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

[Kwality]

Read more widely chardonnay.

the CEO of ESPN:

Too cryptic for me, run it again in double dutch ....

Not a Yankofile, decrypt it pls.

 

[jack son 5]

FFS. Throw out WB/MFC/Saint's. All s**t. I like my club. Been in da AFL for 10 years. Done sweet FA but we're good. Purple is so hot right now.

Sounding like Kwality and his brigade.

Any supporter wishing to abolish another club right now is a FLOG. Pure and simple FLOG.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

FFS. Throw out WB/MFC/Saint's. All s**t. I like my club. Been in da AFL for 10 years. Done sweet FA but we're good. Purple is so hot right now.

Sounding like Kwality and his brigade.

Any supporter wishing to abolish another club right now is a FLOG. Pure and simple FLOG.

Hey now there is a lot to be said for kicking Essendon to the kerb

 

[Kwality]

The AFL's fixturing is a joke. Save for your guaranteed home game against Collingwood the AFL doesn't give a s**t about you just like it doesn't give a s**t about us and plenty of other teams. Melbourne vs Essendon is good for Melbourne but Richmond vs Essendon is better for the AFL. Put that on Friday night, get 60,000 people in then put Melbourne on Sunday morning (early arvo your time) on Fox. Simples.

The problem is that most people arguing for a fair draw are actually arguing for a draw that specifically benefits their club. The only fair draw is H&A and we'll never get that. The fairest we can do is to randomly allocate who you get H, A and twice. But the AFL don't want to do that. I maintain if we had a 17 game regular season alternating H/A each year or a 34 game H&A season that clubs arguing for a fair draw would still be in strife.

Surely a rolling draw is the only compromise - yes, a derby only as it is scheduled, blockbusters for ALL clubs as scheduled, Anzac Day as scheduled, 2 games in Perth as scheduled, Friday nights on a rolling basis ... the crowds would drop, the TV value would drop, AFL distributions would fall, AFL handouts back to $zip/nil/zilch .... what do reckon, who loses?

 

[Kwality]

FFS. Throw out WB/MFC/Saint's. All s**t. I like my club. Been in da AFL for 10 years. Done sweet FA but we're good. Purple is so hot right now.

Sounding like Kwality and his brigade.

Any supporter wishing to abolish another club right now is a FLOG. Pure and simple FLOG.

You across the millions of footy fans who sucked it up buttercup? Doubt it. Elitist?

 

[jack son 5]

You across the millions of footy fans who sucked it up buttercup? Doubt it.

Just give it a rest.

Enjoy the game as it is! Just F****** enjoy.

 

[Kwality]

Just give it a rest.

Enjoy the game as it is! Just F****** enjoy.

Oh buttercup .... the *** stuff suggests some sort of problem?

 

[jack son 5]

Oh buttercup .... the *** stuff suggests some sort of problem?

Average years per flag in the AFL.

WC: 9.33
MFC: 9.58

And MFC have been at it for 150+ years. Just keeping up with the poor old Dee's. Time to go WC. Sub par franchise team.

Stop embarrassing other quality Eagle posters.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

If they won 5 spoons in a row, I would seriously consider a merger

 

[telsor]

The AFL's fixturing is a joke. Save for your guaranteed home game against Collingwood the AFL doesn't give a s**t about you just like it doesn't give a s**t about us and plenty of other teams. Melbourne vs Essendon is good for Melbourne but Richmond vs Essendon is better for the AFL. Put that on Friday night, get 60,000 people in then put Melbourne on Sunday morning (early arvo your time) on Fox. Simples.

The problem is that most people arguing for a fair draw are actually arguing for a draw that specifically benefits their club. The only fair draw is H&A and we'll never get that. The fairest we can do is to randomly allocate who you get H, A and twice. But the AFL don't want to do that. I maintain if we had a 17 game regular season alternating H/A each year or a 34 game H&A season that clubs arguing for a fair draw would still be in strife.

