Actually, no he didn’t. He did criticise the underlying principle of progressive taxation in the AFL context.
COLLINGWOOD president Eddie McGuire has pleaded with the AFL to stop draining money from the wealthy clubs to prop up those struggling teams that continue to drop behind at an alarming rate.
What’s good for football must be good for society. Stop draining money from the workers to prop up those looters and moochers that continue to drop behind at an alarming rate.
Collingwood could always go Galt and play intra-club matches against themselves all season. See how long their fans stick to them.
Socialism works for football, Sinc. It has worked for decades, to the extent that the AFL now controls the sporting landscape more than at any time.
Eddie doth protest too much. The Collingwoods of the competition are now dominating due to their extra investment into sports science and one-on-one training, which the poorer clubs can’t match. Demetriou is trying to level the playing field once again, following a long tradition since Ross Oakley of strengthening the league by blocking the formation of superclubs.
m0nty
28 Nov 12 at 11:01 am
Monty, in this instance I agree whole-heartedly with you. I was turned off the EPL in a big way in the 90s for precisely this reason.
Kruddler
28 Nov 12 at 11:16 am
Melbourne needs a Train For The Dole scheme.
Harold
28 Nov 12 at 11:47 am
“Stop draining money from the workers to prop up those looters and moochers”
This implies no overlap. That is wrong.
Jarrah
28 Nov 12 at 11:59 am
Isn’t Eddie a pro-Labor fan????
Breaking ranks eh?
Mike of Marion
28 Nov 12 at 12:02 pm
GWS Giants are the NBN.
H B Bear
28 Nov 12 at 12:14 pm
This is the crux of libertarianism. Break it down to an individual sacrificing against their will for the benefit of another individual who has no intention of helping themselves. It’s easy to see how unfair this is yet on a macro level it’s considered heartless. Sadly the progressives can’t even see the hypocrisy.
Justin
28 Nov 12 at 12:33 pm
This is the crux of libertarianism. Break it down to an individual sacrificing against their will for the benefit of another individual who has no intention of helping themselves. It’s easy to see how unfair this is yet on a macro level it’s considered heartless. Sadly the progressives can’t even see the hypocrisy.
Justin
28 Nov 12 at 12:34 pm
What is truly forgotten is true human nature is not selfish, when we see someone trying to better themselves we have no problems teaching or helping them, the same can be said for people sliding backwards on the climb, we see them and help them. It’s those that have no intention of attempting the climb that we resent.
Justin
28 Nov 12 at 12:40 pm
Fat boy
Eddie is advocating for less tax even though the idiot doesn’t realize it. I call him an idiot because he’s often said he supports labor.
Secondly the VFL is not an example of socialism because it competes with other sporting codes you fat fool. Collingwood is also quite free t leave anytime it chose and set up shop. I can’t for instance refuse to pay tax t support moocherville without the threat of a jail sentence.
Fat boy , lay off the donuts as its stopping you think even at the basic level.
JC
28 Nov 12 at 12:45 pm
I think the salary cap and other restrictions in the AFL are a travesty. They’ve not really done much to level the playing field either, as the best run and funded clubs still win most of the premierships. There are too many teams in the competition now, especially in Melbourne, but try getting a Victorian to give theirs up (with the notable exception of South Melbourne of course).
tbh
28 Nov 12 at 1:00 pm
And Fitzroy.
tbh
28 Nov 12 at 1:00 pm
Amongst the vast number of topics you look like a fool discussing, JC, sport is the one that makes you look most foolish.
m0nty
28 Nov 12 at 1:02 pm
“Socialism works for football, Sinc.”
How does removing the incentive to become the best in sport “work” Monty? Maybe you missed the memo, but sport is supposed to be about finding out who the best group of humans are at a particular activity.
Limits to drafting, salary caps, and just simple redistribution are all aimed to ensure that the best team of people is never able to be assembled.
Sounds like you want to watch a competition full of close matches between utterly mediocre teams. I’d rather see a genuine battle both on and off the field, and see exactly what humans can do as a team.
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 1:04 pm
“Secondly the VFL is not an example of socialism because it competes with other sporting codes you fat fool”
Que?? Can someone please pass a clue to JC…
Firstly, its the AFL we are all discussing here – VFL is the state-based seconds competition in Victoria.
