AFL 2015: Report reveals true value of Friday night footy to clubs

[10571z]

I love how the lowerclubs sook about no Friday's. Why does the afl give the big clubs Friday's? Because they make more money so when the lower clubs put there hand out for cash the afl has plenty to give out.

 

[Doggy Dan]

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

Equalisation fund gives the Dogs 650k per/year, have you read how much the exposure on Friday nights is worth opposed to other fixtures? I am positive if we were to have 3 or 4 Friday night games we could make up this 650k plus some in increased sponsorship and increased gate takings. The equalisation fund is a device designed to shut the smaller clubs up and a great excuse for the bigger clubs to continue with their favourable fixture. I'm just so glad that Peter Gordon is now making a stand and this issue is on the agenda.

This isn't just the Dogs, all teams need their time in the spotlight, the conversation about form is also ridiculous. So Carlton, Richmond & Pies get significant exposure regardless of if they are shite and the Bullies, Saints, Roos or Dees only deserve it if they are a top 4 side, please!

 

[Doggy Dan]

I love how the lowerclubs sook about no Friday's. Why does the afl give the big clubs Friday's? Because they make more money so when the lower clubs put there hand out for cash the afl has plenty to give out.

You are uneducated, it's not your fault!

 

[bombersfan4000]

That's what a good president does. Gets the best for his own club. Maybe your rabble of a club could learn something.

yeah and campaigns through the media whinging how the afl are trying to kill the pies! not every club has a president as a media whore beating his chest!
as soon as another club has a president, on TV like Koch and the power, you have Eddie crying how he will be using his TV show to promote his club
meh off field Essendon is going fine! without the president, joining boards and costing the taxpayer millions so he can get his way for the club
its the on field, the side is a basket case

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Equalisation fund gives the Dogs 650k per/year, have you read how much the exposure on Friday nights is worth opposed to other fixtures? I am positive if we were to have 3 or 4 Friday night games we could make up this 650k plus some in increased sponsorship and increased gate takings. The equalisation fund is a device designed to shut the smaller clubs up and a great excuse for the bigger clubs to continue with their favourable fixture. I'm just so glad that Peter Gordon is now making a stand and this issue is on the agenda.

This isn't just the Dogs, all teams need their time in the spotlight, the conversation about form is also ridiculous. So Carlton, Richmond & Pies get significant exposure regardless of if they are shite and the Bullies, Saints, Roos or Dees only deserve it if they are a top 4 side, please!

Not sure what most of your post is about. I'm just saying if you want equalization in the fixture, don't bitch about losing your equalization funding.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

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.

What do you mean by your stadium deal being ended? You currently have no deal with etihad

 

[Wilfork]

They don't rate, why do they deserve a Friday night timeslot?

Says the Lakers fan - a team cannibalising smaller teams in the NBA despite being utterly shit on the court (and getting undeserved national TV slots).

Same shit, different league.

 

[KissKiss]

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

I do agree with this. If you equalise the fixture and give everyone a reasonable amount of the exposure on the key nights (Friday, Thurs nights, etc) and everyone having to do the crap slots (Sunday twilight) then the equalization funds should be rolled back. If you get an equal shot at succeeding but then still can't stand on your own feet then too bad.

 

[Adz]

Brayshaw complains Carlton get too many Friday nights. Yet suggest they host a Good Friday game. Absurd.

 

[Lensen]

Given one of the many issues is that clubs without FTA coverage can't convert newcomers to the game to barrack for them due to lack of exposure, I think some form of continuing equalisation payment to counteract the last 15 years of disequal exposure is fair

20 years is pushing it but no more than cutting it off immediately IMO

 

[the dog's kennel]

Brayshaw complains Carlton get too many Friday nights. Yet suggest they host a Good Friday game. Absurd.

Now that is something that hadn't occurred to me. Certainly ironic!

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I do agree with this. If you equalise the fixture and give everyone a reasonable amount of the exposure on the key nights (Friday, Thurs nights, etc) and everyone having to do the crap slots (Sunday twilight) then the equalization funds should be rolled back. If you get an equal shot at succeeding but then still can't stand on your own feet then too bad.