The issue would then be gametimes, not least because sponsors will pay clubs more when they're on fta tv more (well, more highly rated anyway).

Grow the league to 22-24 clubs, play each other once with at least 2 games in each timeslot. Add in a bit of equalizing for ground deals and development regions and leave it at that.

After 10 years of that if clubs are significantly behind, then their future should be weighed up against the available options.

 

[telsor]

Surely a rolling draw is the only compromise - yes, a derby only as it is scheduled, blockbusters for ALL clubs as scheduled, Anzac Day as scheduled, 2 games in Perth as scheduled, Friday nights on a rolling basis ... the crowds would drop, the TV value would drop, AFL distributions would fall, AFL handouts back to $zip/nil/zilch .... what do reckon, who loses?

The players would have a riot over the pay cut they'd need to take, as would game development and support for new/qld.

 

[jack son 5]

Hey now there is a lot to be said for kicking Essendon to the kerb

Good joke. Essendon NO. *i*d YES.

 

[jack son 5]

Kwality gets his wish.

AFL to be broken into 2 teams per state.

Geelong/Hawthorn
Sydney/GWS
Port/Crows
WC/Freo
Bris/GC.

VFL to reform (minus Geel/Hawks). Collingwood win the next 15 VFL flags in a row.

Kwality BF post in 20 years time: "Nah man, Pies flags don't count, as they weren't in the national comp"

 

[newcastlefalcon]

I haven't read every post in this thread partly because I got to a string of "mines bigger than yours pissing contests" between supporters of different clubs and didn't want to go on.
I also need to make clear that this post is not about Essendon, Hird, Danks or anyone involved in that never ending story.
That said I think in supporting various clubs for extended periods that the AFL has been clear it does not really want to cut, lose or relocate an existing club.
What does cut across that is if there is an ASADA/WADA confirmed case of doping of more than two players (I think that it is two) then the club is at risk of expulsion from the competition they are in.
I think that if that occurred in the AFL then the risk of cutting and replacing with a club in the same or different location is a very high.

 

[Kwality]

Kwality gets his wish.

AFL to be broken into 2 teams per state.

Geelong/Hawthorn
Sydney/GWS
Port/Crows
WC/Freo
Bris/GC.

VFL to reform (minus Geel/Hawks). Collingwood win the next 15 VFL flags in a row.

Kwality BF post in 20 years time: "Nah man, Pies flags don't count, as they weren't in the national comp"

Not my wish, its your suggestion, own it
OR
tell us your view IF you have one, 2 teams per state, why? Tassie?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The AFL's fixturing is a joke. Save for your guaranteed home game against Collingwood the AFL doesn't give a s**t about you just like it doesn't give a s**t about us and plenty of other teams. Melbourne vs Essendon is good for Melbourne but Richmond vs Essendon is better for the AFL. Put that on Friday night, get 60,000 people in then put Melbourne on Sunday morning (early arvo your time) on Fox. Simples.

The problem is that most people arguing for a fair draw are actually arguing for a draw that specifically benefits their club. The only fair draw is H&A and we'll never get that. The fairest we can do is to randomly allocate who you get H, A and twice. But the AFL don't want to do that. I maintain if we had a 17 game regular season alternating H/A each year or a 34 game H&A season that clubs arguing for a fair draw would still be in strife.

No, I'm arguing for a fair draw not one that specifically benefits anyone. You can have a "fair" draw without it being completely "equal" which has been shown ad nauseum on multiple threads over the years. A random or rolling draw is fair, even if not equal.