Secondly, the AFL are taking revenue from rich clubs and redistributing it to poorer ones, which may not be the textbook definition of socialism, but it is certainly a policy socialists would be in favour of.
Care to explain exactly how the existence of other sporting codes somehow nullifies the AFL redistribution policy JC?
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 1:11 pm
“The Collingwoods of the competition are now dominating due to their extra investment into sports science and one-on-one training, which the poorer clubs can’t match.”
So monty, you are complaining that sport is producing winners and losers?
Secondly, poorer clubs can run their administration better, seek out better sponsorship deals, provide more for members etc – what Collingwood et al have done isn’t magic – they simply have a better business strategy.
You also failed to notice that StKilda is one of the recipients of this redistribution – that is, the team that have been contesting finals and grand finals for several years now, and are considered probably the most talented side in the competition right now.
So poorer clubs can match performances. Not all do, but 99.9% of players don’t win brownlow medals either…
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 1:19 pm
“Maybe you missed the memo, but sport is supposed to be about finding out who the best group of humans are at a particular activity.”
I disagree. Sport is about fun. Competition is fun when it’s not too one-sided, for both participants and observers.
That’s why sport is a fundamentally different beast to the market for goods, for example.
“I’d rather see a genuine battle”
You mean like the EPL, where out of 45 teams only 5 have ever won, with just one of those winning 60% of the time?
Jarrah
28 Nov 12 at 1:22 pm
It’s why we’ll never see a truly great football team. They’ve all been hobbled.
Infidel Tiger
28 Nov 12 at 1:25 pm
Jarrah, at the lower levels I agree that sport is about fun. In the professional ranks it’s about winning, as it is in any other business.
tbh
28 Nov 12 at 1:28 pm
“In the professional ranks it’s about winning, as it is in any other business.”
Spectator sports are about providing a spectacle. Winning is part of that, but if there’s no actual competing – a genuine battle – then there is no spectacle.
Jarrah
28 Nov 12 at 1:32 pm
I agree wholeheartedly.
Eddystone
28 Nov 12 at 1:33 pm
And yet the EPL is the most watched sporting comp on the planet.
Infidel Tiger
28 Nov 12 at 1:42 pm
There is some truth to that, but if you ask most fans deep down they will admit that winning beats losing any day. Perennial loser teams lose fans. People vote with the feet and their wallets.
To bring it back around to the original topic, you can try to artificially tip the balance in favour of the weaker teams, but the better teams will always work out a way around it and get better. A bit like progressive taxation really. Rich people have armies of smart people working for them helping them exploit every loophole. And why wouldn’t they?
tbh
28 Nov 12 at 2:00 pm
“I disagree. Sport is about fun”
So you’ve never been an elite athlete then Jarrah.
For you AFL is about having a kick in the park, for an elite athlete its extremely hard work. Winning premierships must be satisfying, but the training and sacrifices involved does not make it a “fun” career.
“You mean like the EPL, where out of 45 teams only 5 have ever won”
As a fan of sporting excellence, yes, absolutely I would prefer to see the best athletes on the planet teamed up rather than hobbling excellence (though I think soccer is boring as a spectator sport…).
The fact that EPL is watched all over the world, and one player can get paid more than an entire AFL team can shows its hardly a competition in decline.
Let me put it another way – would you be OK with Usain Bolt having a few tenths added to his 100m time, because it produces a closer race?
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 2:10 pm
“So you’ve never been an elite athlete then Jarrah.”
You think the AFL is just about the players? I’ve got news for ya, buddy.
“Let me put it another way – would you be OK with Usain Bolt having a few tenths added to his 100m time, because it produces a closer race?”
Team sports are different to individual sports. An individual’s dominance is inherently temporary, whereas a team can build on the success of an original group and accrue money and talent over years in a snowball effect.
Jarrah
28 Nov 12 at 2:42 pm
“you can try to artificially tip the balance in favour of the weaker teams, but the better teams will always work out a way around it and get better.”
That’s not what the historical record shows us. Teams are weaker or better for specific reasons – talent and money.
Keeping in mind the statistics about the EPL, let’s look at the AFL in the same timeframe. Out of 18 teams, there have been 11 grand final winners, and no team won more than three times. Quite the contrast, no?
