By Redb -
December 1st 2009 @ 3:10am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
The real Crawford Report exposed!
Deep beneath the Sydney Harbour tunnel, a selection of rugby league journalists set about discovering the true intent and plan behind the Crawford report.
Armed with some lemons and a hair dryer, they painstakingly worked on the Crawford Report. It appears that exposed to lemon juice and heat, the back of each page in the report contained a secret agenda to propel AFL into the world.
An unconfirmed but highly confidential source has outlined the plan.
The Federal Government plans to commit $100 billion over ten years into making the AFL the only sport in Australia and a worldwide phenomenon.
From 2010, all embassies across the planet will be transformed into Auskick centres.
The citizenship test will be modified from a test of Australian history into the Nathan Buckley AIS kicking test. Potential new Aussies must be able to kick a Sherrin off both the left and right foot and hit targets at 15, 30 and 45 metres.
Parliament will be radically restructured. Government and Opposition will no longer sit on different sides but man up, one each other.
Government MPs will wear Geelong jumpers, Opposition St Kilda jumpers in 2010 until new Grand finalists are decided. The Speaker of the House will also be known as the Honourable White Maggot.
Courts across the lands will now hear “baaaaall!!” (Ball!) when a defence attorney objects to some evidence.
If the jury joins in the chorus the evidence is over turned, the Judge will stand his arms pointing to the ground and then will rise to the horizontal whilst blowing his whistle he/she will then point with one arm to the defence side.
School curriculum’s will be radically transformed into Australian football halls of learning. Subjects like mathematics (stats), history (footy), biology (4 limb movement studies), law (rules of the game), economics (salary cap) will be modified to include an AFL element.
Auskick to be the official sport of each school in the land. All other sports are to be banned, it’s claimed.
All rugby uprights and soccer goals will be re-cycled into Aussie Rules four posts and distributed across all park lands. Rectangular grounds will be widened to include flanks and lengthened.
Four posts will be erected at either end of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Finally, the Federal Government as majority shareholder in QANTAS has instructed management that all livery in the aircraft stable will be modified. The flying kangaroo will be replaced with a symbol of Alex Jesalenko’s famous mark from the 1970 VFL Grand Final and will be feature on every QANTAS tail fin.
All lemons for this story were obtained from the office of John Coates and Roy Masters, Jacqueline Magnay supplied the hair dryer. All three were later seen sucking on unused lemons.
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...
(83)
Kurt said | December 1st 2009 @ 3:59am | Report comment
Great stuff, it’s about time someone revealed the dark conspiracy at the heart of the Crawford report.
Freud of Football said | December 1st 2009 @ 4:58am | Report comment
“The citizenship test will be modified from a test of Australian history into the Nathan Buckley AIS kicking test. Potential new Aussies must be able to kick a Sherrin off both the left and right foot and hit targets at 15, 30 and 45 metres.” – Finally we’ll be able to just kick the Queenslanders and New South Welshman out of Aus, pffft, how un-Australian of them not liking Aussie Rules.
Apart from that, what you’ve described might just have of been the blueprint for East Germany ca. 1980 if you replace the Aussie Rules analogies with “any other sport where we can win something”
Paul J said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:06am | Report comment
Red B
You have showed your dislike for RL journalists and how you disagree with then on supposed AFL bias in the Crawford Report.
What you didn’t show was why you disagree with them. That would have been interesting to have read.
Pippinu said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:28am | Report comment
In a round about way, by referring to the invisible ink, redb is highlighting many journos jumping at shadows when the Crawford report barely mentions the AFL.
The response of Coates has been a complete disgrace.
If people actually read the report they wouldn’t be coming up with all these conspiracy theories.
LK said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:24am | Report comment
Ha ha! Not bad, Redb, not bad at all. I have been watching the debate over the Crawford Report from afar, without getting involved. I am dismayed at the number of seemingly intelligent people willing to read an inter-code conspiracy into it. The mind boggles sometimes….
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
indeed it does.
cheers
Paul J said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
Not up to speed on this one. What was the supposed bias towards the AFL in the crawford report?
Pippinu said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
PJ
Crawford did an independent review of the AFL back in 1993, and he did one for soccer in 2004, that led to the restructuring of both games in an administrative sense.
So people try an paint Crawford as an AFL stooge – but he has zero connection with the AFL – he’s a chartered accountant – he gets chosen to do such reviews precisely because of his independence.
His team included one present day AFL female commissioner from NSW.
Freud of Football said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:43am | Report comment
Do you trust someone who says “trust me”?