And on your first point, it's irrelevant whether Richmond/Essendon benefits the AFL more than Melbourne/Essendon because each team plays all others at least once so the AFL is going to get Melbourne/Essendon whether they like it or not. It's just that we continually get drawn as the away team in that fixture meaning we can't make any money off it. Does it make a difference to the AFL if it's Melbourne/Essendon or Essendon/Melbourne?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Surely a rolling draw is the only compromise - yes, a derby only as it is scheduled, blockbusters for ALL clubs as scheduled, Anzac Day as scheduled, 2 games in Perth as scheduled, Friday nights on a rolling basis ... the crowds would drop, the TV value would drop, AFL distributions would fall, AFL handouts back to $zip/nil/zilch .... what do reckon, who loses?

Got any stats or is it a thought bubble?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The issue would then be gametimes, not least because sponsors will pay clubs more when they're on fta tv more (well, more highly rated anyway).

Grow the league to 22-24 clubs, play each other once with at least 2 games in each timeslot. Add in a bit of equalizing for ground deals and development regions and leave it at that.

After 10 years of that if clubs are significantly behind, then their future should be weighed up against the available options.

There's not enough talent for 18 teams and you want to grow the game by 33% to 24 teams? Where will the extra 250-odd players come from? Where will the supporters and facilities come from? Where will the revenue come from to support/prop up these expansion teams?

 

[Scotland]

And on your first point, it's irrelevant whether Richmond/Essendon benefits the AFL more than Melbourne/Essendon because each team plays all others at least once so the AFL is going to get Melbourne/Essendon whether they like it or not. It's just that we continually get drawn as the away team in that fixture meaning we can't make any money off it. Does it make a difference to the AFL if it's Melbourne/Essendon or Essendon/Melbourne?

No, the AFL doesn't really benefit from Ess vs Melb compared to Melb vs Ess other than a slightly higher expected crowd with the better supported team as the home side. I really just think it's a case of having to find Melbourne away games for the non-Victorian teams. Every game Essendon, Collingwood etc. host against Gold Coast or Port or whoever is one less opportunity for them to host another Victorian club which will bring a bigger crowd and *cringe* blockbuster value. And yes, it's annoying when you continually play a team home or away and not the other way around.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

No, the AFL doesn't really benefit from Ess vs Melb compared to Melb vs Ess other than a slightly higher expected crowd with the better supported team as the home side. I really just think it's a case of having to find Melbourne away games for the non-Victorian teams. Every game Essendon, Collingwood etc. host against Gold Coast or Port or whoever is one less opportunity for them to host another Victorian club which will bring a bigger crowd and *cringe* blockbuster value. And yes, it's annoying when you continually play a team home or away and not the other way around.

Exactly. So those clubs get the leg up every single year with all the associated short and long term benefits that entails. They are being artificially inflated due to a reliance on away team supporters to bump up the crowd figures and line their pockets exacerbating the gaps between the haves and the have nots. It is a significant handout they receive through the fixture every year and then they have the gall to complain about

1) the inadequate compensation the impacted clubs receive in the form of the disequalisation funding (for this as well as stadium deal issues), and
2) The impacted clubs "not pulling their weight" and being a drain on the competition. It's pretty hard to keep your head above water when the AFL is filling your boots with concrete and giving you a semi-inflated floatie in return.

The other issue is, as you have pointed out, you have certain teams "carrying the can" for the national comp more than other teams by having to play them as home games on a greater than average basis. This is the same issue as the Docklands clubs carrying the can for the rest of the comp by meeting the AFL's games quotas and paying off the stadium so that the other clubs can gain a 1/18th share of it in 2025.

I'm not asking for preferential treatment, I'm not even asking for an even spread of prime time games (though these could be divvied up far more fairly) - all I want is for each club to have an opportunity to host each other club a similar amount of times over a number of seasons. That really should not be too much to ask for in a professional sports competition.

 

[Rob]

I'm not asking for preferential treatment, I'm not even asking for an even spread of prime time games (though these could be divvied up far more fairly) - all I want is for each club to have an opportunity to host each other club a similar amount of times over a number of seasons. That really should not be too much to ask for in a professional sports competition.

