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.

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

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.

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.

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

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……

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???

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.

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 . . .

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.

Good for you, classic smell the fear mate, looking at your rediculous poem/post.

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.

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

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?

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.

“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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.