Women's Footy AFC GET Women's Team

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It's not a few things. It is this, and pretty much this alone.

It is not, intrinsically, a game that translates onto the pro-entertainment platform.

There are lots of games in that boat, that inherently are not suited to marketing up. This is an insurmountable problem as has been shown many times in the past

That's why I think women's football is a chance to be successful. The game is better than netball, better than basketball, better than soccer.

 

[Iron]

I'd be stunned if the women's teams didn't end up being revenue positive from day one.

Deep underwriting from the AFL, government funding and support, new sponsorship opportunities and brand interests.

Then to be able to leverage off from it - a female and male AFL player going into primary schools.

Aren't women now AFL's largest demographic? This seems like a great opportunity to appeal to young girls, give them a hero and align them to our club.

And probably have a few dollars left over for the Crows Foundation.

Nonsense. Everyone here has already said it won't be profitable. Ever. No need to actually try it, now.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Just out of interest, do you think that sponshorship dollars are infinite by nature. I don't doubt that there will be a female centric enterprise who will jump on board as a major partner of the women's team. But you have to ask the question as to how many dollars are out there that won't sponsor the men's team that we've approached who will turn around and sponsor the women. I guess it will be easier early as the interest will be high. But sponsors are still looking for value/exposure etc. I wouldn't be creating a business plan underpinned by sponsorship or continual govt funding.

Oh i think companies like Lorna Jane or Fernwood are the types of companies that maybe interested

I agree you can't rely on sponsorship for the competition, however i do believe for a limited season you'll get a TV sponsor ......if NAB sponsors the PS comp i can see a company wanting "to be seen" as getting on board to support a new womens venture that'll be high profile

 

[1970crow]

This is a very new asset for the AFL to sell.

I don't doubt each club will have a 250k Guernsey sponsor and the league will have an overarching sponsor.

I do a LOT of work in sponsorship with non profits - in my case, it's around cultural events, but the case is similar.

Finances won't be the issue. A short life span before it runs out of momentum might be.

In any event, we want to be in this business and we want our state competitor not to be. We want it for similar reasons that we have an indigenous program and a foundation doing charitable outreach. It's the right thing to do and it shows that we're a significant player within our industry.

Interesting, I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I'd be hesitant to describe it as an asset. I doubt right now it would satisfy many of the standards. Although, I can't really recall them. Measurable, control and future benefit or something like that. I'd happily swap the 'significant player' moniker for 'consistent preliminary finalist and odd flag winner', but that's just me.

Just one of those things that needs to play out. Nothing wrong with rampant enthusiasm or complete scepticism. I'm firmly in both camps and no one will sway me otherwise until we have something to review. But I'm enjoying the discussion and Allefgib gentle proddings. The devious sod.

 

[1970crow]

Nonsense. Everyone here has already said it won't be profitable. Ever. No need to actually try it, now.

Everyone is guessing though. I doubt it will be profitable, you are certain it will. See the difference, I'm thinking about it and will adjust my view as more information comes to hand. You have a closed mind and are just arguing against those with an open one.

 

[1970crow]

Oh i think companies like Lorna Jane or Fernwood are the types of companies that maybe interested

I agree you can't rely on sponsorship for the competition, however i do believe for a limited season you'll get a TV sponsor ......if NAB sponsors the PS comp i can see a company wanting "to be seen" as getting on board to support a new womens venture that'll be high profile

Agree it will be strong early. It's the ongoing bang for buck after the gloss wears off that will be the test.

 

[Sanders]

That's why I think women's football is a chance to be successful. The game is better than netball, better than basketball, better than soccer.

Maybe.

My feeling is that men's football is great, but that doesn't mean women's football is great. I like women's gymnastics but i don't think men's gymnastics is very good for example

I think gender variations are mutually exclusive versions of a game, any game.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Agree it will be strong early. It's the ongoing bang for buck after the gloss wears off that will be the test.

agree .....is the womens comp sustainable or a passing fad?