Crawford might have been “chosen to do such reviews precisely because of his independence.” but that doesn’t automatically make him independent.
I have no qualms with the findings of the reports but I would warn that we can’t just assume independence because he declares it.
There should have been more transparency in the selection of the panel and this could have avoided the whole fanfare, that is the one issue that the few olympic whingers that exist are correct on.
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/contributors/they-have-misread-an-entire-nations-love-of-the-olympics-20091118-il2b.html
Opening line a classic : “If I didn’t know any better, I would think after reading the Crawford report that the panel of “experts” were AFL fans.”
Pippinu said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
That Magnay article is a classic.
But even in her own article, she contradicts herself when she refers to one part of the report, one of the few parts that mentions the AFL, and lo and behold, the reference to the AFL is a negative one!! (that big events like the AFL grand final do nothing to encourage participation)
For those who haven’t read the report -that’s the gist of the whole report – getting the right balance between funding elite sport and encouraging grassroots participation as a health policy priority.
Paul J said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
To me her main point of arguement is that we should not reduce funding for lessor supported Olympic sports to increase funding for the big sports, such as the AFL, that are already powerful and don’t need the governments help.
And she argues about increased funding for sports that do not represent Australia to the world…
“They talk of sports that inspire a spirit of Australia — but list sports that embody such spirit that are a blip on the international scene that no one without an Australian passport would recognise — AFL, surf lifesaving, rugby league.”
And if some want to argue that there was a larger than proportionate AFL representation than required then i would agree that is correct…
“So who is this panel? David Crawford is a businessman who restructured AFL and soccer, Sam Mostyn is an AFL commissioner, Colin Carter is on the AFL Foundation, Pam Tye is president of hockey and whom I suspect was a critic from within, and Mark Bouris, a Sydney Roosters board member and host of reality TV show The Apprentice, who bailed out early on.”
And in the next line she mentions the AFL, cricket & golf before the other football codes but this is not bias if the report suggested the AFL should be given more money that the other football codes…
“No, the Crawford panel instead, quite ludicrously, suggests that the Federal Government should give more money to AFL and other professional sports such as cricket, golf, surfing and the various football codes.”
Pippinu said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
The report does not mention giving money to the AFL.
The report does question why some minority sports, which have next to zero interest in Australia, get more Government funding than netball, cricket and aussie rules.
Good question.
What does the community get back for funding esoteric internationals sports, that are not the least bit followed by Australians to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per annum?
It’s certainly a legitimate question.
And considering how important netball is as an Australian sport, and as a predominantly female sport, being often the main entree for girls into formalised sport – how is it possible that both archery and water polo receive far more money than netball from government?
It’s a disgrace, a complete waste of taxpayer funds – and there should immediately be a realignment of funding back to getting kids playing sport again.
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Paul J,
If we are going to attempt to intepret Magnay’s rumblings one should re-evaluate as after reading this prejudiced slobber laced with emotive dribble it should be deemed unworthy of analysis for objectivity.
eg: “Ha, if only it was that easy for the large numbers of Olympic and non-Olympic sports who unlike AFL, don’t have access to massive gate receipts, or to the television broadcast monies that truly underpin their sport.”
Yes she actually wrote ..Ha!…. hard hitting stuff. wow
Redb
Michael C said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
what people need to separate is the difference between being, for example – on a board, or on the AFL commission and being a card carrying flag waver.
Sam Moysten on the AFL commisssion need not have any pre-requisite knowledge of the game. She’s there as a successful Sydney business woman.
The future NRL commission will look no doubt for a mix of ‘RL’ people and ‘non RL’ business people.
The reality is – that a couple of people with such experience are invaluable for such a report on the business of sports as the AFL is the biggest sport business in the land.
What I thought most interesting was the complete questioning of the make up of the board of the Australian Sports Commission……a body lacking in ‘independance’ and ‘business diversity’.
as reported :
“NRL chief executive David Gallop, Olympic champion aerials skier Alisa Camplin, former hurdler Kyle Vander-kuyp, Olympic hockey player Sally Carbon and former Australian netball captain Liz Ellis have been told by the Crawford review panel of experts they do not have the skills to head the Australian Sports Commission.”
And too right – could you imagine how pathetic the AFL commission would be with basically just a bunch of former players on it???
M1tch said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
i knew the AFL was corrupt
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
You think the medicare levy is for hospitals ? Ha! – Auskick levy.
Paul J said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
The Crawford report suggested that we give less to Olympic sports and more to popular sports.
