AFL Finances

[madmug]

Sponsorship: 10 clubs in a city of 4 million vs 2 clubs in a city of 5 million. VIC clubs would have much harder time with the competition it brings.

You really don't have a very analytical mind do you.
Sponsorship.
Melbourne - 9 AFL, 1 NRL, 1 SRU, 2 AL = 13 clubs
Sydney - 2 AFL, 9 NRL, 1 SRU, 2 AL = 14 clubs

Melbourne population more like 4.5million Sydney 4.9million.

Melbourne arguably has 10 teams as Geelong really acts as an outer suburban club. If it were as far away as Mildura or Portland, it probably wouldnt survive.

Anyway, continue!

 

[Vankri]

I think you might be forgetting the Rugby League Clubs that the 2 AFL clubs have to compete with as well as a hostile media. Aussie Rules is still very much a niche sport in Sydney playing very much second fiddle (actually probably 3rd fiddle after Union) to the NRL.

If you're arguing that Aussie Rules is not as established in Sydney than it is in Melbourne I'm pretty sure we'll come to an agreement very quickly. If you're trying to argue that this means the Sydney clubs should be compensated because they have less opportunity for sponsorship, we won't. Because the very premise of the AFL installing a club in a new area should be that this opportunity exists. If it doesn't then what is the AFL doing in those markets? The argument that the competition is unfair because there are so many Victorian derbies is very weak.

If Man U played football then it would probably be a concern.
If Man U had to regularly travel 1000s of km it might be a concern.
If Man U was just starting up it might be a problem.
If all the London clubs banded to together to bring Man U down that might be a problem.
If all the refs came from London that might be a problem.

But Man U can buy anything they want much like the big Vic clubs.

Man U doesn't ask for compensation because there are a lot of London derbies; which was the point the poster I was responding to was trying to make.
So what's your argument?
A club should get compensation because it is new: by definition it is given that compensation as the league helps it establish and it has sudden access to very high picks in a short period of time to give it the opportunity to succesd.
A club should be compensated because of travel: if the fixture was even, everything would even out, and everything lost in travel to the same location (Melbourne) is gained back in home ground advantage. Fix the fixture, you've fixed this issue.
There is no conspiracy of all Vic clubs against expansion clubs so I fail to see how your third point is relevant.
And the refs point sounds like conspiracy theory, particularly when almost all supporters complain about home ground umpiring wherever that ground is.

Same argument applies to every market, with supply for bums on seats far exceeded by demand in the Melbourne market - Vanman thats A POOR ATTEMPT to compare Sydney & Melbourne / Sydney & Collingwood - our game is the better off when you guys are contenders.

What's your point?

You really don't have a very analytical mind do you.
Sponsorship.
Melbourne - 9 AFL, 1 NRL, 1 SRU, 2 AL = 13 clubs
Sydney - 2 AFL, 9 NRL, 1 SRU, 2 AL = 14 clubs

For any sponsorship opportunity local to VIC and specific to Aussie Rules, there are 9 other clubs to compete with. Not in Sydney. And both compete with other sports codes, and if you want to speak about bringing bums on seats all compete with other entertainment options.

The competition is not unfair because VIC clubs have access to so much sponsorship and gate receipts due to local derbies, as expansion clubs have a massive market to play with (if people don't like the game in these areas it's not the other club's fault). If anything the competition is unfair because the AFL manipulates its rule to engineer certain results that benefit some specific clubs.

 

[cos789]

Melbourne arguably has 10 teams as Geelong really acts as an outer suburban club.

Then Sydney would have 11 NRL teams including Canberra and Newcastle.

 

[cos789]

Man U

Is in a completely different code, country and situation.

For any sponsorship opportunity... .

You are competing against other sponsorship contenders.

 

[Rob]

Man U doesn't ask for compensation because there are a lot of London derbies; which was the point the poster I was responding to was trying to make.

By the same token, Tottenham or QPR doesn't ask for compensation because there are a lot of teams in London, nor do they use it as an excuse for not winning (or getting relegated). OK, some QPR fans probably do.
Hell, i've seen some Melbourne clubs call for compensation because they teams they've been fixtured up against don't bring enough fans to their home games. Have you heard anything so absurd? "Our fans are rubbish so the AFL should put us up against teams who have lots of fans otherwise we should get compensation"

It works both ways. I know it's turned into a Victorians vs rest argument, but it's really not.

