By Bruce Walkley
February 18th 2009 @ 1:54am
Related coverage
The double booking of the Telstra Dome is a joke
The shemozzle over the apparent double booking of Telstra Dome on February 28 raises a seriously worrying question: doesn’t anyone in the stadium’s management team have a diary?
Or did the prospect of two sellout games being played at the same time, with the attendant whopping boost to their coffers, blind them to the reality that you can’t really have four teams on the field playing two different games?
They could, of course, have their cake and eat it – play the AFL practice game early in the afternoon, clear the crowd out after it finished at, say, 4pm, then mark out the soccer pitch and put up the goals ready for the second sitting as the fans arrived, much as they change the tablecloths and cutlery at busy restaurants.
Just kidding, folks.
But seriously, somewhere there must be a piece of paper, or an entry on a computer, that will tell the world – or a law court, if it comes to that, which it could – who made the booking first.
If it was FFA, the AFL could play at Wangaratta or Shepparton and give the takings to the bushfire appeal. If the AFL made the first booking, the Victory could go to Olympic Park – the NRL season fortuitously doesn’t start until March 13, so they wouldn’t be likely to kick up much of a storm.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, so to speak, I’ve been dealing with a lot of similar questions to which the answer is two into one won’t go – selecting my second AFL Dream Team for the coming season.
And believe me, choosing one team from the twelve clubs that finished between fifth and sixteenth is a whole lot tougher than picking one from the top four, especially when part of the brief is to look for young players expected to improve as the season goes on and select them ahead of the oldies where possible.
Those last two words, “where possible”, have a big meaning.
There are some cases where older players demand to be picked because they’re clearly the best at their job, and the team would suffer considerably from their omission, while some others’ absence wouldn’t have quite the same impact.
That’s why you’ll find, for instance, Simon Black, Dean Cox and Jonathan Brown in my team, but not Andrew McLeod, Adam Goodes and Ben Cousins.
I think McLeod and Goodes might both end up wishing they hadn’t played that “one more” year, and while I think Cousins at his top would walk into the team, he has been away for so long that I’d like to wait and see before pitching him in at this level.
Of course, you can’t pick any team like this without incurring a lot of people’s disagreement and displeasure.
For instance, there will be a lot of argument about my choice of four Adelaide defenders among the back six. My answer is that last season the Crows had the equal third-best defensive record, with Sydney, averaging 85 points a game against. Only premiers Hawthorn (83) and runners-up Geelong (75) did better.
Here’s my AFL Dream Team from ‘the rest’ to compare with last week’s from the top four.
B: Graham Johncock (Ad), Ben Rutten (Ad), Paul Bevan (Syd)
HB: Kane Cornes (PA), Nathan Bock (Ad), Nathan van Berlo (Ad)
C: Mark McVeigh (Ess), Chris Judd (Carl), Matthew Richardson (Rich)
HF: Brent Harvey (NM), Jonathan Brown (Bris), Dane Swan (Coll)
F: Nathan Brown (Rich), Brendan Fevola (Carl), Ryan O’Keefe (Syd)
Foll: Dean Cox (WC), Brett Kirk (Syd), Simon Black (Bris)
Int: Aaron Sandilands (Fre), Kieren Jack (Syd), Jared Brennan (Bris), Adam McPhee (Ess)
Emerg: Jason Porplyzia (Ad), Danyle Pearce (PA), Scott Pendlebury (Coll), Austin Wonaeamirri (Mel)
Don’t forget to get your own entries in for the AFL Dream Team competition. It’s a lot of fun and there are some great prizes to be won.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(55)
Dave said | February 18th 2009 @ 5:49am | Report comment
It appears the FFA had a clause in their agreement that their booking for the GF would receive precedence over any other.
Remember we are talking pre season game vs GF…no comparison really (or maybe the Socceroos should start looking for pre WC friendlies at the MCG last Sat in September?) and it appears the AFL were willing to move until pressured by Ch 10 to play the game Sat 28th at TD. So up yours Ch 10…even there own TV News presenter Steve Q said on air commonsense had prevailed with the final decision.
Redb said | February 18th 2009 @ 7:05am | Report comment
The AFL has agreed to play the NAB Cup game on the Thursday night so all resolved. They will still get a good crowd as this is Ben Cousins comeback game and Richmond and Collingwood have mass support.