Hard to disagree with that. And it's not difficult with an 18 team comp.

Play every team 5 times in 4 years, with the exception of 1 'rivalry' game played twice a year. To be a mutual arrangement with the club in question. If you can't find a rival, the AFL come up with one for you.

I really don't understand why it's such a problem. It can be reviewed after the 4 years is up.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

No, I'm arguing for a fair draw not one that specifically benefits anyone. You can have a "fair" draw without it being completely "equal" which has been shown ad nauseum on multiple threads over the years. A random or rolling draw is fair, even if not equal.

And on your first point, it's irrelevant whether Richmond/Essendon benefits the AFL more than Melbourne/Essendon because each team plays all others at least once so the AFL is going to get Melbourne/Essendon whether they like it or not. It's just that we continually get drawn as the away team in that fixture meaning we can't make any money off it. Does it make a difference to the AFL if it's Melbourne/Essendon or Essendon/Melbourne?

you know this, you're club knows this. Simple business management tells you to stop relying on the other teams for crowds.
you can carry on about a different situation all you like, the reality is northern clubs live in states where the AFL does not exist for 3/4 qtrs of the population.
you're in a city where the league started with potentially 4 million+ members to draw on.

North are the only "stiffed" team in Melbourne that stopped whinging about timeslots and focused instead on building members, the same thing that port did when they were in trouble the same thing that 90% of clubs focus on.

look at what happened to carlton's membership when they stopped focusing on it compared to when they hit the panic button. north have shown for all the excuses their ways to make money and build members without getting "the best" timeslots.

the TV rights money is predicated on the tv getting the best games in the best slots. that money represents 70% of the leagues income, which your club, my club and countless other clubs have had to rely on at some point or another, there's no point rubbishing it when it was just used to bail you out.

Melbourne have done SFA on field and off for decades and you think the reason your in the predicament you're are is because of the fixture?
that is melbournes problems, they aren't winning. or do you think its a coincidence that north made finals and now have 40K members?
and guess what? they keep making finals they'll get a better draw.

it doesn't matter if your the home team playing a vic side, if your s**t people don't want to join your club, don't even want to watch you're club. You may make a slightly better coin off the teams having money but how does that help you long term? you still wont have the members. do you really think any of the big vic clubs members look forward to playing you?

last year you drew 37K at the MCG against the premiers a club with over 56K in members and a club with over 27K in members in a saturday twilight game and it was a hawks home game. contrast poor hawks who had to host us and they drew 70K against an interstate oppenent. 43K against freo.

the difference is the Hawks are playing well, the hawks only drew 2 games with better crowds then the "interstate" game against us and that was the geelong games.

there's no surprise that the 3 lowest games at the MCG for the hawks was the saints, Dee's and GWS. its got nothing to do with timeslots, its because A you're team isn't very good and B you have no members. if the premiers aren't going to rock up to one of their own home games what are the odds they're going to rock up to an away game? for god sakes you drew 17K against north at home.

its time to ditch this "fixture" excuse. you'll get better attendances and better membership numbers when you're team starts playing better on a consistent basis, the draw wont fix any of your issues, the only thing giving you better slots will do is drag down the price of tv rights.

 

[Kwality]

Got any stats or is it a thought bubble?

Cynicism not stats ...

 

[Kwality]

you know this, you're club knows this. Simple business management tells you to stop relying on the other teams for crowds.
you can carry on about a different situation all you like, the reality is northern clubs live in states where the AFL does not exist for 3/4 qtrs of the population.
you're in a city where the league started with potentially 4 million+ members to draw on.

North are the only "stiffed" team in Melbourne that stopped whinging about timeslots and focused instead on building members, the same thing that port did when they were in trouble the same thing that 90% of clubs focus on.

look at what happened to carlton's membership when they stopped focusing on it compared to when they hit the panic button. north have shown for all the excuses their ways to make money and build members without getting "the best" timeslots.

the TV rights money is predicated on the tv getting the best games in the best slots. that money represents 70% of the leagues income, which your club, my club and countless other clubs have had to rely on at some point or another, there's no point rubbishing it when it was just used to bail you out.