 

[cos789]

It's pretty clear most people in this thread have't read the article, nor have they understood why Newbold has made this statement.


The AFL are about to hand a fresh set of special considerations to GWS, Sydney, GC and Brisbane.

We understand the situation and don't see a problem.

 

[Kwality]

What's your point?



For any sponsorship opportunity local to VIC and specific to Aussie Rules, there are 9 other clubs to compete with. Not in Sydney. And both compete with other sports codes, and if you want to speak about bringing bums on seats all compete with other entertainment options.

The competition is not unfair because VIC clubs have access to so much sponsorship and gate receipts due to local derbies, as expansion clubs have a massive market to play with (if people don't like the game in these areas it's not the other club's fault). If anything the competition is unfair because the AFL manipulates its rule to engineer certain results that benefit some specific clubs.

The AFL manipulation, aka the FIXture, cant be blamed on the individual clubs, but the AFL knows that many clubs wont criticise the status quo.

 

[Vankri]

Is in a completely different code, country and situation.



You are competing against other sponsorship contenders.

Surely your analytical mind can handle the a simple analogy?

By the same token, Tottenham or QPR doesn't ask for compensation because there are a lot of teams in London, nor do they use it as an excuse for not winning (or getting relegated). OK, some QPR fans probably do.
Hell, i've seen some Melbourne clubs call for compensation because they teams they've been fixtured up against don't bring enough fans to their home games. Have you heard anything so absurd? "Our fans are rubbish so the AFL should put us up against teams who have lots of fans otherwise we should get compensation"

It works both ways. I know it's turned into a Victorians vs rest argument, but it's really not.

Yep I agree. If the fixture was all fair no one would have grounds to complain about who they've been fixtured against and how.

Once you eliminate all competition induced unfair skews, and you're left with the only unfairness being who gets FTA and who doesn't and the fact the Grand Final is played at the MCG, not only do you have a fairer competition you also have much less bias to actually figure out who you need to compensate, what you need to equalise and how, otherwise you're just operating on quick fixes over a poorly designed system in the first place.

The AFL manipulation, aka the FIXture, cant be blamed on the individual clubs, but the AFL knows that many clubs wont criticise the status quo.

I completely agree so not sure what you were trying to 'fix' from my original point.

 

[cos789]

Hell, i've seen some Melbourne clubs call for compensation because they teams they've been fixtured up against don't bring enough fans to their home games.

It is very simple really.
AFL Fixturing tries to maximise crowds which maximises the benefit to the AFL, the already large clubs
and maximises the problems of smaller clubs growing and surviving.
Compensation is only a stop gap measure because the clubs are not getting the right exposure to attract future members
thus compounding their situation.

 

[cos789]

Surely your analytical mind can handle the a simple analogy?

Yes. There is little similarity between Man U and any AFL club so why reference it. That's the analysis.

 

[cos789]

Once you eliminate all competition induced unfair skews, and you're left with the only unfairness being who gets FTA and who doesn't and the fact the Grand Final is played at the MCG, not only do you have a fairer competition you also have much less bias to actually figure out who you need to compensate.

We're not talking about compensation, we're talking about the development of Australian Football in the Northern states.

 

[Vankri]

Yes. There is little similarity between Man U and any AFL club so why reference it. That's the analysis.

The original argument was that the fact that there are so many derbies in Melbourne is unfair on Sydney clubs (point was made by a GWS supporter) and should warrant compensation, because it boosts crowd and give sponsorship opportunities.

My response was that in another city where the number of teams in a certain sport means there are lots of derbies, a club outside of city can greatly succeed and never even think about requesting 'compensation' for the situation.

I think the argument that the number of Vic derbies is unfair on Sydney clubs is very poor (the argument that the fixture overall is biased is a different argument but a good one, just has nothing to do with the number of teams in VIC rather than the AFL's manipulation to boost attendance and viewership) . Now if you cared to follow the argument closely, you are actually not responding to the Vic derbies part, and just introducing a whole lot of new parameters in the conversation. If your point is that a team should be compensation because it is in a new market that is something else, which as I've said using the Man U example the Sydney clubs GWS has already been given more than a fair opportunity for it.

 

[Rob]

It is very simple really.
AFL Fixturing tries to maximise crowds which maximises the benefit to the AFL, the already large clubs
and maximises the problems of smaller clubs growing and surviving.
Compensation is only a stop gap measure because the clubs are not getting the right exposure to attract future members
thus compounding their situation.