I agree with Magnay that the government needs to support Olympic sports because if they don’t they could fall over. I think that having Australia 6th in the Olympics is great for the country on a truly international scale, i’d hate to see us slip to 26th.
I believe the Crawford report suggested we give funds to more popular sports to get our kids more fit and active but will our kids not get benefits from all sports, popular or Olympic?
Red B, i think your personal dislike of Masters & Magnay did influence your article.
Pippinu said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
But a few points:
1. At the moment, money is handed over with zero accountability and on the basis of no agree community outcomes.
2. Coates is arguing to be a top 5 nation, we need hundreds of millions of dollars per annum extra – and circuitous route to financial madness – as Crawford rightly points out – it’s time to ask whether this is a realistic target (or forever bind ourselves to spenind $200 mill then $300 mill, then $400 mill, and on it goes).
3. Some obscure Olympic sports, which no Australians give a damn about, get millions of dollars per annum – that bit is the most disgraceful of all.
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Nothing personal just think they are biased hacks.
Michael C said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
I think Masters and Magnay are concerned that Crawford advocates a new ASC board, thus, removing DAvid Gallop from it.
These guys at simply batting for their Sydney NRL ‘mate’.
btw – I reckon part of the logical outcome would be similar to what opened in North Melbourne yesterday. A state of the art facility for North Melb FC, and the community, and Fencing…….how else do you justify a top notch facility for Fencing as a sport??? easy, share with a high participation sport like AFL who – strangely enough – can’t access federal grants without incorporating such a (on a technicality) ‘nationally significant’ sport as Fencing.
So, win win, defacto federal funding for an AFL ‘club’ (granted that it’s not NMFC’s asset – it is a council reserve/facility), and, inversely, Fencing – which would struggle to exhibit a strong community participation base anywhere – is able to access council funding.
AndyRoo said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Masters has a long history of involvment with Athletics and an organisation called “Aussie Sports”, apparently the organisation that created Kanga Cricket, Auskick and Mod League.
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
his claim of ‘Aussie Sports’ inventing Auskick is laughable.
Just more sour grapes (or lemons) from Masters. Don’t beleive a word of it.
Redb
Michael C said | December 1st 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Masters might be able to take a little credit in that role, however, Ray Allsopp was the guy who created the Victorian Primary School Clinic Scheme, the pre-cursor to VicKick which then, became Auskick…….although, Mr Masters obviously has no qualms about portraying himself as grandly as possible.
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
The irony MC, is that the Crawford Report advocates funding for all the football codes, cricket, hockey, netball,etc.
AndyRoo said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
Master’s is smart enough to know RL would waste it’s money on a Nigerian oil scam or something similar meanwhile AFL would actualy use their money wisley for the good of the game.
Not hard too see how AFL will benefit the most.
Art Sapphire said | December 1st 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Isn’t it amazing Michael C invites himself on all the ’soccer threads” to incessantly complain about all taxpayer money going to “soccer”. I have lost count of the number of times he has complained about the government paying for new “soccer” stadium which, infact, will be used by four teams playing 3 different codes and will become a great sporting asset for Melbourne.
But here we have the bankrupt, insolvent AFL club that he supports, receiving a brand spanking new $15 million dollar training facility paid for by the taxpayers. Where is the outrage, Michael? The Kangaroo players who were so used to cold showers and training in primitive, squalid conditions are now luxuriating in there super duper communal spa bath.
Where is the outrage that our money, the taxpayers money, paid for that??
What was that?? Oh, that’s right, anything AFL gets diddly squat from the public purse you keep telling us like a broken record.
The hypocrisy for all to see is astounding.
Michael C said | December 1st 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Art -
bad example in your case.
A. Arden St redevelopment is NOT 100% tax payer funded. It is a mix of 3 tiers of govt, AFL, NMFC, and private revenue – - it is a nice PPP, private/public partnership project (hmmm, PPPP).
B. it is a community based project including the “Learning and Life Centre” that actually breaks down the barriers b/w elite sport and the local/broader community
C. it is a council owned property and facility into which the AFL and club are investing and have sourced other funding grants as per any similar project…..pretty standard procedures.
D. niether the club or league are privately owned.
as compared to
A. Fed grants towards operational expenses of the financial basketcase that is the FFA ($32 million was it that K.Rudd promised, straight onto the FFA bottom line)
B. 100% tax payer funded stadium for the benefit of privately owned sports franchises,……. where’s the private investment if it’s such a good idea?
Perhaps you support public funding to 100% build stadiums for the benefit of teams owned by super rich individuals and corporations……….I don’t.
