At what theoretical point would a club be cut from the AFL?

[Rob]

It is all to do with TV rights. Freo gets few Friday night games as that would mean starting the match at 5:30 WA time, which would impact viewer rates, as the Melbourne market can't wait till 9:30 Vic time. Saturday night it is up to Freo to request it.... Eagirls get a better run.
Your stadium deal is fantastic, it meant you could make a profit even when you had small crowds years ago. Dees, North, GCS, GWS, Lions, Swans, Port (Until Recently), all get more AFL assistance. There should be a third WA team and a Tassie team.

Uh.....dude.....we got into deep financial s**t when we were getting small crowds. That was 15 years ago though. But our stadium deal would probably send you to the wall. It costs us over $3 million a year just in rent for a s**t ground. Let alone another $1-2 million in match day expenses.

But stop diverting. If we get so few Friday night games, shouldn't that mean we get millions in AFL assistance? You know, how it's all dependent on the fixture?

 

[Gmod23]

Uh.....dude.....we got into deep financial s**t when we were getting small crowds. That was 15 years ago though. But our stadium deal would probably send you to the wall. It costs us over $3 million a year just in rent for a s**t ground. Let alone another $1-2 million in match day expenses.

But stop diverting. If we get so few Friday night games, shouldn't that mean we get millions in AFL assistance? You know, how it's all dependent on the fixture?

Aren't Freo owned by the wa football commission?

 

[Rob]

Aren't Freo owned by the wa football commission?

Mostly. So?

 

[Scotland]

WA doesn't count. Everybody knows that.

 

[Gmod23]

Mostly. So?

Your stadium expenses and similar costs are all paid for by your club so that the commission who owns you makes a profit. You don't need assistance in any way, as the profit is being funneled to your parent company. Just like apple, Google, etc.
this is completely different for clubs like the dogs who were made to play at etihad stadium by the afl & the deal costs them money. Instead of the 'owners' of the Bulldogs making profit, the stadium owners make the money.
IF freo ever got into financial hardship, your owners will change the cash flow structure to make you in theory profitable again. Your club is in essence a division of a business, that funnily for us east coasters it includes your 'enemies' the Eagirls.
Bulldogs are completely independent entity and thus must make a profit without having the ability of a third party to 'adjust' their costs to make an artificial profit. This means that they need assistance from an external body who made them make a terrible business deal with a stadium.
Understand?

 

[HowYouDoin]

You can't stand on your own even after 30 years and clearly the bandwagon that you picked up with your absorbing Fitzroy and having an extended salary cap to gift you success hasn't stuck around. TV ratings are woeful.

If 30 years hasn't grown the game to support even 1 club, then how much longer ( and how much more $) do we need to sink into you?

Blame the fact that channel 7 have relegated all our games to a secondary channel. Before that happened, Brisbane games were always ratings 100k Plus, which is usually just shy what an Adelaide Game would rate in SA.

Plus, Brisbane and Sydney are the only markets where a boom is possible, as Melbourne has defiantly reached saturation point and Adelaide and
Perth aren't far behind it.

And northern state games Will always rate higher in the grand final. Eg, Sydney Swans and Brisbane lions (2001-2004)

 

[Scotland]

I don't think you completely understand how WA footy works, Gmod23.

 

[Heir_Apparent]

I don't think the AFL has plans to let that happen and as it stands I don't see it happening, only growth is possible.
But since it's theoretical, even though it's meant to be hypothetical, a club would have to seriously mess up, but even if that happens the AFL will step in and save them, being the multibillion dollar powerhouse that they are. It's the big brother of the clubs but no one is getting evicted any more, only added.

 

[Rob]

Your stadium expenses and similar costs are all paid for by your club so that the commission who owns you makes a profit. You don't need assistance in any way, as the profit is being funneled to your parent company. Just like apple, Google, etc.
this is completely different for clubs like the dogs who were made to play at etihad stadium by the afl & the deal costs them money. Instead of the 'owners' of the Bulldogs making profit, the stadium owners make the money.
IF freo ever got into financial hardship, your owners will change the cash flow structure to make you in theory profitable again. Your club is in essence a division of a business, that funnily for us east coasters it includes your 'enemies' the Eagirls.
Bulldogs are completely independent entity and thus must make a profit without having the ability of a third party to 'adjust' their costs to make an artificial profit. This means that they need assistance from an external body who made them make a terrible business deal with a stadium.
Understand?