Jarrah
28 Nov 12 at 2:52 pm
And three teams achieved the triple.
Jarrah
28 Nov 12 at 2:52 pm
The only way the AFL can get away with it is because the sport is Australian and only played here. My main sports are rugby union and cricket, where there is significant international competition. No national team (all of which are fully pro at the top level) has any restrictions on it and the level below in the club competitions are similar. French and English clubs will gladly take rugby players from Australia, New Zealand or South Africa who feel like they aren’t getting a good deal and that their associations (the unions in this case) are restricting them from making the money they feel they are worth. It’s the same with the IPL in cricket.
Jarrah…
So is penalising a club’s ability to make themselves better an acceptable policy? To the classical liberal in me it’s most certainly not. However, like a lot of things in life, there are plenty of people out there who think it’s somehow “fairer” to do it.
tbh
28 Nov 12 at 2:56 pm
I bet Eddy is not opposed to player salary caps though.
AJ
28 Nov 12 at 2:57 pm
And yet, if you look at the before and after with the AFL/VFL, not a lot has changed in terms of who wins flags. The strugglers still struggle, like the Dogs, Saints and Demons. None of them have won a flag since the 1950′s or 60′s. The power clubs have still been successful since the AFL’s incorporation in 1990.
tbh
28 Nov 12 at 3:01 pm
m0nty
28 Nov 12 at 11:01 am
I’ve heard everything now…
Socialism ‘works’ for a competition between individuals(?)
I’ve heard everything now…
‘Sport’ is what you play yourself, everything else is ‘entertainment’…
In my opinion the ARL was totally corrupted by the mid ’70′s, we all know about cricket and cycling, I can’t vouch for the AFL…
Forester
28 Nov 12 at 3:11 pm
Collingwood would hate the salary cap. They could blow all but a few of the other clubs away without one.
Infidel Tiger
28 Nov 12 at 3:13 pm
I would file this in the “long bow” category.
Sean M
28 Nov 12 at 3:14 pm
“So is penalising a club’s ability to make themselves better an acceptable policy?”
It depends what we want out of the competition. If we’re just on a quest to find and combine the best sportspeople, then a free market works best. If we want genuine battles, enjoyable and unpredictable competition, many rather than few enjoying wins (including fans), then forms of redistribution are needed. Fairness has nothing to do with it.
Jarrah
28 Nov 12 at 3:27 pm
Sean M, It’s not a long bow, its rank hypocracy. Its recognising the problem with wealth distribution on a micro level (individual) but failing to recognise those EXACT same problems at a Macro (society) level.
Justin
28 Nov 12 at 3:29 pm
Agreed. My view is that we want to see the sport played in the best possible manner by the best athletes. Others clearly disagree and hold sway with the governing body.
tbh
28 Nov 12 at 3:33 pm
“You think the AFL is just about the players? I’ve got news for ya, buddy.”
As an ex-athlete I got news for you Jarrah. Sport IS about the athletes. Try holding a 3 hour event at the MCG with no players and see how many tickets you sell. Then try and hold a football match without a crowd – you will still get athletes turn up just for the challenge.
Or if you just want an artificial contrived result watch World Wrestling Entertainment.
“Team sports are different to individual sports. An individual’s dominance is inherently temporary, whereas a team can build on the success of an original group”
Now you are just making yourself sound silly. So is Chris Judd a fantastic player just temporarily, or did he build on his previous knowledge and performance?
The difference between team and individual sports is only in your mind Jarrah – robbing an individual of their rightful performance has exactly the same effect as robbing a team of theirs.
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 3:48 pm
“Keeping in mind the statistics about the EPL, let’s look at the AFL in the same timeframe. Out of 18 teams, there have been 11 grand final winners, and no team won more than three times. Quite the contrast, no?”
And the EPL provided higher quality champions, and received more money in a year than AFL could dream of in a decade.
Quite the contrast indeed Jarrah…
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 3:50 pm
“I bet Eddy is not opposed to player salary caps though”
Pretty sure he’s on record before he was president of a club saying he’s against them. A rich club like Collingwood would benefit from having caps taken away due to their financial clout and tradition/profile.
However, he is pretty vocal that if there has to be caps then everyone should have the same, unlike the case with Sydney, GWS, Gold Coast and previously the Brisbane Lions.
