They did last year..
AFL 2015: Report reveals true value of Friday night footy to clubs
- Thread starter go_the_dockers
- Start date
- Tagged users None
In theory there are 23 rounds which means 46 opportunities to play on a friday night. Means teams should average out 5 friday night games over every 2 years.
If you consider that there are 2 night games on a saturday as well that means a total of 15 night games per club over the period of every 2 years. It's really not hard to provide equality. The afl needs to pull it's head out of it's arse and work on making the next tv deal roughly the same amount of cash as the current one but having more rights to provide equality to all clubs through the fixture. A rotating fixture over 3 years with it randomised at the end of each 3 year period in regards to which double ups in which years etc.
I have no issue with clubs keeping their special games ie Anzac day, Queens birthday etc. etc. But if it means it's your year to only play team once then that special fixture is the only time you play them. Stiff s**t.
If you consider that there are 2 night games on a saturday as well that means a total of 15 night games per club over the period of every 2 years. It's really not hard to provide equality. The afl needs to pull it's head out of it's arse and work on making the next tv deal roughly the same amount of cash as the current one but having more rights to provide equality to all clubs through the fixture. A rotating fixture over 3 years with it randomised at the end of each 3 year period in regards to which double ups in which years etc.
I have no issue with clubs keeping their special games ie Anzac day, Queens birthday etc. etc. But if it means it's your year to only play team once then that special fixture is the only time you play them. Stiff s**t.
What I make of that is the system worked better then. The Blues were dire, tanking wooden spooners in 2006-7. The Hawks were definite up-and-comers in 2007. But at the end of 2006 when the draw was created they weren't the greatest. I reckon Carlton should have received 1 Friday at most. And the Hawks should have received 2-3. So they weren't far off where they should have been.
As for the Dogs and Saints, the Dogs were finallists in 2006 and were an exciting up-and-coming team. They fell apart two-thirds of the way through 2007, but the AFL wasn't to know that when they created the draw. The Dogs deserved their 4 Friday nights. And the Saints were the glamour young team of the comp - they were expected to be on the verge of a dynasty at that point in time. And they were the hope of Victoria (the Cats obviously overtook them after 2006). 7 Friday nights for them was reasonable.
Clearly the money was buying something else that year.
My view on this is that it's OK to have to "earn" Friday night and public holiday fixtures, if there are 56 slots then you might have top 4 get 5 each, 5-8 4 each etc and down to bottom 4 getting zero
But it has to be equal in opportunity - if the Dogs finish top 4 then they get 5 and if Collingwood finish bottom 4 they get zero
Simple solution.
Every club gets a guaranteed 1 Friday night home game every year. That includes Gold Coast and GWS.
Channel 7 has no say.
Big clubs should just put up with it.
Everyone wins.
Every club gets a guaranteed 1 Friday night home game every year. That includes Gold Coast and GWS.
Channel 7 has no say.
Big clubs should just put up with it.
Everyone wins.
- Sep 10, 2006
- 19,760
- 19,558
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC
Please don't disrespect Eddie like that mate. He's the voice of the small Victorian clubs.
He's only ever had your best interests at heart and you go and say hurtful s**t like this. tsk tsk.
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
Brayshaw nailed it. They're negotiating TV rights next year so scheduled the big Victorian clubs (us excepted for obvious reasons) for lots of Friday night games to try and pump up the ratings, and thus the value. And it's backfired spectacularly.
A "floating fixture" like the NRL would fix some of the problem...at least, the poorly performing teams could be excluded from Friday night games, and unexpectedly good teams like the Bulldogs could be given some games.
Obviously that's a big change. In the short term, perhaps an option could be to have a floating fixture for the final 4-6 rounds. Teams genuinely in contention could be given Friday nights, while the stragglers can be shunted off to the graveyard shift. That's both "fair" (teams that perform well earn their right to play), and also provides a much better spectacle for the fans (the teams are better and the games mean something).