Perhaps you believe it’s 100% comparable to the Arden St redevelopment………..I don’t.
All I want to see is you show me a project into which the FFA has invested along with bringing other funding streams to the table rather than being 100% hand held by govt. The FFA is amateur hour and is getting a domestically unwarranted arm chair ride. The sooner we host the FIFA WC and move on the better. (there, that gave you something to go on with should you desire to pass the time this arvo!!!).
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Drove past it today, haven’t North Melbourne heard of rendering?
Redb
Art Sapphire said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
I drove past it going to work for the last 12 months. Which explains why I gave it to poor Michael C today.
Fortunately, I moved on the weekend and don’t have to drive past Rootopia again.
The exposed brickwork is symbolic of the poverty and deprivation of the tenants history. This is why the building was not rendered. It also reduces the insurance premium as it made it less attractive to burglars
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
maybe some bullet holes for effect?
Art Sapphire said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Its a great example I am using Michael.
Without govt funding the whole Arden St redevelopment would never have got off the ground. When a penurous club like the Kangas goes cap in hand asking for better facilities ofcourse they will agree to adding a Fencing Centre and community facilities. What better way to assist needy kids from the Flemington Kensington Commisson Flats than with some facilities and community programs. Its also a way to promote the club in the community. Its a win, win for everybody. Good luck to to Kangaroos, I say.
The same applies to the development at the Western Oval where over half the $20 million came from the state and federal govts.
Michael, I don’t need to justify every bit of money the FFA gets and the money that is given to build a stadium. These decision are made by people who were elected to spend the money that we give them to improve our quality of life. They are the ones that accountable, not the readers of the Roar. Write to your MP if you are not happy rather than boring us to tears.
In regards to the new stadium that you are so dead against, it will make a hugely improve the life of people who follow codes played on rectangular pitches. Even though, the venue will be used by privately owned teams (who knows in future they might even be used by publicly owned teams) the stadium itself will be an asset to the community. Its not as if the whole thing was built for the purpose of one single club and owner.
The stadium will be completed in 6 month time. It will become yet another icon in Melbourne’s fabulous sporting landscape. A friend of mine who works with at the Flemington flats as his role as a community youth development officer will see the advantage of having a new facility available to be used by the kids he works with.
So its good news all round. So stop your moaning about the new stadium. We should be thankful that we live in such a great city. The Kangaroos players are problably the most thankful of all.
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
In further developments, the rugby league avengers (Masters & Magnay) have discovered a plot by the AFL to destroy the new rectangular stadium in Melbourne!.
Apparently, an unnamed but highly confidential source whilst researching a special report discovered that the AFL Commissioners were found digging holes under the foundations of the new stadium.
Reportedly on Storm’s opening night half the stadium was to collapse and subside into the Yarra River. The intrepid avengers pulled the Storm boys away from a respite centre and got them to fill the holes back in. “Phew!” they said.
Redb
M1tch said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
your just embarrassing yourself now
how about you boycott rugby league talk
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
lost your sense of humour
So can we expect no more one line little jibes from your goodself on AFL theads then. doubt it.
M1tch said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
1 per article is my anti afl quota, not many and not long posts either
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
isnt the off season crap!
Pippinu said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
Interestingly, on 442, a Victory supporter did once suggest that there was no way that the architects got the stadium design wrong (meaning it couldn’t be upgraded form 31,500 to 43,000 for the WC bid) – that quite clearly, the AFL and their government cronies had sabotaged the design somehow.
I have to admit – I actually did find this story plausible.
Redb said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
your joking? Muppetts!
Art Sapphire said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
Pip – how come you never accuse the AFL of sabotage on this website
Michael C said | December 1st 2009 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
tee hee, Pip got sprung!!
Michael C said | December 1st 2009 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
“Its not as if the whole thing was built for the purpose of one single club and owner.” was Arden St’s new facility? Clearly no. THat’s the whole point.
” I don’t need to justify every bit of money the FFA gets and the money that is given to build a stadium.” If you’re attacking my position…….which you were…………then yes you do. Otherwise, don’t go the hypocrisy claim against me without having a defendable position of your own.
” yet another icon in Melbourne” – - yep, like the ‘now you see it, now you don’t” Southern Star Observation Wheel……when will they demolish the roof to expand capacity??
- – - and the Whitten Oval development, another nice community focused and owned facility with PPP funding.