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 3:55 pm
Fat boy,
You ought to be the last person criticism anyone about discussing sport, champ… We don’t need a crane and forklift to get us out of the house.
Furthermore I’m smoky explaining to you that your analogy- describing footy as socialist is boneheaded carbage.
Is say a CEO of a subsidiary asking for general salary increases at his firm and the CEO of the holding company telling him to fuck off practicing socialism?
No.
The clubs are basically subsidiaries of a holding company.
More than that the clubs are ale to leave the comp any time too. You fat boy could start our own comp too. No one is stopping you. Call the FFL… As in the Fatties Football League.
JC
28 Nov 12 at 3:56 pm
Careful, ugh, Jazzabelle will keep you here all afternoon doing what he loves best – quibbling about trivia, trying on a subterfuge, obfuscating his obscurantism, all with communist commitment.
Tom
28 Nov 12 at 3:57 pm
Fat boy,
You ought to be the last person criticism anyone about discussing sport, champ… We don’t need a crane and forklift to get you out of the house.
Furthermore I’m explaining to you that your analogy- describing footy as socialist is boneheaded carbage.
Is say a CEO of a subsidiary asking for general salary increases at his firm and the CEO of the holding company telling him to fuck off practicing socialism?
No.
The clubs are basically subsidiaries of a holding company.
More than that the clubs are able to leave the comp any time too. You fat boy could start our own comp too. No one is stopping you. Call it the FFL… As in the Fatties Football League.
JC
28 Nov 12 at 3:58 pm
I’m an Olympic class athlete too UGH. Possibly one of the best I the field.
Well like it or not that’s pretty much what the AFL is these days. It’s not a criticism as much as it is an observation. The clubs, because of their commitments to the AFL, are restricted in what the can do in all sorts is now basically a managed carnival.
That’s essentially what it is. People seem to like it I think.
JC
28 Nov 12 at 4:04 pm
“It depends what we want out of the competition. ”
What do you mean “we” Jarrah?
Do you work for the AFL? One of the clubs? Play yourself?
If the answer is no, then it isn’t *your* game, any more than Star Wars is *your* movie because you bought a ticket. You are a bum on a seat to the AFL, nothing more.
The game belongs to the players and the clubs, without them there is no game. The entire point of the game is to find the best team, in case you missed it…
Otherwise why not just give everyone encouragement awards and stop people from counting score…
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 4:04 pm
Fuckng IPAD. Next fuck up and it’s out the window.
JC
28 Nov 12 at 4:06 pm
“I’m an Olympic class athlete too UGH. Possibly one of the best I the field.”
So you’d be happy if you were deliberately disadvantaged at the olympics to make the events closer and more entertaining?
“Well like it or not that’s pretty much what the AFL is these days.”
I would obviously be in the “not” category there
I don’t deny that is what AFL is these days, the marketers and advertisers have essentially bought the game.
“People seem to like it I think.”
Lots of people don’t too. Talk to long term fans, its hard to get a glowing opinion of the game as it is today. But sport isn’t a democracy, the AFL are within their rights to change the game however they want – but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it…
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 4:15 pm
Winners and losers in a single game, fine. When you see a game like Man U v QPR where QPR has won only once (in 1992) at Old Trafford in 20 tries, you can see that when only one side has a meaningful chance of winning, it’s not really a contest.
Collingwood has been mismanaged across decades. McGuire is much better, but even he has massive failures, like that hotels fiasco. They have been saved by the ongoing strength of their supporter base, which is reinforced by highly favourable fixturing – enabled by other clubs, admittedly.
St Kilda missed the finals this year and just lost their best player to Essendon, a traditional Top Four club. ugh, you seem to know very little about football.
m0nty
28 Nov 12 at 4:20 pm
LOL, no ugh. The game belongs to everyone.
The objective of the AFL is not to amass the best man at every position in one superteam which will win every game it plays. That would be boring. Unless they were playing for Hawthorn, of course.
m0nty
28 Nov 12 at 4:24 pm
Nick Reiwoldt has gone to Essendon?
Now THAT would make the AFL interesting..
Brian of Moorabbin
28 Nov 12 at 4:25 pm
You guys are missing the obvious here. If a factory makes cars and discovers a way to make more cars quicker and cheaper then that is an efficiency gain which benefits the customers as well as the factory.