Redb
Millster said | February 18th 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
I have to say that for once I line up with the AFL guys even though its my less-favoured code between the two. I agree with Bruce that this is a shemozzle, and I tip my hat to the AFL for having been acommodating in a situation where to a significant extent they have more ‘moral rights’ over the ground than does the FFA.
I am also glad that a bit was made of this issue as, hopefully, the few days of tension and negotiation will make for a marker in various memories so that this joke of a situation doesn’t happen again.
Selfishly I was hpoing that the AFL fixture would be put after, not before, the HAL grand final so as to have minimal impact on the playing surface. So my one last remaining fear is that the 1.5 days in between may not be enough to ensure a worthy surface.
But all that aside thank god for the resolution of this issue and thank god for an AFL which in this instance has shown itself to be mature rather than churlish.
PS: I’m surprised that Bruce’s suggestion that the AFL fixture be switched to a bushfire area was not taken up. Wangaratta, Shepparton, even Bendigo perhaps, would have been interesting and topical places to play the game and would have earned the AFL a lot of goodwill.
Tom said | February 18th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
How does the AFL have ‘moral rights’, Millster? They’ve systematically stripped Melbourne of all AFL venues apart from Telstra Dome and the MCG. If they want to play a practice game at a particular time then they might find occasionally it clashes with more significant events in other sports that use those two venues.
I’m a big AFL fan, but the NAB cup is not a serious competition, and no one should even contemplate moving other events to accommodate it.
Millster said | February 18th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Tom I was trying to find an olive branch that recognises the prior fixturing that the AFL had, and their general primacy in the TD’s very existence. Of course I agree a NAB Cup fixture is intrinsically chicken-feed compared to a HAL GF. Nevertheless I am trying to recognise the AFL’s accomodation of this situation without its getting really ugly. On that note I don’t like some of the headlines that talks about FFA ‘winning a war’ and suchlike. None of this by the way takes away from my scorn at the administration of the ground who should have pre-empted all this ages ago.
Pippinu said | February 18th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
I understood what you were saying Millster.
Apparently, if the AFL had wanted to take it to the courts, they would have won (but it would have been a PR disaster, even in Melbourne, even amongst AFL fans).
But putting all that aside – this was not a battle between the AFL and FFA (primarily), it was about the AFL getting stuck into the Dome managemet, with which it has a major beef on a number of issues at the moment.
There was never any doubt that the A-League grand final would take precedence – I said as much weeks ago.
Millster said | February 18th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
And of course in 5 or 10 years time when a regular season Sydney FC V Melbourne Victory is booked into the MCG with 110000 tickets sold on the last Saturday in September and the MCG trust go ‘oh shit there’s the little old AFL Grand final that we forgot about’ I hope that FFA return the favour…
Pippinu said | February 18th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
That last day in September is booked in perpetuity!!
Redb said | February 18th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
dream on Millster.
Most AFL fans treat the NAB Cup as a warmup to the real season. In saying that, the Rich V Coll game will get a good crowd with the added spice of Cousins return. Also sme of the young players in these teams are turning heads and their supporters like to get an early glimpse.
Pip, Richmond may even finish 8th with that list.
Redb
Simmo said | February 18th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
It looks like both the FFA and AFL had provisional (unconfirmed) bookings for the same day so it was simply a matter of which one was going to confirm their booking first.
No great legal controversy to it.
Pippinu said | February 18th 2009 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Simmo
there was no legal controversy to it because the AFL didn’t push it – but if they had, I mean taken it all the way to the courts, they would have got the decision (but as I said – it was’t worth doing it).
This is what the Herald-Sun report:
“It is believed the AFL had legal advice that its rights to Telstra Dome on February 28 would have held sway against Football Federation Australia had the matter gone to court. “
Michael C said | February 18th 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Millster -
re the ground surface – - there’s a NAB cup game there on the Friday and the Sunday (that’s why the game had to get switched to a Thursday).
So – - don’t concern yourself how the surfacer recovers 1.5 days later, however about over night after 2 games of Aust Footy in 2 days.
of course, we footy folk hope the ground won’t get mangled by all those sliding foot tackles – - we want the Sunday NAB cup game to be on a good surface.