That effect is grossly overexaggerated. Otherwise North, who were the best team of the mid-late 90's and probably the most 'exposed', would have them crawling out of the woodwork 20 years later when all those kids that were watching them now are adults with full time jobs. Instead their support base is not much bigger (if at all) to what it was.

 

[madmug]

Then Sydney would have 11 NRL teams including Canberra and Newcastle.

Geelong 180k, 75km from Melbourne

ACT 390k, 290km from Sydney
Newcastle area 450k, 160km from Sydney

You can argue that, but I wouldnt. I think Geelong has a closer relationship to Melbourne than the others do to Sydney.

Woolongong, which shares the Dragons with the southern regions of Sydney has 280k & is 85 km from Sydney, is more like Geelong in that regard, IMO.

 

[cos789]

Woolongong, which shares the Dragons with the southern regions of Sydney has 280k & is 85 km from Sydney, is more like Geelong in that regard, IMO.

Because you are quoting purely distances and not factors like rail usuage that allow the representation of one team.
You wouldn't countenance merging WB with Geelong would you.

 

[cos789]

That effect is grossly overexaggerated. Otherwise North, who were the best team of the mid-late 90's and probably the most 'exposed', would have them crawling out of the woodwork 20 years later when all those kids that were watching them now are adults with full time jobs. Instead their support base is not much bigger (if at all) to what it was.

That's one way of looking at it.
The other way is North would have vanished long ago if it wasn't for that exposure.
IMO North have "lost" support by all there failed "moves" to Sydney, GC, Canberra, Ballarat and Tasmania.
Stay in one spot and you've got a chance to grow.

 

[cos789]

The original argument was that the fact that there are so many derbies in Melbourne is unfair on Sydney clubs (point was made by a GWS supporter) and should warrant compensation, because it boosts crowd and give sponsorship opportunities.

My response was that in another city where the number of teams in a certain sport means there are lots of derbies, a club outside of city can greatly succeed and never even think about requesting 'compensation' for the situation.

Because it exists in a like environment as in Perth and Adelaide. Sydney is not a like environment.

I think the argument that the number of Vic derbies is unfair on Sydney clubs is very poor (the argument that the fixture overall is biased is a different argument but a good one, just has nothing to do with the number of teams in VIC rather than the AFL's manipulation to boost attendance and viewership)

I have already said that this is a problem for some Victorian clubs.
You dwell on crowds and sponsorhip but there are other factors as well like travel and media.

If your point is that a team should be compensation because it is in a new market that is something else.

I thought I made that abundantly clear.
The 16 team AFL agreed to expand to 18 teams and they all knew the situation.

 

[Vankri]

Because it exists in a like environment as in Perth and Adelaide. Sydney is not a like environment.



I have already said that this is a problem for some Victorian clubs.
You dwell on crowds and sponsorhip but there are other factors as well like travel and media.



I thought I made that abundantly clear.
The 16 team AFL agreed to expand to 18 teams and they all knew the situation.

Interesting that your analytical mind just admitted to basically missing the point of the message you first quoted from me.

I'm arguing that the number of VIC derbies is not an unfair situation towards Sydney clubs, and there would be zero unfairness about the number of VIC clubs in the league if the fixture was equal. And that the fixture currently not being equal is unfair on everyone (because it is manipulated towards a certain result), and primarily smaller Vic clubs, certainly not primarily Sydney clubs.

Your take on 16 teams agreeing to expand to 18 knowing the issue is completely besides the point. Except if you're just showing us a nice statu quo bias trying to argue that because something is currently as it is, it's therefore right.

Really if you're not willing to answer the actual argument I was making originally and want to converse, you better state your point on AFL finances/unfairness, because it's certainly not 'abundantly clear' to me.

 

[cos789]

Interesting that..........

You have no idea.
Some Victorian clubs have a problem with the TIMING of the fixures.
Interstate clubs are at a general disadvantage.
However some interstate teams can over come those disadvantages because they enjoy a greater AF catchment area.
Other interstate teams need some consideration until they grow.

 

[Vankri]

You have no idea.
Some Victorian clubs have a problem with the TIMING of the fixures.
Interstate clubs are at a general disadvantage.
However some interstate teams can over come those disadvantages because they enjoy a greater AF catchment area.
Other interstate teams need some consideration until they grow.

Pretty underwhelming response.

