Coburg vs Frankston, Sunday August 21

[one-eyed]

We're blaming only having 8 RFC players to choose from at Coburg...

Richmond’s deepening injury list at the tail-end of the season has severely impacted the Club’s VFL affiliate Coburg.

With the likes of David Astbury, Jake Batchelor, Reece Conca, Daniel Connors, Tom Derickx, David Gourdis (suspended), Dylan Grimes, Brad Helbig, Tom Hislop, Ben Jakobi, Luke McGuane, Kelvin Moore and Tiger captain Chris Newman all sidelined, Coburg had only eight Richmond-listed players to choose from last weekend.

Andrew Browne, Pat Contin, Ben Griffiths, Robbie Hicks, Dean MacDonald, Jamie O’Reilly, Nick Westhoff and Matthew White were members of the Coburg side that lost to bottom team Frankston by 67 points at Frankston Oval yesterday (Shttp://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=13909.45;num_replies=59unday, August 21).

Ben Nason was on standby at the MCG as Richmond’s emergency in the clash with Melbourne.

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/121614/default.aspx

[RollsRoyce]

Well Smokey, et al. I see you're toeing the clubs party line that we should be able to win anywhere. And of course that's right. But my point as I've said all along is, why put yourself at a disadvantage when you don't have to?
Would Collingwood sell their home games? You can argue that we would've lost those games in Melbourne with that attitude, but it's highly unlikely. We're talking about the bottom and second bottom sides here. The intimidation factor of them facing a Richmond crowd at the Punt Road End would have been ENORMOUS. And I believe it would have carried us over the line. Instead, Port in particular would've been licking their lips at the prospect of playing us at a venue whose particular peculiarities they are very familiar with. Again, WHY put ourselves in that position when we don't have to?
It's pretty easy to trace the decline of our season back to that game. Don't forget too, that by selling that game, we went from back to back trips (Syd/Bris) to 3 consecutive road trips. When you also factor in a 12 hour bus trip home from Sydney, it's no wonder that our young side ran out of puff in the ensuing weeks.
The week before we'd just pulled a 90,000 crowd against Essendon, and were flying high with the big boys.So it seems insane to me to not only give up that momentum, but also start suddenly behaving like the pauper clubs selling off their home games. What did we lose? A chance to be in the eight, and all the extra members and dollars that would have come our way by keeping our season alive, instead of effectively killing it off in effing June.   

[WilliamPowell]

Again, WHY put ourselves in that position when we don't have to?

Why? 

Because the club needs the $$$$ so we do have to.

Whether you or anyone likes it or not those 2 games were worth $1mil to the bottom line, played in Melb most likely at Etihad the Club hands Collo a cheque.

You are living in a dream world if you think for one milli-second that those games would have been played at the MCG - was never ever going to happen. 

Now if come October the Club was to report a financial LOSS I have no doubt that you and many others on this forum would be screaming out about that ie the club losing money.... you can't have it both ways 

So the bottom line is the reason WHY they did it are obvious. The fact that most of us (and BTW go back in the archives and you'll know I'm dead against selling home games) don't like the reason is a totally seperate issue

Club have made it abundantly clear, raise what they need via the FTF and the need for selling homes games is not needed

What's done is done time to move on until 2012 when we play those 2 home games interstate again and people can start complaining once more 

[RollsRoyce]

Hang on WP, you're contradicting yourself a bit here. First you're saying that you're dead against selling home games. Then you concede we have to do it. Which is it?
But okay, if it's just about dollars and cents then okay, let's look at it.
We made $500,000 per game.
Even if those games were played at Docklands,with the sort of form we were in coming off the Essendon win the week before, you could automatically GUARANTEE at least 30,000 Richmond fans would have turned up which would mean at worst a break even, not a loss on the gate.
Secondly, the dramatic form slump that this sell-out instigated came at a time when memberships were still on sale. It no doubt affected sales, and we may have even broken the 50,000 barrier in a normal run of events.
Thirdly, our total non-competitiveness throughout June and July definitely had an adverse effect on the gate. The Richmond crowds at the 2nd Essendon game and the Geelong match were WELL down.
Then there's the fact that two more wins would have had us in contention for the finals. After only two appearances since 1982 we fans are STARVING for some September action. How much would the club have made even if we'd only progressed no further than an Elimination Final? And how much of a shot in the arm would it have been for our 2012 membership drive?
But it's not just about dollars and cents. It's about standing up to the AFL bullies, who already do far too much rigging of the fixture and other things to suit their rampant greed. It's about saying NO, WE WILL NOT WHITTLE AWAY OUR HOME GROUND ADVANTAGE so you can promote the game to five men and their dog in Darwin or Cairns.       

[RollsRoyce]

And by the way. What's done is NOT done. Beacause they're going to keep on doing it next year and the year after that too.