However a football club is not a factory, so if it discovers a new technique to quickly and easily win games that is not an efficiency gain for the customers. What is actually being produced is ENTERTAINMENT — that is the product, and the customers are the spectators watching the game. No one wants to see a whitewash, they want to see a close game with unexpected results.
Also, any player can voluntarily leave the club, and any club can voluntarily leave the league… so they don’t have a gun to their head.
Tel
28 Nov 12 at 4:26 pm
m0nty, I’ve mocked you a fair bit over the last couple of days, but on this particular one I can honestly say that I agree with you 100%.
Brian of Moorabbin
28 Nov 12 at 4:29 pm
“St Kilda missed the finals this year and just lost their best player to Essendon, a traditional Top Four club. ugh, you seem to know very little about football.”
1 – St Kilda played in the GRAND FINAL in 2009 and (twice) in 2010. They have been in the hunt for an illusive premiership for several years now, but Geelong have always had a slight edge during that period.
So my point that “poorer clubs can match performances” is correct yes?
2 – Nick Riewoldt was traded to Essendon?!? – when did this happen monty?
Who’s the ignorant one about football again monty?
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 4:29 pm
Riewoldt has always been overrated, Brian.
Now if you’d said Lenny, then we could have an argument…
m0nty
28 Nov 12 at 4:29 pm
I’m all for amateur sport with small crowds and no big money involved. However, for whatever reason a lot of people want to spend their ticket money watching a big event, and while ever there are people want to put the money down, someone will think of a way to give those people what they want.
Everything else in professional sport is an extension of those ticket sales.
Tel
28 Nov 12 at 4:29 pm
If the AFL is socialist, then it is of the 1924 Stalinist variety, football in one country.
Jannie
28 Nov 12 at 4:31 pm
I don’t necessarily agree about Reiwoldt being over-rated. I wouldn’t mind adding him to the Hawthorn forward line to allow Roughead to play a more on-the-ball role.
As to Lenny Hayes, I’d rather admit that Gillard is a competant PM before I’d agree to Hayes being anything more than a top-player’s bootlace so no argument from me on that one.
Brian of Moorabbin
28 Nov 12 at 4:33 pm
HAHAHAHA!!!!
You really are quite idiotic, aren’t you?
I suppose you’ll trot out the moronic line “Well they play 14 games a year at the MCG”
What? you expect the AFL to schedule them to play at Etihad Stadium (which holds 50,000 ppl max) when they continually draw 60,000+????
IDIOT!!!!
Maws
28 Nov 12 at 4:33 pm
“LOL, no ugh. The game belongs to everyone. ”
Aww – monty is sucked in by the AFL marketing spin into thinking the game belongs to him – isn’t that cute?
Ask yourself this – if you stopped all participation in AFL what would happen to the game? Would anyone notice?
Now what if the players stopped all participation?
See the difference?
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 4:33 pm
Yes ugh, and the Bulldogs had a good run for a number of years, plus Port won the premiership not too long ago despite always being a financial basket case.
This is creditable to the socialism of the AFL draft system. Even the poorest clubs can get multiple early first round draft picks (St Kilda/Dogs), protected father/son picks (Geelong) and zone selections (Port) without having their best players bought by the Collingwoods of the comp.
Nevertheless, player development is the key to the game since the extra money started flowing from the previous broadcast rights deal. Even clubs with access to multiple #1 draft picks like Melbourne can stuff them up because they don’t have the budget to devote to intensive training with the latest in flotation tanks, ice baths, altitude chambers, treadmills with inbuilt breathing apparatus, biomechanic modification using mocap… all the toys that the big clubs use now to maximise performance.
That is what Eddie’s complaining about, that Demetriou wants to limit football department spend to rein in the new advantage that the big clubs have gained.
m0nty
28 Nov 12 at 4:44 pm
LOL yes actually, since I run an AFL liveblog which gets 250,000 unique users on a weekend!
m0nty
28 Nov 12 at 4:54 pm
“I’m all for amateur sport with small crowds and no big money involved. However, for whatever reason a lot of people want to spend their ticket money watching a big event”
My point was that the players in the game ARE the event.