Michael C said | February 18th 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
They were talking to Patrick Keane (the media manager) last night on SEN (or ‘AW?) – - and the impression given was that there never really was going to be an issue. However he did stress that the AFL usually talks to other codes – - but all his examples were ARU – - to ensure the best complimentary/non ambush scheduling. One wonders how much dialogue exists between AFL and FFA? Hopefully more after this – - but, again, we’ve had a bunch of examples of Docklands hosting AFL on Friday and Sunday and Wallabies on Saturday etc etc. It usually works a treat. Even the MVFC vs Juventus game last year was slotted in nicely on an AFL regular weekend. No complaints of ’sporting ambush marketing’ or ‘raining on parades’.
Simmo said | February 18th 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment
“It is believed the AFL had legal advice that its rights to Telstra Dome on February 28 would have held sway against Football Federation Australia had the matter gone to court. “
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the FFA had legal advice that its rights to Telstra Dome on February 28 would have held sway against the AFL had the matter gone to court.
They might publicly say otherwise, but I doubt that either the FFA or the AFL would have confirmed the venue (and therefore bound themselves to TD) until they knew which clubs were playing in their respective fixtures. The HAL GF could have gone to Adelaide and the NAB Cup game could have been outside of Melbourne.
Despite the sabre-rattling in the press about supposed legal rights, there appears to be some objective sense to what has happened.
Pippinu said | February 18th 2009 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Simmo
I have no problem with how it turned out – it was inevitable – but I actually believe that quote to be true.
Millster said | February 18th 2009 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Without knowing or caring too much about the detail as I don’t keep a close enough eye on AFL, my gut was that the AFL had the stronger case for incumbency if it got really nasty. That was my assumption and that is why, without adopting TOO submissive a posture, I think the FFA and all football fans should be grateful overall that a sensible solution has been found. To me this issue is resolved and I hope both games in both codes end up being good ones for the fans.
chris said | February 18th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
From my understanding there was a clause in the contract noting that if Melbourne Victory participate in a finals game (that may refer to Grand Final only) they instantly receive priority. I read that yesterday in one of the papers – cant remember which one.
Michael C said | February 18th 2009 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
Millster -
your attitude is not totally representative of the soccer demographic. There’s a few boofheads trying to claim a ‘1 up on the AFL’ ‘victory’ out of all this.
as I’ve said before – - soccer fans need to show good grace,
in many areas, such as being appreciative that without the Fed Govt, they’d still be stuck in the NSL era,
without the Fed Govt, they couldn’t afford to have 9 NT’s or attempt to bid for FIFA WC hosting,
in Melb, without AFL venues, they’d be stuck at Olympic Park,
in Melb, without the State Govt, they’d be stuck at AFL venues,
so – - for soccer heads to fail to show grace on this issue – - – well, it’s just symbolic of the unjustified superior attitude carried by a number of your brethren.
Maybe soccer fans ARE more passionate!!! (or tending to over zealous)
Michael C said | February 18th 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
chris -
it seems that Docklands management may have been over promising to each client.
Which claus would hold most water??
AFL has the longer standing arrangement with Docklands – - in all likelihood, the position promised by Docklands to MVFC was not a position for them to give.
but – - we’re all just speculating, and perhaps only based on media speculation anyway.
btw – the only thing that went wrong really was that niether Freo or Eagles won – - had either have won, the game would’ve been in Perth and no issues would have arisen.
btw – Dave – a little silly. It’s not as if the HAL GF is famously locked in to date and location. i.e. the venue (state/city) is entirely flexible based on the winners in the finals series. The date, well, last Saturday in Feb? But, 2 years ago, MVFC won on the 2nd last Sunday in Feb. Just where does this Grand final belong?? Until the FFA figure out how to lock it in – - then they’ll be encountering this sort of issue more and more. Especially in states with NRL pre-season under way and Super 14s under way.
Pippinu said | February 18th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
MC
that’s a very good point you make at the end of the last post – about the rotating nature of the A-League grand final venue.
If the season expands into March, as seems likely, this will become a very big issue for the FFA.
Midfielder said | February 18th 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Pip
I think the expanded games will be played mid week during school holidays and in Late Jan & Early Feb … not to sure the A-League is quite ready to step out on the same stage of the AFL & NRL yet.