Only prob though is you will never have true equalization in a fixture where you don't play all teams once at home, and all teams away. There will always be biases, intended or otherwise, and people will always be wanting compo for them

 

[markr]

The other point is if the teams like Hawks and Collingwood want the other clubs to stand on their own feet, then they have to be prepared to give up Friday night games and this is something the AFLPA should push the issue on.

I think that's fair enough. Either make the distribution of "desirable" games as even as possible, or if the AFL want to stick to rigging it to maximise their revenue from the TV rights, then account for it in the redistribution. I'd obviously argue that should come directly from the AFL's TV rights money rather than from the other clubs.

Probably the making the game distribution is preferable, because it's hard to quantify how much lack of exposure hurts, but the AFL and the TV stations won't like that.

Not sure if the AFLPA should be the ones pushing this though? I would have thought it would be something for clubs to push.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Given one of the many issues is that clubs without FTA coverage can't convert newcomers to the game to barrack for them due to lack of exposure, I think some form of continuing equalisation payment to counteract the last 15 years of disequal exposure is fair

20 years is pushing it but no more than cutting it off immediately IMO

Since when did anyone barrack for a side because they saw them on TV?

They barrack for a team because dad, mum, or someone significant told them to, or they were successful during their developmental years. Dees could have had every Friday night for the last decade, they wouldn't have a single extra member because if it

 

[Papa G]

I think that's fair enough. Either make the distribution of "desirable" games as even as possible, or if the AFL want to stick to rigging it to maximise their revenue from the TV rights, then account for it in the redistribution. I'd obviously argue that should come directly from the AFL's TV rights money rather than from the other clubs.

Not sure if the AFLPA should be the ones pushing this though? I would have thought it would be something for clubs to push.

How much do Collingwood and Hawthorn actually pay out in this dis equal funding malarky?

 

[Papa G]

Since when did anyone barrack for a side because they saw them on TV?

Id dare say almost every single supporter that barracks for a club that doesn't reside in their city/town/region.

 

[Lensen]

Brayshaw complains Carlton get too many Friday nights. Yet suggest they host a Good Friday game. Absurd.

I can see your point but it's possible to have both an "ideal world" viewpoint to argue for but also do what is best in the current situation

If I'm taking Brayshaw's arguments at face value then I don't think it's unfair to assume that ideal world North would simply get their fair share of prime time games but current commercial realities dictate that to get his club exposure he needs to work with what the league is currently doing

 

[Richo83]

From the tv ratings thread in the footy industry board (includes fox and Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane metro markets):

Round 1: Thursday: Carlton v Richmond 0.925 mil
Round 2: Friday: West Coast v Carlton 0.916 mil
Round 3: Friday: Collingwood v St Kilda 0.795 mil
Round 4: Friday: Melbourne v Richmond 0.840 mil
Round 5: Friday: Collingwood v Carlton 0.782 mil
Round 6: Friday: Collingwood v Geelong 0.858 mil
Round 7: Friday: Essendon v North 0.874 mil
Round 8: Friday: Geelong v Carlton 0.770 mil
Round 9: Friday: Sydney v Carlton 0.825 mil
Round 10: Friday: Fremantle v Richmond 0.972 mil
Round 11: Friday: Port v Geelong 0.904 mil
Round 12: Thursday: Adelaide v Hawthorn 0.864 mil Friday: Richmond V West Coast 0.914 mil (personal number crunching, may be wrong)
Round 13: Thursday: Fremantle v Collingwood 0.943 mil Friday: Sydney v Richmond 0.873 mil (personal number crunching, may be wrong)
Round 14: Thursday: Port v Sydney 0.833 mil Friday: Collingwood v Hawthorn 1.035 mil
Round 15: Thursday: Port v Collingwood 0.831 mil Friday: Richmond v Carlton 0.716 mil

 

[Papa G]

From the tv ratings thread in the footy industry board (includes fox and Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane metro markets):

