in to become the Western Sydney Bulldogs ?


Re-read the post again!

"The AFL would really like to see The Carrara Kangaroos or the Canberra Kangaroos and no doubt the naming of Footscray as the Western Bulldogs is perfect, is it not for the western suburbs of Sydney".

That is my speculative question based on their motives and performance to date. The Bullies may well be Merged rather than Relocated. The Kangaroos might be the one Relocated to Sydney if not Merged. At this point in time there is no proof which teams will be either Merged or Relocated, however where there is smoke...

The really worrying aspect is that these bodies appear to be supporting the Doggies, but how are they supporting the Bluebaggers?
Author:  Laserkid [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Next question. How come the AFL signed off on the last Television agreement which guaranteed 16 teams? They did not have to. If they are actively trying to reduce teams, why would the AFL allow this to be part of the Agreement ?
Author:  sandramd [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
Where is the news breaking story in all this ? AFL has openely discussed for a long while reducing the Vic teams and increasing other states. All this has been in progress since the AFL conception.

Carltons history in the buckin the system is what has made us vulnerable our court appearances etc has placed the administration off side. Hence why not arguments with black Friday etc the agreement to move to the TD we have to be seen to be in complaince.
Author:  BrizzyBlue [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Laserkid wrote:
Next question. How come the AFL signed off on the last Television agreement which guaranteed 16 teams? They did not have to. If they are actively trying to reduce teams, why would the AFL allow this to be part of the Agreement ?


Simply because they needed the money to prop up struggling clubs and the current networks negotiated an agreement for particular time slots. Keep in mind that there are 3 networks covering 8 games a week x 22 weeks = 176 fixtures. It doesn't mean that the next agreement will be with 3 networks or 8 games or 22 weeks. Could be 7 x 26 for example.

The NRL start 2 weeks before the AFL and finish a week later with no break, playing 26, so why isn't it feasible that this could be part of the plan? 14 teams who play 13 rounds at home and 13 rounds away = 26)
Author:  BrizzyBlue [ Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:39 am ]
Post subject: 
I was looking back over some old threads and discovered this one from August last year. I got soundly whacked by a few posters and some even suggested that it was a load of crap. As I said at the time "Can we trust their Agenda?" Time to shake off the complacency guys. We gotta regroup and support the club to the hilt. It's up to us!! 8)
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/