Redb said | February 18th 2009 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
Telstra Dome have got some medium terms issues to confront.
1. A shitty deal for AFL clubs in which the AFL is taking legal action and possibly looking at an alternative venues in the medium term.
2. The new rectangular stadium, which will carry most H & A games for Victory from 2010 and beyond.
Some leadership and decisiveness from TD management could have averted what was ultimately a storm in a teacup, meanwhile they risk losing their number one tenant (AFL) and the number two (FFA). The odd Storm game and rugby test is not going to do much for the bottom line.
Andre Rieu where are you?
Redb
Midfielder said | February 18th 2009 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Michael C
You said …so – - for soccer heads to fail to show grace on this issue – - – well, it’s just symbolic of the unjustified superior attitude carried by a number of your brethren.
Agree entirely but would expand to say all codes have the …”heads”…. and in most walks of life there are the ….. “Heads” … and when two groups get into an argument it often becomes one set of Dickheads V another set of Dickheads ….what you hope is the management of sporting codes are capable of making reasoned judgments and not be to influenced by the …”heads”
Pippinu said | February 18th 2009 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Mid
The Roar didn’t descend into this, but other forums did descend into the usual bull shit, when there was never really an issue here.
Interestingly, the Melbourne papers are using tag lines suggesting that the FFA has got one over the AFL, and the like.
One wonders what the intent of the Melbourne media is in doing so.
Millster said | February 18th 2009 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Hear hear so lets all be gracious and move on. This issue has been appropraitely settled, plus the much-needed warning to TD has been sent. Good outcome, game over, and like I said may the Tigers V Pies and then the (hopefully) Roar V Victory both be good games.
Bruce Walkley said | February 18th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Redb – any truth in the rumour that the AFL wanted to get Andre as halftime entertainment at this year’s GF, but he declined because he reckoned the acoustics at the MCG weren’t as good as the Dome with the roof on?
Michael C said | February 18th 2009 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
Middie -
certainly – - I just wanted to point out in this situation where there really need not be an issue – - that the Herald Sun has been seeking to stir up a hornets nest – - rather similar to the DT in Sydney with NRLvsAFL ‘turf wars’.
And, enough of the code specific ‘heads’ seem only too willing to jump on board.
We AFL advocates would like to point out that the HS is serving it’s own ordinary purposes rather than being a mouth piece for the AFL!!!!
Westy said | February 18th 2009 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
Channel 10 sports news an AFL flagbearer reported the “backdown of the AFL” as a victory for “Australian soccer”. There words not mine. I have no doubt the AFL was always moving its game but its later posturing has handed the A league grand final and Melbourne Victory good media coverage and oxygen for the code in Melbourne and a symbolic media victory for Buckley like it or not.
This is the second time Demetriou’s perceived arrogance and unnecessary exposure has cost the AFL normally the most media savvy sport in the country. What was glaringly obvious was it was generally their most supportive media outlets that used words like battle tussle for rights tug of war and victory.
Midfielder said | February 18th 2009 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
MC
We agree again this is twice in one day (WOW), … your correct in saying the HS ( a card carrying member of the axis of evil – Melbourne media) … ran the story to sell papers … what I think they did not realise is that almost all of Melbourne on the facts presented …where saying another TD stuff up ..and the GF is more important than a preseason match … Maybe attacking football and trying to make something of it was important to sell papers but the story has not presented the AFL in a good light … nothing to serious or any long term damage done but a poor management decision by HS in that football has had the goal posts moved and whereas 6 years ago the story would not have been condemned whereas today it is … a slap to the sports editor he stuffed up we agree.
Redb said | February 19th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
Midfielder, Westy,
Maybe you lot might see now that your protests about the Herald Sun being in the AFL’s pocket are rubbish. As has been spelt out many many times, News Ltd has no ownership in the AFL.
But before you claim some sort of victory through a Ch10 reporter or the HS, remember this is a pre-season game for the AFL against the HAL’s GF , that there was any suggestion of confusion/issue at all is a bit of a joke.
The facts are the AFL had booked that day back in October, so no matter how some of the media might spin it for controversy, the AFL had to make a decision and was left with little PR potential no matter which way it turned.