The reason why the AFL has scheduled Collingwood to play in your biggest stadium, in Sydney for so many years now while rarely giving us a home game in return against you, is that they want to grow the game in your area and therefore using the size of our club to build it up there.

That's just one example of how the AFL manipulates the fixture to benefit you in this instance.

So again, you are unable to support the point I was responding to, which was that the fact that there are so many VIC derbies means the system is unfair on Sydney clubs.

 

[madmug]

Because you are quoting purely distances and not factors like rail usuage that allow the representation of one team.
You wouldn't countenance merging WB with Geelong would you.

Dont twist the comments intent. I was mearly saying that Geelong is very much a part of the Melbourne football grouping. Canberra & Newcastle are a lot further away from Sydney. I mean Geelong plays some home games at the MCG. Newcastle & Canberra do not play home games in Sydney.

Thats why I mentioned that 'Melbourne' really includes 10 clubs.

I certainly didnt say anything about clubs merging like happened with the St George Dragons & the Illawarra steelers. I just pointed out the close relationship between the smaller & closer Woolongong to the Sydney sports (NRL) grouping, Like the close Geelong link to Melbourne.

You can disagree if you like, but I think its a pretty obvious point.

 

[cos789]

Thats why I mentioned that 'Melbourne' really includes 10 clubs.

The original point was about sponsorship competition and I chose to compare city vs city.
If you include environs then that correspondingly expands Sydney.
Changes little except the further from the CBD then the more regional become the influences.

Geelong is connected to Melbourne by football but the people of Illawarra and Newcastle commute heavily to Sydney,
so we're talking about sponsorship catchment area.
The Swans are popular up to Coff's Harbour and the Illawarra plays in the Sydney league.

 

[cos789]

The reason why the AFL has scheduled Collingwood to play in your biggest stadium.....

Is because the AFL has a contract to play three games a year at ANZ stadium.
When Collingwood comes to Sydney why shouldn't it play at ANZ? (bit irrelevant now that they've upgraded the SCG I know)
All Victorian clubs have more derbies, more use of the MCG and travel less no matter how you fapp around.

 

[Vankri]

Is because the AFL has a contract to play three games a year at ANZ stadium.
When Collingwood comes to Sydney why shouldn't it play at ANZ? (bit irrelevant now that they've upgraded the SCG I know)
All Victorian clubs have more derbies, more use of the MCG and travel less no matter how you fapp around.

You do realise that the mere fact that we play you in Sydney and never home is a manipulation of the AFL to help your club grow, right? You understand that this is was used to support my argument responding to your claim that Vic clubs benefit from the unfair fixture, right? That I'm trying to make a point that the AFL manipulates the fixture for a variety of reasons? Do you also understand that I'm saying that if the fixture was even, there would be a similar amount of Vic derbies but anything non-Vic clubs lose in travel they would gain in more home ground advantage? So again, 'more us of the MCG' is your only legitimate argument, and it's a poor one as it only concerns some of the Vic clubs. And yet again, you are completely incapable of explaining why it's unfair on Sydney clubs on a sponsorship and gate receipt level (you know, the point of the original poster I was quoting) that there are so many Vic derbies.

I find it laughable that for someone who questions other posters analytical minds, you seem to miss the point of each and every post you try to respond to.

 

[Colonial]

You do realise that the mere fact that we play you in Sydney and never home is a manipulation of the AFL to help your club grow, right? You understand that this is was used to support my argument responding to your claim that Vic clubs benefit from the unfair fixture, right? That I'm trying to make a point that the AFL manipulates the fixture for a variety of reasons? Do you also understand that I'm saying that if the fixture was even, there would be a similar amount of Vic derbies but anything non-Vic clubs lose in travel they would gain in more home ground advantage? So again, 'more us of the MCG' is your only legitimate argument, and it's a poor one as it only concerns some of the Vic clubs. And yet again, you are completely incapable of explaining why it's unfair on Sydney clubs on a sponsorship and gate receipt level (you know, the point of the original poster I was quoting) that there are so many Vic derbies.

I find it laughable that for someone who questions other posters analytical minds, you seem to miss the point of each and every post you try to respond to.

So the more derbies hense the larger crowds, you do realise having 9 melbourne clubs means the crowds are boosted right? Which means higher gate receipts, which also means sponsorships are higher because the are seen by larger attendances.

Which is why the bottom melbourne clubs scream for more games against other vic sides.

But please go on with your drivel.