Again…compare to the new Melb stadium with zero funding from NRL/ARL, ARU, FFA, MVFC, Storm, News Ltd, Fed Govt, Local Govt…..100% state………gawd save our state now that the Hitachi trains bought back from paddocks in NSW are breaking down…….
and back to “Its not as if the whole thing was built for the purpose of one single club and owner.” even if we disregard the FEncers and community aspect and talk of $15 mill of a mix of private and public funds to the benefit of a single elite prof sporting club – - – that’s not bad…..what’s the ratio break down on 4.5 clubs into $270-$300 million? (Melb FC admin officers account for the 0.5).
Art Sapphire said | December 1st 2009 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Hang on a tic – all you do is mention the expense of building the stadium but you never make any mention of the income the stadium will derive for its owners. Food, liquor, refreshments and other various commercial arrangements. I don’t have time to go and research the numbers, but it looks like you do
When you have the figures come back and tell us.
The problem is Michael all your post in regards to the new stadium are really bitter. Why is it such a nightmare for you to have such a great sporting facility in this city. Forget about the nature of its funding.
Is it because it does do not cater to your sporting preferences? Or am I just stating the obvious?
Anyway – if you want to complain about state govt money being wasted then complain about Grand Prix. Now thats what you call a real financial black hole that me and you are paying for
Michael C said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:43pm | Report comment
I got bitter when Michael Cockerill started trumpeting the lies of Ben Buckley and co by claiming the MCG and Gabba benefitted from public funds due to the Olympic soccer tournament and that other sports should be grateful.
oikee said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
Anyhow, how bout that new stadium, its going to change the face of sport in Melbourne. I have never seen a better built stadium and will be a real winner for not only the 3 codes, but also Melbourne. Drag Melbourne kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Once the Perth government see’s this baby in action, they will be calling all tenders to build a new stadium. All thanks to Brisbane and sunny corp, this design started the ruckus. Arh, the icons of Brisbane, xxxx, sunny corp, and southbank. What more can a man possably want, take me home.
Michael C said | December 1st 2009 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
if only the roof and foundations could agree…..
oikee said | December 1st 2009 @ 6:52pm | Report comment
?? What is it falling apart already, ? typical melbourne built piece of junk, should have sent the sunny corp lads down to build you a goodun.
oikee said | December 1st 2009 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
I will also throw in the Gabba, nothing quite like driving past under the stadium as it shoots over the road, i still look up at the structure with pride.
The den, lions den.
Towser said | December 1st 2009 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
Oikee
Perfect mi lad except for the worsening traffic (stuck in it yesterday on the William Jolly). Hope the new roads, tunnels improve things from next year.
tifosi said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
Maybe Crawford thought to himself,
“Hmm I did too good a job on the soccer report, it will eventually overtake the AFL, I better divert funds away from the Olympic sports to ensure they have the funds to stop the soccer onslaught !!! lol
Crawford was justing saying what the majority of australians felt with his report. Whoever keeps brining up this AFL bias is clearly barking up the wrong tree
Midfielder said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:48pm | Report comment
The problem with this report from an outsiders view is who was on the board and who choose them and who was left off..
Whenever you have a board when a number of members of that board are said to be alined with one sport … and some of those on the board had applied for position on Olympic teams and had been rejected does did some to say is this board totally unbias…
That is a issue that Crawford will have accept … his report is to a certain tainted by the composure of the board…
Pippinu said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:15pm | Report comment
Crawford did an independent review for the AFL 14 years ago – he is as much aligned with the AFL as he is with the FFA.
You use Crawford precisely because he’s independent – and that’s how this report reads – plenty of home truths in it.
Midfielder said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:43pm | Report comment
I have no question of his honesty … I am lead to believe he is a very decent man with high values… I simply said his choice of fellow board members when you look at everybodys background … some say is to much in one sport … I have not named that sport as it is not important ..
I will always be gald he did the report into football and in fact saved football from itself…
However the make up of his board has left him open to attack…
Pippinu said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:58pm | Report comment
It’s not a matter of Crawford been decent – it’s a matter of his bread and butter being independent reviews (he’s a chartered accountant by background, and now on a variety of boards).
That’s what he does best – independent reviews – that’s why the AFL and FFA are where they are – they sought advice from an independent expert.
Midfielder said | December 1st 2009 @ 11:06pm | Report comment
No question or arguement about the man … I have no doubt as I have posted several times I think they did a good job.. I am on his side… having said all that I can say his choose of board members has left him open to attack …
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
Board Members with an AFL past were obviously deemed by Crawford as being qualified to review and make recommendations.