The Victory are well liked across the broad sporting spectrum in Melbourne. But and it’s a big but, only when they are winning. This is the nature of sports worship these days, the swing voters. Next year if Victory are out of the finals the support will be back to core in a flash and it’s media ‘win’ will be long forgotten.
Midfielder, just so you put your comments in perspective, there is not one story in the Herald Sun today about the Victory (in all of the back pages from a quick look).
Westy, the only reason the AFL hesitated was the nature of NAB clash, two big Melbourne clubs (both won last week) and the Cousins comeback which has captured the imagination of Richmond fans. I think the AFL would have moved a lot quicker had the matchup not been seen as a pre-season game of unusually high interest.
Redb
Millster said | February 19th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
RedB – agree in relation to your last para plus I’m sure there was also an element of the AFL hesitating in order to put a bit of a well deserved squeeze on TD and make sure they get the message to sharpen up their act. Especially if there is a longer term commercial issue going on with AFL lease fees vs other codes, naming and sponsorship issues with the ground, and all the other stuff, this adds another little dimension to the overall negotiation.
Millster said | February 19th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
…although as an afterthoguht, RedB to admit to having a Herald Sun to flick through in the first place is brave… up here in Sydney no-one who made it past about year 10 or who lives east of Strathfield would ever admit to having or reading the Tele…. (whether or not they actually do of course may be another story)
Pippinu said | February 19th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Millster
Melburnians buy the HS for the footy – that’s why it sells so well – we don’t bother with the rest of it!
Michael C said | February 19th 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Pippinu -
did you ever buy the Truth?? That would’ve been for the coverage of the nags wouldn’t it?
Does the Age have a sudoku?? The Age cryptic is much harder (the clues are too long, as you all know, I love lucid brevity!!!)
Michael C said | February 19th 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
btw – bigger issue now – - the double booking of the MCG for the Sheffield Shield final and the bushfire appeal concert?!?!?!
What’s going on there!!!!!
Millster said | February 19th 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
MC – the question ‘whats going on’ should be applied back at you for suggesting that anything to do with the Sheffield Shield is a ‘bigger issue’… apart from to the 20 or 30 mums and dads of the players who will make up 90% of the audience of course. Why on earth is this game being played at the MCG in the first place? What a waste of a venue when a local oval and a few deckchairs would suffice.
Redb said | February 19th 2009 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Millster,
I get most of my news online except on weekend when its the Age or Fin Review, but we have HS copies in the office and I always check out the sports section.
Redb
Michael C said | February 19th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Millster -
agreed re Shield matches at MCG – - far more suited to a ground with a grassy embankment and a few shade trees.
the bigger issue is more about just how the BushFire concert booking is permitted given that the protection of the cricket booking.
I guess it’s incumbant upon Cricket Victoria to be gracious.
Bruce Walkley said | February 19th 2009 @ 7:03pm | Report comment
Michael C – you must be nearly as old as I am to remember the Struth. Nags, footy (Captain Blood’s column was a must-read every week), letters from and about bodice-rippers, and the odd yarn up the front about priests getting caught buggering boys behind the bike-shed. They used to write the headline first, then make the pictures and the story fit the space left over. Newspapers aren’t what they used to be!
Westy said | February 19th 2009 @ 7:50pm | Report comment
Redb please do not insult our inteiiligence the Herald Sun for all its tabloid nature is a strong AFL advocate. You seem to put things in black and white when I accurately reported the channel 10 sports reporter an exAFL player used words like victory for soccer, a retreat by the AFl and a backdown. My point is and was simple the net result at least interstate was negative for the AFL. This was needless.
I have great respect for the management acumen of AFL and its clubs in general. In brisbane it choked of the good news leakage about the Gold Coast major sponsor and was reported as aretreat in Adelaide Sydney and Sydney in News LTD and non News LImited papers and across FTA TV stations. I readily agree not worth the trouble but as the AFL learned to its detriment it is a relatively quiet time and as such this gave it even more legs.
It was poorly managed and to be honest the whole Dome affair has not been a bright spot for the AFL to let its clubs get ripped of by its own creation is one of its few mistakes.
Do not assume others do not acknowledge the AFL is the best run sport in Australia but just as we criticise league ,rugby or football the AFL is not sacrosanct. The story ran on a much wider basis than the HS. A national code should have realised this and acted appropriately. I repeat it was a no brainer. You even had reports of the barbarians inside the citadel. Not true and far fetched but all oxygen to football in Melbourne.