Melbourne have done SFA on field and off for decades and you think the reason your in the predicament you're are is because of the fixture?
that is melbournes problems, they aren't winning. or do you think its a coincidence that north made finals and now have 40K members?
and guess what? they keep making finals they'll get a better draw.

it doesn't matter if your the home team playing a vic side, if your s**t people don't want to join your club, don't even want to watch you're club. You may make a slightly better coin off the teams having money but how does that help you long term? you still wont have the members. do you really think any of the big vic clubs members look forward to playing you?

last year you drew 37K at the MCG against the premiers a club with over 56K in members and a club with over 27K in members in a saturday twilight game and it was a hawks home game. contrast poor hawks who had to host us and they drew 70K against an interstate oppenent. 43K against freo.

the difference is the Hawks are playing well, the hawks only drew 2 games with better crowds then the "interstate" game against us and that was the geelong games.

there's no surprise that the 3 lowest games at the MCG for the hawks was the saints, Dee's and GWS. its got nothing to do with timeslots, its because A you're team isn't very good and B you have no members. if the premiers aren't going to rock up to one of their own home games what are the odds they're going to rock up to an away game? for god sakes you drew 17K against north at home.

its time to ditch this "fixture" excuse. you'll get better attendances and better membership numbers when you're team starts playing better on a consistent basis, the draw wont fix any of your issues, the only thing giving you better slots will do is drag down the price of tv rights.

Melbourne members want, want, wont travel to Etihad so its a bit hard to believe their members will ever go en masse, ever.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

you know this, you're club knows this. Simple business management tells you to stop relying on the other teams for crowds.
you can carry on about a different situation all you like, the reality is northern clubs live in states where the AFL does not exist for 3/4 qtrs of the population.
you're in a city where the league started with potentially 4 million+ members to draw on.

North are the only "stiffed" team in Melbourne that stopped whinging about timeslots and focused instead on building members, the same thing that port did when they were in trouble the same thing that 90% of clubs focus on.

look at what happened to carlton's membership when they stopped focusing on it compared to when they hit the panic button. north have shown for all the excuses their ways to make money and build members without getting "the best" timeslots.

the TV rights money is predicated on the tv getting the best games in the best slots. that money represents 70% of the leagues income, which your club, my club and countless other clubs have had to rely on at some point or another, there's no point rubbishing it when it was just used to bail you out.

Melbourne have done SFA on field and off for decades and you think the reason your in the predicament you're are is because of the fixture?
that is melbournes problems, they aren't winning. or do you think its a coincidence that north made finals and now have 40K members?
and guess what? they keep making finals they'll get a better draw.

it doesn't matter if your the home team playing a vic side, if your s**t people don't want to join your club, don't even want to watch you're club. You may make a slightly better coin off the teams having money but how does that help you long term? you still wont have the members. do you really think any of the big vic clubs members look forward to playing you?

last year you drew 37K at the MCG against the premiers a club with over 56K in members and a club with over 27K in members in a saturday twilight game and it was a hawks home game. contrast poor hawks who had to host us and they drew 70K against an interstate oppenent. 43K against freo.

the difference is the Hawks are playing well, the hawks only drew 2 games with better crowds then the "interstate" game against us and that was the geelong games.

there's no surprise that the 3 lowest games at the MCG for the hawks was the saints, Dee's and GWS. its got nothing to do with timeslots, its because A you're team isn't very good and B you have no members. if the premiers aren't going to rock up to one of their own home games what are the odds they're going to rock up to an away game? for god sakes you drew 17K against north at home.

its time to ditch this "fixture" excuse. you'll get better attendances and better membership numbers when you're team starts playing better on a consistent basis, the draw wont fix any of your issues, the only thing giving you better slots will do is drag down the price of tv rights.