The majority of posters on this board have no hesitation in saying the AFL has the best administration, however when they are used for the benefit of all sport in Australia they and several biased journos bleat like stuck pigs and cry conspiracy!
Redb
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
Also – if we had had a committee of Olympic administrators – I wonder what the recommendations would have been – double all funding to Olympic sports??!!
As it is, the Olympic sport of Hockey was represented.
There was also a RL rep, but he pulled out early on due to work commitments – which was unfortunate.
The one AFL Commissioner on the panel, Sam Mostyn, is a female from NSW, fairly new to the Commission, with a very broad background.
Michael C said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
If you’re so concerned about the make up of this REVIEW committee,
how do you feel about their comments about the need for a review of the makeup of the board of the Australian Sports Commission that IS ACTUALLY in a position of power.
“NRL chief executive David Gallop, Olympic champion aerials skier Alisa Camplin, former hurdler Kyle Vander-kuyp, Olympic hockey player Sally Carbon and former Australian netball captain Liz Ellis have been told by the Crawford review panel of experts they do not have the skills to head the Australian Sports Commission.”
do you hear AFL folk whinging that the ASC is too biased because the only non Olympics/C’wealth Games type person is David Gallop from the NRL….
….and why is it mostly recently former players?? what do they know about Admin of sports on a large scale?
and why would you have such a niche representation as a winter olympic aerial skier????
Me thinx, you’re complaining about the wrong board if you worry too much about the people assisting Mr.Crawford.
Michael C said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
btw – you’d be more concerned wouldn’t you if the board were full of people from the QRL, old NSL, and NBL……
AndyRoo said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Midfielder is just playing devils advocate in the numbers of AFL related people on the board make it look bad PR wise.
Which as it turns out has been attacked by the reports critics.
I always say the AFL has the best admin ….. and I totally agree with the report. The only real complaint from NRL people on this board was that Touch Football didn’t get a mention which is one of the best sports for encouraging participation. That is where it would have been good if the Wizards Home loan guy was replaced with someone like Roy Masters.
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
no Andyroo, toxic avengers are hereby banished from representing any other sport than they’re own.
Unfortunately, I missed a recent segment with Roy Masters on sports radio station SEN post the Kevin Sheedy announcment, apparently he lost control and became quite abusive.
The man is very bitter about the AFL even his wife who I’ve met agreed. He loves Melb Storm , lives in melb 2-3 days a week and just cant understand why everyone does not dump AFL for his sport.
jimbo said | December 2nd 2009 @ 11:17pm | Report comment
Redb,
I think there was more than one person in Crawford’s team who was linked to AFL.
I think there is a good point made about funding and how much revenue each sport has.
Its valid that for example the archery or diving team get some government assistance because they really have no source of income and Australia should represent in a lot of Olympic sports.
Whereas AFL and the NRL are bankrolled to the tune of hundreds of millions every year already.
Government assistance for sports should be means tested based on gross income – just like a lot of other government handouts.
Actually, the sport that will benefit the most from the Crawford findings – if they are ever adopted – is not AFL but football.
One of Crawford’s major points was that funding for sports should be linked to their participation rates and the highest participation rate in Australia for any code is football.
Redb said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:13am | Report comment
Jimbo,
“Actually, the sport that will benefit the most from the Crawford findings – if they are ever adopted – is not AFL but football”
It is completely apparent to anyone who reads the report that it is not skewed to AFL but looks at the most popular sports.
I do take issue with your funding comment as Australian Rules football is as entitled as any sport to support based on participation. Just because the AFL has worked hard to fund many of its own programs should not mean it be penalised and in the long term suffer as other sports get funding to its detriment.
Redb
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:18am | Report comment
The Crawford report says in black and white that obscure sports like archery and water polo get far, far more money than popular sports netball cricket and AFL.
As I have said many, many times on the Roar, the AFL does not receive a cracker from Government – Crawford’s independent report proves that point.
Michael C said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
“Whereas AFL and the NRL are bankrolled to the tune of hundreds of millions every year already.”
by whom???
I’m sure you’re not implying via government.
ironic – that the one football code that actually IS bankrolled (i.e. direct cash injections into their bank account to go towards operational expenses) is soccer (the FFA).
btw – re participation rates – -
you need to segment it – - state by state, gender by gender. Remember, soccer isn’t ‘number one’ in very many states…..perhaps NSW? for women?
Jaredsbro said | December 3rd 2009 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
Is it easier for you guys (RedB, MC and Pip) to argue for Aussie rules because you’re so outnumbered on this site or are you guys paid evangelists for Aussie rules
And yes I am aware this is the AFL section of the Roar but you’re getting awfully defensive.