Remember the AFL gets national coverage it is no longer restricted to Melbourne centric media outlets. This was purely a Melbourne stoty but used on a national basis. What were they thinking?
Michael C said | February 19th 2009 @ 8:00pm | Report comment
Bruce -
has anyone ever mentioned you’ve got a great name for an award?……yep, at uni were gave out the annual ‘Bruce’ award!!!
actually, I’m a generation younger than your goodself, but, I knew someone who got the truth now and then, and I encountered the odd edition in the newspaper stack ready for the rubbish (no, not the incinerator, but, for others of that era perhaps).
I lived out of town and envied those able to buy the Sporting Globe, or the like by just walking down to the newsagency…..back before the internet and the like – back in the days of sports info on the telephone, back then, the Sporting Globe, the Truth etc were all sources of an ‘other’ viewpoint, or, an ‘other’ photograph.
Redb said | February 20th 2009 @ 6:49am | Report comment
Westy,
I never suggested it was a Melbourne only view. There are some, particularly News Ltd in Sydney who will readily seize on a negative AFL story and milk it dry, whilst the positive stories about football go un-noticed. eg: no reporting of the Bushfire appeal game – I was interstate leading up to the game and there no articles in the Daily Terror or Courier Mail about the Vic Bushfire appeal game!!
‘The Australian’ newspaper (news ltd) did not carry any pre or post reports of the Vic bushfire game, not one, and this from a supposedly national paper. We all know it is Sydney centric.
The AFL gets thing wrong , of course it does, but as I said further up – ” the only reason the AFL hesitated was the nature of NAB clash, two big Melbourne clubs (both won last week) and the Cousins comeback which has captured the imagination of Richmond fans. I think the AFL would have moved a lot quicker had the matchup not been seen as a pre-season game of unusually high interest. ”
Now perhaps interstate there is a lack of understanding of how big this game is, pre season or not. It has legs, a Thursday night will potentially rob it of a 45,000 plus crowd.
The real culprit is Telstra Dome.
Redb
Michael C said | February 20th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Redb & Westy-
and the AFL couldn’t just jump without consultation with the stakeholders,
both clubs, and channel 10 – their broadcast partners.
It’s funny isn’t it. For some, they like to portray the AFL as a dictatorship. When the proof that they aren’t is obvious, i.e. that the AFL first had to sit down with it’s stakeholders and the other parties and come to an arrangement – - well, then people find some other reason to pot the AFL.
they must be card carrying members of the ‘opposition’.
And Sydney folk take a swipe at Victorians for being insular!!!
Westy said | February 20th 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Michael C . I can only make judgements on what i see and read. I have no reason to doubt you or Redb. Even if you classify me as a critic the perception left was poor. I met Demetriou when he was up in Western Sydney. He is knowledgeable confident and gave me the impression he does not suffer fools gladly. However he does seem to want to dominate , to if you like consume all the oxygen . He would have been far better to leave this to his operations manager. His publc utterances and participation in public was unnecessary. Buckley left the running to others only participating in private dialogue.
On another note I would commend the AFL for its strong support of bushfire victims with an honourable mention to the NRL followed by the FFA. To my disappointment one code is missing.
Dave said | February 20th 2009 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
Redb
” There are some, particularly News Ltd in Sydney who will readily seize on a negative AFL story and milk it dry, whilst the positive stories about football go un-noticed. eg: no reporting of the Bushfire appeal game – I was interstate leading up to the game and there no articles in the Daily Terror or Courier Mail about the Vic Bushfire appeal game!! ”
gee l hope you’re not complaining about lack of media…something about pot and kettle…
Chuq said | February 22nd 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
“The Victory are well liked across the broad sporting spectrum in Melbourne. But and it’s a big but, only when they are winning. This is the nature of sports worship these days, the swing voters. Next year if Victory are out of the finals the support will be back to core in a flash and it’s media ‘win’ will be long forgotten.”
Considering the Victory have won 3 out of 7 (very likely to be 4 out of 8 in a weeks time) pieces of A-League silverware, more than any other club (1 apiece to Adelaide, Central Coast, Newcastle and Sydney), the time when they aren’t winning seem to be rare. Even when they didn’t make the finals in 2007-08, their average crowd was in excess of 26k.
