The trade-off

The trade-off is that the stronger clubs will receive fewer dollars in distributions from head Rosetta Stone Language office. In essence, the powerful clubs will get less, but will also receive less interference in their capacity to generate money and spend it. Collingwood and Essendon share the gate for the two matches they play every year, ensuring that each helps the other to promote Anzac Day and the far less lucrative return bout. Essendon also shares the gate with the Blues for their two games each year, but Collingwood and Carlton don't share. When you talk to these clubs, you'll seldom hear the Dons muttering about ''bloody Collingwood'', or the Pies using similar language about the Dons. The same cannot be said of their respective attitudes to Carlton, which didn't want to trade Brendan Fevola to Collingwood unless it was a deal that would hurt the Pies (who lost interest quickly). Subsequently, when the Fev bomb detonated in Brisbane, a Carlton insider quipped that ''we should have sent him there Language Learning Software [Collingwood] to stuff them up''. A decade ago, Essendon was the clear benchmark and Collingwood was beginning its ascent under an energetic McGuire. Today, the positions have reversed. The Bombers are regrouping under a bold new regime, shedding some of their traditional conservatism, and, like Carlton, are chasing the Pies on and off-field. This points to another quirk of the Essendon-Collingwood alliance - since the early 1990s, they've never been strong at the same time; when one is up, the other has been a straggler. But if we see the Bombers fly up and get among the contenders before Collingwood declines, the alliance might get French Learning Software an edge that it lacks. If their alliance makes football's answer to BHP and Rio Tinto, both would prefer to be the Big Australian.