Round 1: Thursday: Carlton v Richmond 0.925 mil
Round 2: Friday: West Coast v Carlton 0.916 mil
Round 3: Friday: Collingwood v St Kilda 0.795 mil
Round 4: Friday: Melbourne v Richmond 0.840 mil
Round 5: Friday: Collingwood v Carlton 0.782 mil
Round 6: Friday: Collingwood v Geelong 0.858 mil
Round 7: Friday: Essendon v North 0.874 mil
Round 8: Friday: Geelong v Carlton 0.770 mil
Round 9: Friday: Sydney v Carlton 0.825 mil
Round 10: Friday: Fremantle v Richmond 0.972 mil
Round 11: Friday: Port v Geelong 0.904 mil
Round 12: Thursday: Fremantle v Collingwood 0.942 mil Friday: Sydney v Richmond 0.874 mil (personal number crunching, may be wrong)
Round 13: Thursday: Fremantle v Collingwood 0.943 mil Friday: Sydney v Richmond 0.873 mil
Round 14: Thursday: Port v Sydney 0.833 mil Friday: Collingwood v Hawthorn 1.035 mil
Round 15: Thursday: Port v Collingwood 0.831 mil Friday: Richmond v Carlton 0.716 mil

What are these figures telling you Richo?

 

[Richo83]

What are these figures telling you Richo?

Firstly, that Geelong and Western Australian teams should be getting more Friday night games, they seem to rate really well. Secondly, that viewers want to watch good sides play football rather than the "big clubs", Carlton has a large supporter base, but the neutrals aren't interested. Three of the four Thursday and Friday night games that have received less than 800k viewers have been Carlton games. Sure, St Kilda and Footscray have smaller supporter bases, but you'd probably get more neutrals turning in to watch.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I think that's fair enough. Either make the distribution of "desirable" games as even as possible, or if the AFL want to stick to rigging it to maximise their revenue from the TV rights, then account for it in the redistribution. I'd obviously argue that should come directly from the AFL's TV rights money rather than from the other clubs.

Probably the making the game distribution is preferable, because it's hard to quantify how much lack of exposure hurts, but the AFL and the TV stations won't like that.

Not sure if the AFLPA should be the ones pushing this though? I would have thought it would be something for clubs to push.

The AFLPA having been pushing for all players to have a shot at a premiership, my thoughts were you need cash and therefore you need exposure to have a even premiership chance.

 

[Papa G]

Firstly, that Geelong and Western Australian teams should be getting more Friday night games, they seem to rate really well. Secondly, that viewers want to watch good sides play football rather than the "big clubs", Carlton has a large supporter base, but the neutrals aren't interested. Three of the four Thursday and Friday night games that have received less than 800k viewers have been Carlton games. Sure, St Kilda and Footscray have smaller supporter bases, but you'd probably get more neutrals turning in to watch.

Not too sure about Geelong as they've had 1 good Friday night and 1 bad, but having a WA team on definitely increases the national average as I believe these are the only Friday night games played live in WA and they are also played on Ch 7 instead of on mate (gladly be corrected on this if wrong).

But even if we look at the all important Melbourne ratings which we are constantly told are all that matters, it's pretty much the same story.

 

[KissKiss]

Only prob though is you will never have true equalization in a fixture where you don't play all teams once at home, and all teams away. There will always be biases, intended or otherwise, and people will always be wanting compo for them

You might not ever get it equal but you could get it a hell of a lot closer than it currently is. It's a bit ridiculous when you see certain clubs not have played away to certain clubs for several years. (Personally I wouldnt be against dropping the comp down to 17 rounds and playing half (plus/minus the extra game) home one year and flipping it the other)

Either way if you gave everyone a more even fixture and roughly equal exposure to the key games then you wouldn't need to provide as much in equalization funds. The competition would be much fairer

 

[KissKiss]

The other thing I'd love to see is showdowns or derbys on a Friday night. I'm more interested in those real local rivalries than many other games

 

[Simon Phoenix]

Friday night games should be awarded based on performance from the previous season, but in saying that each team should have at least one each year. The fact that the Bulldogs have not had one in three seasons is a disgrace.

In a 23 round season, that gives 46 Friday night slots. After thinking about it for a minute I've come up with a proposal on how Friday night games are awarded:

Top 4: 4 games
5-9: 3 games
10-14: 2 games
Bottom 4: 1 game

Above is 45 slots. With the extra slot you could either give it to the reigning premier or give away a 'Fair Play' award like they do for the Europa League for the team with the least amount of suspensions/fines.