Ronnie from Lonnie said | February 24th 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
HA HA … this has got to be the most hilarious ‘issue’ for sometime. And here’s why ….
1. Arguing that an NAB Cup fixture is of equal value to a Grand Final in any sport is absurd. Here’s one NAB shareholder who would rather the NAB disassociated itself with the cruddy pre-season cup and put it’s capital to better use! Any organisatyion running it’s GF would be crazy not to claim first rights.
2. The double-booking is symptomatic of a deeper problem that has been neglected as part of this debate: lack of venues. A new rectangular stadium will alleviate this congestion. Can’t argue against that.
3. EVERYBODY HAS UNDERESTIMATED ANDREW DEMETRIOU AND THE AFL!
WHY? He has quite smartly traded off a glorified practice match for two key outcomes:
3.1. Image. The AFL has come to a gentleman’s agreement and withdrawn it’s hand from bullying the FFA into a backdown.
3.2. HERE’S THE KILLER PUNCH: The practice match will be played BEFORE the HAL GF. Now, just what do you suppose the Melbourne media will be churning out all of Friday and into Saturday? Stories about not only Ben Cousins but also The Woods. Two of the biggest AFL stories that have done the rounds in recent times. Perhaps by design the AFL will definitely be depriving the HAL GF of much needed publicity – the oxygen of any sport. Andrew D, I salute you! The AFL isn’t the predominant sporting code in this country for no reason.
So what appears to be a victory to the FFA and HAL is in fact a hollow victory.
And the AFL has employed 2 football concepts your average AFL fan whinges and moans about incessantly::
1. The sucker punch
2. The strategic value of a draw.
Quite ironic.
Redb said | February 24th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
RFL,
Firstly, Richmond fans in particular with no interest in soccer would not care less abou the HAL GF any more than the NBL GF. They would see the NAB Cup game as far more important not just equal. It’s all relative isn’t it.
However, most sports fans can see the difference and none above have argued there was equality, the facts are TD double booked the date.
Another fact, there is considerable interest in this NAB Cup game, far more than usual. The crowd will be large, not as large as the HAL GF, but 40,000+. For a pre-season AFL game this is extraordinary.
IMO Thursday night is a tough night to go to a game for a family with kids, this will reduce the potential crowd and I’m sure AD would not have liked that.
Anyway, I think you should be grateful the game has clear air on Saturday night in Melbourne, if the MCG was available the AFL could have rescheduled the Richmond V Collingwood game at the MCG and got 60,000 and then you would have seen the HAL GF really starved of media oxygen.
Besides whether the NAB game was played before or after the HAL GF it would have attracted huge media interest in Melbourne.
I have to say i would have preferred QLD Roar to make the GF, a replay with Adelaide is not exactly raising my interest. An unknown quantity in the QLD Roar as a genuine threat (not saying AU wont win) would have been more media friendly in the first place.
Redb
Michael C said | February 24th 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
RformL -
you read too much into it.
Remember, the AFL has Docklands booked already on Friday night and Sunday night. The MCG is unavailable – and the whole context of the NAB cup is that if you keep winning then you get to play the big venues, and maximise your drawing power to get those people turning up to sign up their memberships before the season proper.
That only left either Thursday or Monday night -
and even a NAB match runs too late to play on a MOnday night – - people don’t like those late nights early in the week – - come Thursday though, and you’ve only got Friday to negotiate and then it’s the weekend.
Will AFL people be distracted??? Maaate. The footy’s about to start, get that soccer out of the way as soon as possible, heck, we all know that soccer folk are satisfied now that they know the 2 teams to take on the ACL. AU probably cared more about winning last week over Roar than they do this week.
Ronnie from Lonnie said | February 24th 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Not at all, MC. I believe the AFL has played an incredibly smart and savvy game. How much haggling went on between BB and AD beforehand I can only speculate. It would be equally absurd to think just because BB went over to the FFA they no longer communicate.
Business might be business, but in the small Oz sports industry there will always be socialising, contact and points of agreement between the major players. As opposed to many in the blogging community with their rigidly drawn lines of difference and ongoing and futile debate as to which code is best.