Melbourne womens' footy is VERY strong and taken very seriously .....it's often rougher than mens

IMO it'll be here to stay and i think that's fantastic

 

[King Elvis]

Have to say, and it might not be PC to say so, but I'm pretty appalled by these comments. Really flabbergasted

If you don't care enough to play something without sparkly trinkets on the end, then maybe those opportunities arent worth providing at all?

I'm going to stop there because anything else I have to say won't end well

Financially?

A few of things. The game is not exciting enough to watch and doesn't translate well to television.

I think the way the game is set up is an inherent weakness
1. Teams take it in turns to get a centre pass
2. Too difficult to get the ball back from the other team
2. The percentage of scoring is too high

Once a team is ahead there is rarely a comeback. Teams find it difficult to get on a roll because every second centre pass the opposition gets the ball back. You can't dominate possession for periods of games and get on a roll the way teams can in AFL. It means most games are decided early, except for the odd occasion.

The rules benefit the team in possession too strongly. Defenders can't breathe on them, can't get within three feet, can only try to intercept the ball with their 'outside hand' - given that most passes are only a few metres anyway it makes it too difficult to force turnovers. Watching games it is almost non-stop whistles for infractions from defenders. The game doesn't flow.

AFL teams will go inside 50 on 50+ occasions during a game and maybe if they're lucky kick a goal 15 times. Netball the percentage would be off the charts. Goals are almost inevitable - well, as close to inevitable as any sport in the world. There is little unknown (what might happen) therefore little excitement. Soccer is at the other end of the spectrum.

Shooting percentages are ridiculous. It's too easy to score a goal. It's too hard to turn the ball over. Only two people on each team are allowed to score. You are limited in where you can run. Rather than making it an exciting athletic contest, the rules of netball make it a restrained one with a carefully controlled environment.

That's all before even acknowledging what AFL has done brilliantly compared to other sports - focus on the consumer, turn players into fans, turn fans into money spenders, tailor everything for television.

I really enjoy netball, to the point I watch it on TV and go with my Mum a couple of times a year; but I wouldn't watch men play it.

It's also the biggest 'female' sport in Australia, and it's only really been able to have a professional league in the last 3-5 years.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I really enjoy netball, to the point I watch it on TV and go with my Mum a couple of times a year; but I wouldn't watch men play it.

It's also the biggest 'female' sport in Australia, and it's only really been able to have a professional league in the last 3-5 years.

Do you watch Womens Cricket?

 

[Iron]

Everyone is guessing though. I doubt it will be profitable, you are certain it will. See the difference, I'm thinking about it and will adjust my view as more information comes to hand. You have a closed mind and are just arguing against those with an open one.

Have you read my posts? I absolutely did not say it would be profitable for sure. I said it had no chance in the short term and every chance in the long term.

There are those who have argued it will never be popular enough to make money in this very thread. I say give the project a chance. How is that close minded?

 

[1970crow]

Have you read my posts? I absolutely did not say it would be profitable for sure. I said it had no chance in the short term and every chance in the long term.

There are those who have argued it will never be popular enough to make money in this very thread. I say give the project a chance. How is that close minded?

It's not. I probably extrapolated out from your one liner without viewing it with your full body of work on the matter.

 

[Iron]

It's not. I probably extrapolated out from your one liner without viewing it with your full body of work on the matter.

My post wasn't particularly constructive so it's partly my fault.

 

[1970crow]

My post wasn't particularly constructive so it's partly my fault.

Hug it out?

 

[Allefgib]

Hug it out?

And my job here is done.

 

[mistylake]

It's no different to AFL.

The reason so many talented teenage athletes head down the AFL path rather than athletics, cricket, basketball etc is the sparkly trinkets on offer. 100 kids get drafted every year, wages way ahead of other sports, chance to build a career.

It's the same reason people go out together. Potential for sex at the end.
What's in it for me.

 

[fabs33]

Nonsense. Everyone here has already said it won't be profitable. Ever. No need to actually try it, now.