I wasn’t suggesting that the AFL should get rid of crowds, merely highlighting that AFL would continue (in a lower-paying form) without crowds, but the MCG on a Saturday afternoon would be empty without football.
So both are important for modern football, but players and clubs are indispensable if you want to hold a footy match
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 4:55 pm
Shut up monster. Just shut up.
JC
28 Nov 12 at 4:55 pm
The current players are quite welcome to strike, ugh, but there will be plenty of others to take their place, and the league would go on. Students of football history learn time and time again that the club is bigger than the player, and the league is bigger than them all.
m0nty
28 Nov 12 at 4:57 pm
This is the supply side / demand argument. Both are equally important.
JC
28 Nov 12 at 5:00 pm
“since I run an AFL liveblog which gets 250,000 unique users on a weekend!”
So you think that that AFL games would stop playing if you stopped your blog? Demetriou himself would call begging you to start it up again for the good of the game?
You, like the rest of us, are spectators, nothing more monty.
PS if you are such an AFL guru how come you rate Goddard over Riewoldt as the Saints best player? Rielwoldt is over-rated, but he’s still light years ahead of a plodder like Goddard.
Also, how come you thought missing the finals 1 year meant the saints couldn’t compete with the rich clubs? Or were you just distorting statistics to suit your argument, hoping that no one would call you out on an economic blog?
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 5:05 pm
Obviously that didn’t all to cricket, right?
JC
28 Nov 12 at 5:07 pm
Apply
JC
28 Nov 12 at 5:08 pm
“This is the supply side / demand argument. Both are equally important”
No it isn’t. AFL is a sport. To have a game you must have athletes. The sport of Australian Rules Football can continue without spectators.
If you want to make money from that sport you need spectators/sponsors. Take away the game, and there are no spectators by definition as there’s nothing to watch!
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 5:09 pm
“The current players are quite welcome to strike, ugh, but there will be plenty of others to take their place”
Huh? I’m saying that players are indispensable in a sporting contest. Not something controversial (unless you are a deluded spectator who thinks the game belongs to them because they have been a spectator for some years).
If you replace the individuals playing for clubs now then you STILL have players monty – take the players out of the game and there isn’t one by definition.
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 5:14 pm
It’s a stupid argument, ugh. It’s a symbiotic relationship, supply and demand. Going Galt is not realistic, it’s fiction.
Goddard nearly won one grand final on his own. Riewoldt hasn’t stood up in finals. That’s the mark of a great player.
You said St Kilda “are considered probably the most talented side in the competition right now”. This is patently false, as evidenced by their ladder position. That is what I was reacting to. People get called out for loose statements like that on this blog, ugh. Get used to it.
m0nty
28 Nov 12 at 5:15 pm
“Yes ugh, and the Bulldogs had a good run for a number of years, plus Port won the premiership not too long ago despite always being a financial basket case”
Thank you for proving my point monty – “poorer” teams CAN win without taking money from the richer teams, as I said.
“because they don’t have the budget to devote to intensive training with the latest in flotation tanks, ice baths, treadmills with inbuilt breathing apparatus, ”
1 – a floatation tank is simply two oversized baths joined and filled with extremely salty water (I used to train in one) they cost next to nothing for even the poorest teams, and would be of dubious value for footballers – they are used as meditation devices.
2- Ice baths – you mean a big bath containing ice and water? Yeah monty, Melbourne cant afford those *slaps forehead*
3 – hyperbaric chambers (what altitude chambers are actually called) are generally owned by hospitals, and are paid for by the clubs like any other patient. Melbourne players have had this treatment in the past, so they obviously can afford it.
4 -treadmills with a VO2 system (what the “breathing apparatus” is actually called) are cheap as chips – most decent gyms have them these days, let alone football teams.
With *that* level of football knowledge you accused me of knowing nothing about football? Seriously?
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 5:25 pm
You obviously haven’t seen the stuff the top clubs use these days, ugh. Far more advanced than what you describe. If you’d been watching AFL Insider you might have learned something.
m0nty
28 Nov 12 at 5:32 pm
“It’s a symbiotic relationship, supply and demand.”
How many goals did spectators score in the last game you watched monty?
Again – it is possible to have a game of australian rules football without spectators. It is NOT possible to spectate if there are no players creating a spectacle!