And no AFL has less right to funding and so does the NRL because as I understand it the point about Representative Govt is that it’s about protecting the rights of the minority. Of course those rights must be mutually agreed upon by Govt’s constituents ie the tax-paying residents and the non tax-paying citizens
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Jaredsbro -
hmmm, as certain people have illustrated…..there’s a bunch of complete ignorants out there,……..and if a couple of us AFL fans weren’t here to attempt to do the Democrats thing (keep the b@stards honest), then it’s be an anti AFL free for all with an AFL tab NOT used for the right reasons.
Would you prefer that??
Everyone needs to look at AndyRoo as an example of someone ‘using’ theRoar for the right reasons and in the right way.
Intelligent discussion. intelligent questioning, exploring issues. Learning.
We, Redb, Pip and myself will happily admit the AFL ain’t perfect, BUT, it ain’t on it’s own, and at least it’s our own ‘imperfect’ admin/game to deal with rather than being dictated to by some office in Switzerland, or London or Dubai……
Art Sapphire said | December 4th 2009 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
Hey what about giving me some credit Michael – I am the ultimate example of someone ‘using’ theRoar for the right reasons and in the right way. The b@stard who keeps the b@stards who keep all the other b@stards honest
Jaredsbro said | December 4th 2009 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
Or Dublin mind you. Following that line of logic anyway
Yeah I appreciate what you guys do, but until other AFL fans come here (hint: ring your friends, maybe their grandmas will turn up in force 
) being defensive is about all you can do. The real joy of this website is the opportunity of cross-polination, in my case actually getting to engage with Australian Football(s) fans and having meaningful discussion cum debate
So what do you say AFL deserves more rights due to the higher proportion of participation Auskick included
I don’t know. It seems fair on the one hand, but then again…thinking about it from the minority side of things? Who can tell someone whose hard core into Archery that they need to fight uphill just to start making some investments pay for themselves.
Basically if you apply this logic to Aussie rules as it was starting up they too would’ve had to have played by these highly unfair rules too and what Cricket would say is you’re not really playing a game of National Importance (where their logic is that only English sports deserve government funding (if the Govt funded sports in those days
) as that which is of national importance, just like that which is of the people keeps a-changing
The trick is making it financially accountable without expecting the same sports to have the same standard of ‘National Importance’ or financial/sporting payoff
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:11pm | Report comment
ah Jbro,
at least give us credit that we HAVEN’T conscripted in our friends to boost the numbers!!!
Most AFL fans i reckon just can’t be bothered.
btw – I haven’t really suggested anywhere that the AFL deserves more, however, I don’t believe that they DON’T deserve more.
However, I’m quite proud of the AFL’s ability to generate revenue and run a pretty good ship. Relatively speaking. You don’t want to be a welfare run organisation. The AFL works pretty well on major projects, probably better than most – but, invariably are pumping their own funds in along the way.
However – if money is to be channelled to the AFL’s direct competitors…….well…..just as Holden would be annoyed if Ford got a major cash injection that Holden didn’t get an equivalent benefit in some shape or form. And that’s only fair too.
jimbo said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:43pm | Report comment
“the AFL does not receive a cracker from Government. ”
Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high
There’s an AFL land that I heard of once in a lullaby
Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue
And the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true
Someday I’ll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far behind me
Where troubles melt like lemon drops
A way above the chimney tops
That’s where you’ll find me
Somewhere over the rainbow
Pink pigs fly
Pink pigs fly over the rainbow
Why then oh why can’t I?
If happy little pink pigs fly beyond the AFL rainbow
Then why oh why can’t I?
MC,
the Federal govt doesn’t give out funding by market segment, state by state or by gender.
Since the 90s football has been the highest participation code and continues to grow at a rate of about 8% every year.
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:34am | Report comment
JImbo
MC has written a very good article on who pays for the MCG:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/12/04/the-mighty-mcg/
please read it and educate yourself.
I can only quote the independent Crawford report again just in case you missed it the first time:
both archery and water polo receive more government funding than far more popular sports like netball, cricket and aussie rules.
Jaredsbro said | December 4th 2009 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
Now to have Netball underfunded is a travesty given its nigh on national popularity among Males and Females (in spectating anyway!) but let’s not throw the baby out with the codliver oil
Bever fever said | December 4th 2009 @ 1:13am | Report comment
Jimbo , i guess you wont be happy till every one plays soccer.