Footy forums around the country (eg. HS) have been littered with gloating HAL fans, and AFL fans and columnists complaining the AFL has been hard done by and at the same time has given into the FFA, etc. etc. They’ve all missed what has been a great victory to the AFL. And the FFA is to a point indebted to the AFL. AND EVERYBODY STILL HATES TELSTRA DOME (did not Etihad’s marketing team realise the degree of resentment toward TD before doing a deal?)
RedB — “the AFL could have rescheduled the Richmond V Collingwood game at the MCG” – purely hypothetical given the cricket pitch. Could they have gone for OO/PP or whatever it’s called now?
I agree a MV vs. QR GF would have been a more enticing proposition. There’s been a lot of talk about a sellout / 50k+ crowd for the HAL GF. I am yet to be convinced. With the Rich v. Coll. game on Thursday night and a MV vs. AU matchup, the HAL GDF will find it even harder to break into the headlines. It’ll be nothing like the leadup to the 2006/07 GF.
However, I tend to think the FFA is partly to blame for all of this. Because of FIFA dates it pushed back the GF by a couple of weekends. If it had had the creativity to move a couple of rounds to mid-week instead of weekends, this mess could have been avoided. Surely it must’ve seen the risk of competing with NRL and AFL pre-season comps.
keeper11 said | February 24th 2009 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Anyway, I think you should be grateful the game has clear air on Saturday night in Melbourne, if the MCG was available the AFL could have rescheduled the Richmond V Collingwood game at the MCG and got 60,000 and then you would have seen the HAL GF really starved of media oxygen.
Besides whether the NAB game was played before or after the HAL GF it would have attracted huge media interest in Melbourne.
people talk here as if ‘tha media’ is actually free, independant, fair and balanced in this country…
so if there was no ‘real footy’ ..yawn ..played before the HAL GF.. …
i assume you’re saying the Herald Hun…sorry ‘Sun’ would have a front page and 6 page coverage /buildup on the melbourne club side hosting a grand final. a national competiton ….
and MEL radio would supposedly get behind the club..if not the event as well..
you’re either deluded or joking but either way you can’t be serious…..
australian commercial media ..with news-limited at the forefront ..is nothing more than the marketing/ commercial/ promotional arm of the AFL/ NRL and whose sole aim is market protection of those two codes.
sockah is seen as a rival ..a ‘foreign threat’ and is to be treated as such….
very simple really…..
Redb said | February 24th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
RFL,
Optus or Princes Park would be way too small for the Rich v Coll game – that’s the point.
Keeper11,
Has anyone ever accused you of putting words in people’s mouths?
Do you feel better? 
You know what happens when you assume……
Your barking up the wrong tree, I like Victory and have been to 3 games. I’m not obsessed however and will happily admit to bandwagoning behaviour when it comes to futbol.
Redb
Redb said | February 24th 2009 @ 10:54am | Report comment
RFL,
I think the leadup to the HAL GF will be well attended and get good coverage. I was just refuting your conspiracy theory and
I guess adding some weight of significance to the Rich V Coll game to illustrate that it is a bigger deal than folks outside of Melbourne realise and I don’t barrack for either team. It was definitely still the right decision to move the NAB Cup game, just not as straight forward as some diehard futbol fans rant on about.
Redb
Michael C said | February 24th 2009 @ 8:44pm | Report comment
RfromL -
remember that both Ben Buckley and Andrew Demetriou are North Melbourne ‘old boys’. There’s so much in common!!
Keeper11 -
hear the sound of violins…..
Ronnie from Lonnie said | February 25th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
MC – in today’s “Age” Michael Lynch has done a piece that supports your comments (which, btw, I do agree with) about the AFC CL being the real prize, with the GF being of secondary concern.
Yes, BB comes from ‘just up the road’ — Smithton, Tas. (local pron. ‘Mifton’). Funnily enough, so does Saul Eslake! Not NMFC’s favourite person at the moment. A good example of how to lose your bank a cool 6m with a loose tongue! He must have a much more pernicious strain of Vidmaritis.
Redb – well, if Dave’s post under “HAL GF is a cause for celebration”, then I stand corrected. Looks like it could sell out, which is good given ver. 4 has been a less than inspiring season.
Roll on another MV championship and another Hawks premiership!!!