“Goddard nearly won one grand final on his own. Riewoldt hasn’t stood up in finals. That’s the mark of a great player.”
So Goddard did better in one game, that makes him better than Riewoldt? I’d advise against a job in recruiting…
“You said St Kilda “are considered probably the most talented side in the competition right now”. This is patently false,”
There’s an obvious difference between talent and achievement monty. With all the high draft picks GWS and Gold Coast are also likely to be teams rich in talent, but poor on achievement for obvious reasons.
When Michael Jordan did his knee he was still a talented player, but he didn’t win any games while he was recovering.
“People get called out for loose statements like that on this blog, ugh. Get used to it.”
Well you’d be the expert on getting called out monty…
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 5:36 pm
“You obviously haven’t seen the stuff the top clubs use these days, ugh. Far more advanced than what you describe”
I was reacting to the “evidence” you provided monty – you get called out for loose statements here don’t we?
Those examples actually undermined your point, and are really simplistic for someone who claims 250,000 people read his work…
“If you’d been watching AFL Insider you might have learned something.”
If you watch I suggest you pay more attention if you think “ice baths” are the best evidence of an advantage held only by rich clubs…
ugh
28 Nov 12 at 5:44 pm
If the game belongs to everyone, will anyone make me an offer for my share?
DrBeauGan
28 Nov 12 at 5:50 pm
DrBeauGan
Sorry, I’m skint after having to pay close to $50 for family admission, and then another $50 for 4 buckets of chips and 4 cokes last time I went to the AFL…
The ‘People’s Game’ isn’t as value for money as it used to be (like when you used to be able to get 3 matchs – U19s, Reserves, AND Seniors for a single admission price).
And the less said about the price-gouging by the food vendors who are a protected species (thanks to over-zealous Nazi-trained gate officials conducting bag searches for ‘unauthorised food and drinks’ being brought in by the average punter) the better…
Brian of Moorabbin
28 Nov 12 at 6:02 pm
Professional sports leagues are single multi-division firm that sells an uncertain sporting outcome to spectators. One-sided and predictable results are boring.
Each club is a division or franchisee of head office. From time to time, head office intervenes to ensure one division of the company doe not get to far ahead. the eaker divisions get free player drafts and other boosts.
Jim Rose
28 Nov 12 at 6:39 pm
Eddie is a Labor man. His brother is the MP for Broadmeadows in the Victorian Legislative Assembly. I am surprised he is against football socialism but for real life socialism in his strong support for Labor.
Andrew
28 Nov 12 at 6:42 pm
“As an ex-athlete I got news for you Jarrah. Sport IS about the athletes. Try holding a 3 hour event at the MCG with no players and see how many tickets you sell.”
LOL. You make my point for me, and don’t even realise it. Did I say it was just about the fans, like your examples would have it? No.
Quite obviously, those who get enjoyment out of sport are the people playing – on the order of two to several dozen in any particular match – and the fans, which could be zero or millions, depending.
“Now you are just making yourself sound silly.”
No, it’s a crucial difference you don’t seem to have grasped fully.
“And the EPL provided higher quality champions, and received more money in a year than AFL could dream of in a decade.”
Yes, being a competition in the world’s most popular sport instead of one played in just one small country has nothing to do with that. LOL
Jarrah
28 Nov 12 at 6:47 pm
Well yea and you could have a kick to kick game in the back yard going too. That’s not the point though is it?
For the circus to have the current level of talent playing (and that’s really what it is) then the supply of players is directly determined by the revenue/income side, otherwise the real talent would migrate to other codes etc.
Yep and take away the spectators and you wouldn’t have this standard of football.
JC
28 Nov 12 at 6:52 pm
Fatboy, stay out of this discussion as you will only lower the tone and the IQ input. You know you’re no good at this economics stuff. Get out of here.
JC
28 Nov 12 at 6:53 pm
“What do you mean “we” Jarrah?”
The people who play and watch. Who else?
“The entire point of the game is to find the best team, in case you missed it…”
Again you show your narrow view. Any particular match is about winning, but the point of having a sport at all is about having something fun to do and watch.
Think about it (if too many concussions have left you the ability). If it was just about winning, why do we have equal team sizes? Why not double the size of one team so they can crush the opposition? Because that would destroy the objective of the activity, which is to have an actual competition, something pointed out to you repeatedly by many people on this thread.