Everyone is guessing though. I doubt it will be profitable, you are certain it will. See the difference, I'm thinking about it and will adjust my view as more information comes to hand. You have a closed mind and are just arguing against those with an open one.

Have you read my posts? I absolutely did not say it would be profitable for sure. I said it had no chance in the short term and every chance in the long term.

There are those who have argued it will never be popular enough to make money in this very thread. I say give the project a chance. How is that close minded?

It's not. I probably extrapolated out from your one liner without viewing it with your full body of work on the matter.

My post wasn't particularly constructive so it's partly my fault.

Hug it out?

Sorry, I must have have logged onto the wrong forum. I'll show myself out.

 

[Iron]

Sorry, I must have have logged onto the wrong forum. I'll show myself out.

How dare you say that

 

[Elite Crow]

Anyone provided some research today to back some suggestions it will be successful?

 

[Hank93]

Have to say, and it might not be PC to say so, but I'm pretty appalled by these comments. Really flabbergasted

If you don't care enough to play something without sparkly trinkets on the end, then maybe those opportunities arent worth providing at all?

I'm going to stop there because anything else I have to say won't end well

Well I've played for ten years and probably ran at a loss of $90,000, so I don't think you can question my commitment or passion for the game.

But equally, i'd have to consider whether spending the amount of time and commitment I've put into my sport is worth it without some sort of international or national competition available to at least aim for.

Equally, some of the examples I used before were multi talented athletes who were punished in wheelchair tennis for being too disabled, and basketball offers the opportunity to be categorised based on your level of disability. They love tennis, but if they can make more money in club contracts, get your travel and expenses covered by the team you play for, and have a greater chance of qualifying for paralympics, it is no brainer for some of those players.

If the only competition available was local club tennis against abled bodied players or small, underfunded local groups then I'd probably spend less time playing tennis.

 

[Hank93]

is that how you think the modern AFL developed? You think that 10 year olds start playing with a conscious view of how much they'll earn if they make the big leagues. Would be interesting to find out how many just quit outright when they realise they're not going to get drafted and earn the big bucks. The AFL is built on a rich history of amateur and semi-professional footy. Just like probably every other sporting pinnacle across the globe. Reverse engineering hasn't proven itself for other women's competitions. See the complaints about earnings from female soccer and cricket players. The sports just don't generate the revenue to turn them into full time athletes. The AFL and women's footy may succeed where these have failed thus far, but it's folly to suggest this is a financial slam dunk or a certain success.

They might not be thinking about how much they'd earn in the big leagues, but I'm sure there's plenty that take up auskick because they want to become the next Tex Walker pulling on a Crows guernsey in front of 50,000 fans. No AFL competition for kids to look up to, is the attraction to the game the same?

 

[Hank93]

I didn't know anything about the ITF tour or the sport as a whole until I was 12, 5 years after initially starting playing tennis in my stock standard day chair.

But travelling interstate, representing Australia at junior level at world championships and competing overseas as a senior has certainly gone a long way to keeping me in the sport for the amount of years that I have played.

 

[Sanders]

Well I've played for ten years and probably ran at a loss of $90,000, so I don't think you can question my commitment or passion for the game.

If the only competition available was local club tennis against abled bodied players or small, underfunded local groups then I'd probably spend less time playing tennis.

I'm not questioning your commitment, you are

 

[Allefgib]

It's the same reason people go out together. Potential for sex at the end.
What's in it for me.

Like sport though, surely that's just a participation benefit?

 

[Tex Danger]

What length qtrs did the women's game have last year?

To work it can't be 20 plus time on. Make it a fast food version of the game that is over in comfortably under 2hrs, ideally under 1.5hrs.

This way it's point of difference is not just that it's women playing, but that it's over quickly which may help attract women, kids, etc who aren't interested in the longer timeframe.

It also helps with the physical differences as they could play with more intensity.

Also allows it to be positioned as a curtain raiser (or after men on day games) where it's not starting ridiculously early or making it an 8hr day if people want both.

Same applies for home viewers who with so much footy available, even if interested may not have time to fit it in around other games, short form helps