[gerkin greg]

even if we won those two games and win the next two we'd still more than likely miss the finals

blame the draw against st.kilda 

[WilliamPowell]

Hang on WP, you're contradicting yourself a bit here. First you're saying that you're dead against selling home games. Then you concede we have to do it. Which is it?

How have I contradicted myself?

I don't believe in the Club selling home games I am deadset against it.

You asked WHY they did it - I said WHY they did it and what they got out of it for doing it. Again do I agree with the selling home games - NO but I understand why they did it. It doesn't mean I like it or think it's right

Can I make it any clearer?

But okay, if it's just about dollars and cents then okay, let's look at it.
We made $500,000 per game.
Even if those games were played at Docklands,with the sort of form we were in coming off the Essendon win the week before, you could automatically GUARANTEE at least 30,000 Richmond fans would have turned up which would mean at worst a break even, not a loss on the gate.
Secondly, the dramatic form slump that this sell-out instigated came at a time when memberships were still on sale. It no doubt affected sales, and we may have even broken the 50,000 barrier in a normal run of events.
Thirdly, our total non-competitiveness throughout June and July definitely had an adverse effect on the gate. The Richmond crowds at the 2nd Essendon game and the Geelong match were WELL down.

Neither the 2nd Essensdon game or the Geelong game were our home games so the gate numbers (takings) are not relevant as we don't get a cut of those

As for the $$$. I've said it before and I'lll say it again we are delaing with a million dollar business here whether we like it or not.

Facts are the club had to find extra revenue this year to cover the dollars it no longer gets from the Royal Oak + the extra spend it's put into footy in 2012. Part of it has come from extra sponsorship $$ but where was the rest to come from?

Your assertion that having those 2 games in Melb at Etihad where at best we would break even would have raised us another $1 mil is not realistic.. yes it would have genereated more members but $1 mil worth I don't think so

How much would the club have made even if we'd only progressed no further than an Elimination Final?

From gate takings? Not 1 cent as all takings from finals go to the AFL - always have always will

From other avenues who knows but it certainly would have helped with FTA TV coverage in 2012 no doubt

And how much of a shot in the arm would it have been for our 2012 membership drive?

Agree - alot, would be worth at least 2-5k members

[RollsRoyce]

How have I contradicted myself?

I don't believe in the Club selling home games I am deadset against it.

You asked WHY they did it - I said WHY they did it and what they got out of it for doing it. Again do I agree with the selling home games - NO but I understand why they did it. It doesn't mean I like it or think it's right

Can I make it any clearer?

It's just that, for someone who opposes us selling our home games, you sure sounded like you were justifying it to me. You don't need to point out WHY the club does it. I know why they do it. I just don't agree with it (and that's an understatement). And if you don't agree with it either, then I don't know why we're even arguing about it. Once again, while I acknowledge that sport is a business now, I just wish there was some other way the club come come up with to raise revenue, and the AFL SHOULD help us in this regard without prejudicing and compromising the competition any further than they already do. It's in their best interests to help us become a force again. But as I've argued endlessly, they are too short-sighted to see it. Dimwittiou does wear glasses after all.  

[WilliamPowell]

Dimwittiou does wear glasses after all.  

So do I so what's your point 

[one-eyed]

The Coburg Report
richmondfc.com.au
Tue 23 Aug, 2011


Development coach, David Newett, provides a summary of how the Richmond-listed players performed at VFL level with Coburg against Frankston last Sunday.

Jamie O’Reilly
Was very competitive throughout the game, but this also led to free kicks against him on occasions.  Spread well at times to create scoring opportunities and also to support.  Is improving key aspects of his game.

Robbie Hicks
Didn’t assert the same forward line influence as the previous week.  Found the ball in offensive chains and used his possessions to advantage, but had limited impact during the second half due to injury.

Andrew Browne
The team’s lone ruckman was eventually worn down by Frankston’s dual ruck combination.  Still won his fair share of hit-outs (29), but didn’t have his usual quota of high possessions.

Pat Contin
Worked hard in the midfield, both offensively, to create patterns, and defensively, to apply pressure to a surging opposition midfield.  Displayed good intent around stoppages and is in impressive form at the back end of the season. 

Nick Westhoff
Showed glimpses of his ability to take marks and find the ball at ground level.  Despite limited impact, did contribute with two goals.


Matthew White
Was well held by the opposition and, consequently, didn’t have much influence on the game.  Used his speed to break from stoppages on occasions and apply defensive pressure with chases. 

Ben Griffiths
The key forward struggled to have an impact after a promising first quarter that yielded three marks.  Spent some time in the ruck later in the game.

Dean MacDonald
Returned to the senior team from injury and started the game well with some good marks on the lead.  Was fairly quiet after quarter-time.

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/121679/default.aspx

[Siberian]

Is O'Reilly reported?
Is it tribunal night for the VFL?