Jarrah
28 Nov 12 at 6:55 pm
Ugh
The point I’m making is that without the specs you wouldn’t have AFL and by AFL I mean the current standard of fotty in one group of clubs.
JC
28 Nov 12 at 6:55 pm
He’s basically a meathead. Of course he’s labor.
JC
28 Nov 12 at 6:57 pm
Red Army operational doctrine: Reinforce success, not failure.
Eyrie
28 Nov 12 at 7:39 pm
“Any particular match is about winning, but the point of having a sport at all is about having something fun to do and watch.”
Maybe to you Jarrah, but as I said earlier, you are a bum on a seat – you don’t have a stake in the game any more than you have a stake in U2 (or ) because you went to one of their concerts.
Talk to a real athlete and tell them their lifes work, sacrifice and passion is “just a bit of fun” and see how they react.
“Think about it (if too many concussions have left you the ability).”
Talk about playing the man and not the ball!
For the record I have never been concussed.
“If it was just about winning, why do we have equal team sizes?”
You expect an answer to such a dumb question? You might as well ask why marathon runners aren’t allowed to shoot competitors in front of them.
Sure you haven’t had 1 too many concussions yourself?
ugh
29 Nov 12 at 5:30 pm
“The point I’m making is that without the specs you wouldn’t have AFL and by AFL I mean the current standard of fotty in one group of clubs.”
Totally agree JC, but don’t forget that 30-40 years ago players were amateur, and VFL (as it was known then) had been around for decades. There were plenty of games played, even though the wages were barely petrol money.
More bums on seats these days means more money for the business side of things – advertising, salaries, pretty much everything really – no argument there.
My original point was that sport itself doesn’t need spectators to be a sport, but it DOES need athletes/competitors. Count the number of spectators at a rifle shooting competition, there’s maybe a handful at best, but that’s still a sport, and there’s still plenty of people that compete in it.
Fact remains, a person cannot be a spectator without a spectacle, and the athletes in AFL are the spectacle. One is compulsory if something is to be called a sport, one is not.
ugh
29 Nov 12 at 5:41 pm
“Well yea and you could have a kick to kick game in the back yard going too. That’s not the point though is it?”
Its entirely the point JC.
Would AFL have as high a profile and attract as many athletes as it does currently without all the advertising cash and spectators? No, the business side of AFL would definitely be different.
Would the sport of Australian Rules Football continue to be played? Yes.
Look at all the people playing for amateur clubs. 95% know they have no chance to make it in any “AFL” club. But they train and play week in week out, paying for their own uniforms and in front of a crowd of mostly friends and relatives – they play for the love of the sport.
ugh
29 Nov 12 at 5:53 pm
“For the circus to have the current level of talent playing (and that’s really what it is) then the supply of players is directly determined by the revenue/income side, otherwise the real talent would migrate to other codes etc.”
Absolutely!
So, going back to the article, restricting the amount that clubs can pay players via a salary cap restricts the talent pool that will choose to play AFL.
Hence my original point – that the game would see a higher standard of team performance without a salary cap (but performance levels would not be as evenly distributed).
The better teams would obviously play at a higher standard than they do today without a salary cap. If sufficient extra talent was attracted to the game as a whole, the weaker teams may even conceivably play at a higher standard than today (though the gap to the top teams would almost certainly increase).
ugh
29 Nov 12 at 8:01 pm
Perhaps, perhaps not. We can’t really say it would unless we know the relative rates other codes are offering. The AFL could actually be higher. It’s similar but not identical to having a regulated labor market where the pay rates are determined by the a government agency. You could have labor rates set at a rate below market thereby clearing potential excess labor… you could in other words experience full employment.
Perhaps there would be, however I’m not sure that what the audience wants. They may not want a couple of teams dominating each year. Maybe it would be fine.. I really dunno. However the AFL shouldn’t be considered a sport like any other. In most ways it’s now organized like Formula 1 as basically a carnival or circus type thing. It’s not my bag but obviously the audience likes it.
Yea, could be true.
Look eventually the AFL reign will likely break like it did with cricket, but it could take a while. It could even die off as people tire of the circus type of arrangement.
JC
29 Nov 12 at 8:10 pm