All of that is completely irrelevant to the issue and just a distraction. You're claiming a bad fixture means the AFL pay more money. Yet you can't provide any proof of that. The ownership structure of clubs over here has zero to do with it.

FWIW, I'd be in favour of such a system, as long as it was transparent. But the reality is that no such system exists.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

All of that is completely irrelevant to the issue and just a distraction. You're claiming a bad fixture means the AFL pay more money. Yet you can't provide any proof of that. The ownership structure of clubs over here has zero to do with it.

FWIW, I'd be in favour of such a system, as long as it was transparent. But the reality is that no such system exists.

One way would for the afl to take over 100% of all stadium negotiations, 100% of all available match day revenue streams, and providing clubs with common charges for member access, and then all clubs share the loot equally

No way would clubs want that to happen though

 

[Rob]

One way would for the afl to take over 100% of all stadium negotiations, 100% of all available match day revenue streams, and providing clubs with common charges for member access, and then all clubs share the loot equally

No way would clubs want that to happen though

Which would be ridiculous. You're effectively taking off the clubs any incentive to get bums on seats.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Which would be ridiculous. You're effectively taking off the clubs any incentive to get bums on seats.

What are they doing now? The vast majority of game promotion is by the afl

Having an email blast, stupid hovercraft, or Shane tuck at the pre game does jack in terms getting bums on seats

 

[Rob]

What are they doing now? The vast majority of game promotion is by the afl

Maybe in Victoria, but not over here.

If the AFL think they know any particular club's fans more than the club then they're completely ******* thick.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Maybe in Victoria, but not over here.

If the AFL think they know any particular club's fans more than the club then they're completely ******* thick.

So what are they doing in wa? Given you have a full house thanks to membership sales is it just reminding the wce Alzheimer's supporters what day the game is on

 

[Rob]

So what are they doing in wa? Given you have a full house thanks to membership sales is it just reminding the wce Alzheimer's supporters what day the game is on

Mainly brand recognition stuff and trying to sell waiting list memberships.

I'm pretty sure all clubs get a share of the AFL's contra advertising component of the TV deal so they may as well use it.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Mainly brand recognition stuff and trying to sell waiting list memberships.

I'm pretty sure all clubs get a share of the AFL's contra advertising component of the TV deal so they may as well use it.

That's membership sales, completely different to game promotion

On tv, there is no club focused game advertising on tv over here, just the c7 and Foxtel stuff for their various telecasts (and its generally neutral)

 

[Rob]

That's membership sales, completely different to game promotion

On tv, there is no club focused game advertising on tv over here, just the c7 and Foxtel stuff for their various telecasts (and its generally neutral)

Same thing. You can't equalise gate receipts and not include memberships.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Same thing. You can't equalise gate receipts and not include memberships.

Actually you can

I have no issue with clubs keeping memberships to themselves, they have to buy the access from them from the stadium anyway (so it's not like the stadium gets zero revenue from a fully membership ticketed game)

 

[telsor]

Blame the fact that channel 7 have relegated all our games to a secondary channel. Before that happened, Brisbane games were always ratings 100k Plus, which is usually just shy what an Adelaide Game would rate in SA.

Plus, Brisbane and Sydney are the only markets where a boom is possible, as Melbourne has defiantly reached saturation point and Adelaide and
Perth aren't far behind it.

And northern state games Will always rate higher in the grand final. Eg, Sydney Swans and Brisbane lions (2001-2004)

Firstly, your local crowd gets all games on FTA, 'secondary channel' still beats foxtel for getting viewers.

Why do you think they moved you to a secondary channel? They didn't have a meeting and decide you were rating really well, but they wanted to screw you over, they did it because they could make more money that way, because you didn't rate nearly as well as the alternative.

'A boom is possible'....well, it's been 30 years waiting for the boom, maybe we should face up to the idea that it's a dud.

 

[telsor]

Same thing. You can't equalise gate receipts and not include memberships.

True, to a degree anyway.

The problem would be that if you change the maths of how it all fits together, you'd need to reevaluate all the pricing across the board and the values they contribute. This probably should happen, but it's far easier to just play around the edges.
What are reserved seats worth from an equalisation perspective?
What about 3 game/interstate members?
What about AFL memberships (best seat in the house and instead of the club getting a premium/reserved seat price, the club gets a base level price)....Actually, this one is probably why that would never happen...The AFL would never sacrifice it's cash cow.
Stadium memberships (MCC, AO, medallion club, etc).