Good for you, classic smell the fear mate, looking at your rediculous poem/post.
Redb said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:03am | Report comment
Bever, Don’t worry about jimbo he’s a lightweight like the majority of them.
jimbo said | December 4th 2009 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
Pip,
You’re joking – seriously.
I did have a look (and a good laugh) at MC’s article about AFL paying for the MCG.
AFL also paid for roads and trains and trams in Melbourne because all the AFL supporters use and patronise them to get to AFL games. They paid for all the toilets in pubs, becaue they use them a lot too.
Lets not stop there – AFL is the game that made Australia.
Who needs politics or religion – lets all just play AFL.
Beaver,
That’s not my poem and if you can’t recognise the song lyrics, well . . .
Redb,
you guys are the heavyweights of AFL bias . . .
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
jimbo
have you ever stopped to ask yourself how we’ve been able to maintain a 100,000+ capacity stadium for over 50 years?
Why a bigger city than Melbourne, like Sydney has always had a cricket ground with a fraction of the capacity?
Why Lords struggles to maintain a ground with 20% the capacity of the MCG?
Have you ever wondered why?
I’ll give you the answer if you really want to know it.
Jaredsbro said | December 4th 2009 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
C’mon you’re just re-packaging the Sydney v Melbourne thing Pip. Melbourne is very different to Sydney but you’re still both very sporting cities, not like good old Hamilton (in NZ that is, yeah you know the place between Lance Hohaia’s home town of Huntly and Te Awamutu, home town of our Finn Brothers
)
The AFL is very important to Australia’s culture but it is not the only code that is played in Melbourne and it will not ever be the only code played in Sydney, there’s too many different ethnicities/cultural cross-polination for that. For you see AFL’s greatest chest of talent is actually the fatal flaw which is prevent AFL from dominating while Football is the sport of the people.
You just seem to believe the old story that because it’s a great sport and because Aussie rules has built such a great sporting Cathedral that we should all be grateful. Well I am, but I’d much rather see footy matches beside the Yarra personally! There’s nothing wrong with what you’re doing (obviously) for the crowd’s you get to the G, but why does ‘AFL’ have to dominate, it’s not like we owe it our total loyalty…that’s not how democracy works.
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
Jaredsbro
I’m not sure what you are referring to.
All I’m saying is that there is a very good reason why the MCG has had a capacity of 100,000+ for more than 50 years, and why Lords struggles to maintain a ground with a capacity of only 20,000.
Jaredsbro said | December 4th 2009 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
No I’m not arguing with you, but I’m saying that the MCG’s history is one of multi-sporting (largely cricket and Australian Football) legacies. I’m sure you also understand that it is as much a cathedral of cricket as it is for footy (tho you don’t hear people say it’s the home of Australian cricket etc). One of those sports holds a truly National cultural currency, but seems to be losing spectators at its biggest games while the opposite seems to be the case for Australian footy.
All I’m saying is obviously there are people who don’t agree. And ignorant w@nkers tho they may be, there is no denying the MCG has a lot more cultural currency than just as the home of football. To sum up I guess there’s more than one definition of popularity and thus there must be more than one standard of measuring the value of a specific stadia to the memories they create.
I think I said this on another thread but most sites of sporting excellence tend to be locations where just one sport is played, the MCG was never that so it needs to be classed in another category from say Lord’s. In fact I reckon the English definition of great sports arenas is universally the one-sport kind, which just shows you the mysogyny towards multi-sports like yourself and me
Pippinu said | December 4th 2009 @ 6:53pm | Report comment
Jaredsbro
I don’t disagree with any of that – but some appear to have trouble accepting that aussie rules pays the bills (as far as the MCG is concerned).
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Oh is that what you were saying Pip
Yeah then I definitely agree as how much does the Boxing Day test actually earn for the MCG as opposed to 28 plus games of AFL footy. But maybe the title of Michael C’s thread should have been MCG the house that the AFL subsidised 
Michael C said | December 4th 2009 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
Jimbo -
you’re posting this comment on the wrong thread.
btw – your comment is ludicrous, AFL supporters heading to the MCG, now, IF it were a stand alone rail line and IF the funding of it were based 86% upon the revenue generated from the patronage of those folk, then – yes, you could suggest that they had effectively paid for said item of infrastructure.
a nearer example might be the little rail line into Flemington Race Course and showgrounds….however, people aren’t charged a premium compared to normal rail travel for that service – - however, it could still perhaps be suggested that it’s the spur line built for the VRC, paid by the VRC but owned by the state. Perhaps???