What a bunch of rubbish. On a number of levels.

First - say we get 40k members and they all turn up to games against these lower supported sides. We'll still be disadvantaged because we are not being given the opportunity other teams get to draw 60k+ crowds. How many times have Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond drawn 60k+ hell even 50k plus against Gold Coast, Freo, GWS etc? The point is the fixture should not be used as a means to reward or punish some clubs over others if the AFL wants to maintain a professional competition.

Secondly Melbourne were one of the more successful clubs (without achieving the ultimate success) for two decades from 1987-2006. So to say we've done SFA for decades is ridiculous.

Thirdly our crowds have actually been pretty decent considering the debacle we have been for most of the last decade. I posted elsewhere in the off season some stats showing our crowds held up when given an opportunity compared to other Vic clubs. For instance we drew more against the Bulldogs on a Saturday night at the G as Essendon did against the Bulldogs on a Saturday night at Docklands. Our crowds against Collingwood on Queens Bday was one of the bigger crowds of the year only eclipsed by the massive blockbuster games. I'm pretty sure it outdrew Carlton/Essendon and possibly even the Collingwood/Essendon return matches from memory. Yeah its a public holiday game but if those clubs have such massive crowd pulling abilities then surely they should be able to outdrew is regardless of when they are playing. From memory our crowds against the non-Vic clubs were also comparable to Richmonds crowds against Freo and GWS (and another, maybe Gold Coast?) If I can find the post that references this stuff I'll post it again back in here.

At the end of the day the fixture isn't the only issue creating a gap between the bigger and smaller clubs. There are many reasons, historical as well as management, however the fixture being used to reward or punish clubs based on the AFL's discretion and then inadequately compensating clubs for the negative impacts of their policies is untenable. If the fixture was not used to hamstring the same clubs (not just Melbourne) then those clubs wouldn't automatically be on the level of Collingwood however they would have a far greater chance at standing on their own two feet and getting off the AFL teat which is what everyone wants I would've thought.

EDIT - this is one of the posts I was referring to;

What does this even mean? Our crowds for this game were steadily increasing and we got over 78k in 2006. Since then we've got 68k in 2010 & 2014, 76k in 2011, 70k in 2007 and over 60k every year except 2013 for obvious reasons. The crowd is split relatively 50/50 for these games and we probably outnumbered the Collingwood supporters in 2005/06.

It's clear once we become even slightly competitive as opposed to the majority of the last 7/8 years we'll get very good crowds again attracting more of the theatre goer types as well.

In fact in 2014 we got 68k to Queens Bday which outdrew the following games;

Richmond v Carlton R2 - 62k
Collingwood v Geelong R3 - 63k
Essendon v Carlton R3 - 62k
Richmond v Collingwood R4 - 62k
Richmond v Hawthorn R6 - 53k
Carlton v Hawthorn R13 - 52k
Collingwood v Carlton R15 - 40k
Essendon v Collingwood R17 - 59k
Richmond v Essendon R20 - 58k
Collingwood v Hawthorn R23 - 49k
Carlton v Essendon R23 - 56k

and is in the same ballpark as these games;

Carlton v Collingwood R7 - 68k
Hawthorn v Collingwood R14 - 70k
Hawthorn v Geelong R22 - 72k

Geelong also seem to have average crowds except the big games against Collingwood and Hawthorn assuming this is due to timibg of games and travel however we drew a better crowd against Geelong than either Richmond or Carlton.

Now of course a couple of these games were played Sunday night but the majority were during other normal times with more than one being Friday night games also. Keep in mind this is during our worst period in history, a period comparable to that of Fitzroy just before they were forced to the wall. We also have maintained the majority of our membership and I have no doubt once we become regularly competitive again (either 2015/16) we will easily get to 40k members and maintain that level into the future.