Obviously that's a big change. In the short term, perhaps an option could be to have a floating fixture for the final 4-6 rounds. Teams genuinely in contention could be given Friday nights, while the stragglers can be shunted off to the graveyard shift. That's both "fair" (teams that perform well earn their right to play), and also provides a much better spectacle for the fans (the teams are better and the games mean something).
Aaah but there is a twist.
The big clubs are to not be the away teams, unless they are big non-Victorian teams that have solid Melbourne support i.e. Sydney, West Coast and by nature of the actual agreement of the Brisbane Lions and Fitzroy, Brisbane (wearing Fitzroy jumpers).
JohnnyFontane90
Norm Smith Medallist
- Feb 14, 2014
- 6,481
- 10,001
- AFL Club
- Carlton
they do that in america. but in america every seat of every stadium for every team is full so it has no bearing on attendance. won't be the same here...
And say what you want but channel 7 will have a say. their say is the amount of money they're willing to offer for the broadcasting rights....
I find it odd also that they list the Carlton v Collingwood game as being the most valuable to the clubs from a broadcast point of view considering it was the 17th highest rating game of the year thus far and even more glaringly the 11th highest rating Friday night game. From a Crowd point of view it was the 6th highest.
We haven't had one for 3 years. At least we have plenty of Saturdays this year.
The reality is that Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Carlton and Richmond shoulder this league (they have the national footprint that generates the TV money)
This view is supported by Mr Lethlean's observations
If you dont like that reality perhaps Port Adelaide, Norwood, Claremont and West Torrens can create a rival comp? I'm sure they'd be competitive
What do you mean by shoulder ?
Do the heavy lifting?
Are this group of clubs responsible for the FIX that causes so much angst to the national comp.
Ian Dunross
Premiership Player
- Mar 18, 2013
- 4,718
- 6,992
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Glenelg Tigers
The reality is that Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Carlton and Richmond shoulder this league (they have the national footprint that generates the TV money)
This view is supported by Mr Lethlean's observations
If you dont like that reality perhaps Port Adelaide, Norwood, Claremont and West Torrens can create a rival comp? I'm sure they'd be competitive
Didn't your club almost merge the last time it had an onfield dip?
Lose the attitude I'd suggest.
PoppedCorn
Saints
- Dec 29, 2009
- 19,601
- 37,718
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
draw the lot out of a hat
no what.......that would be fair
thats not on
no what.......that would be fair
thats not on
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
And guess what, you lose money on the TV rights, because the networks pay a premium to have influence on who they show
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
The answer may be in the last line of the article
The valuations were from a report compiled by Rubicon for one specific club
Dare I suggest that the report was conducted for a club who is arguing against the status quo, in particular the perceived bias towards the older Vic clubs? Wouldn't be the first report developed to find data that agrees with a predetermined position
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
I'm also assuming if the fixture is equalized as some are suggesting, the equalization payments for some clubs will be reduced?
If clubs are being financially compensated for the draw by the afl, it makes sense this would stop if the inequity stopped.
Reason I ask this was last time I discussed this here with a dees supporter, he still wanted 20 years further equalization funding even if the draw was engineered in the dees favor. You can't have it both ways
If clubs are being financially compensated for the draw by the afl, it makes sense this would stop if the inequity stopped.
Reason I ask this was last time I discussed this here with a dees supporter, he still wanted 20 years further equalization funding even if the draw was engineered in the dees favor. You can't have it both ways
BallaratBulldog
Premium Platinum
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2022
Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2022
Longest SFA Game Thread Ever
West Coast Wonders - Sweet F.A.
Sweet F.A. 300+ Games Played in the SFA
Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2018
Pokemon is Life
- Aug 5, 2007
- 18,569
- 22,518
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray VFL.
I would be fine with 0 equalization funds for our share of commercial exposure and that stadium deal ended. We can stand by ourselves then. Hopefully edgeworth finishes completion swiftly too.
That's what a good president does. Gets the best for his own club. Maybe your rabble of a club could learn something.
Similar threads
