Equalisation is not just handouts its fixturing too

[Kwality]

I see the Hawks have let drop that fixturing is in the mix in the equalisation discussion:

the Hawks privately believing the league would prefer a weaker club to cement itself in Tasmania as an equalisation measure
http://m.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/no...for-three-games-in-hobart-20140415-zqv68.html

As one who questions why so many loss making games continue to be played in Melbourne when some of these games could be in WA particularly ... its good enough for some clubs to have 17 games at home & others are restricted to 11 or 12 .... equalisation has a role.

The AFL does not hold the whip hand in dealing with the WAFC that it did with the SANFL, that'd be money, and if the AFL wants the WAFC to relinquish control of both the Dockers & Eagles licences, its only got fixturing in its kit bag. With the new Perth stadium underway the AFL will seek to paint itself 'a saviour' in negotiations over the terms of footy at the new venue.

I am pleased to see equalisation is not just a handout of some clubs money to others.

 

[JeffDunne]

You'll never get more than 12 games at home . . . so get over it.

 

[boncer34]

No club in the league has 17 home games.

 

[Kwality]

No club in the league has 17 home games.

A home game hasnt only been played on training grounds in a long time ... its just a financial arrangement, see the Hawks, see North in Tas - games that make a profit for the club not a loss, e.g any game at Etihad for Melbourne. Collingwood in Melbourne, how many games? Can you get a ticket from Collingwood to these games?

Why play a game in Melbourne that cant turn a profit when there is an alternative ? Fair question when the AFL wants the Dockers & Eagles to kick the equalisation can !!

 

[Bunk Moreland]

A home game hasnt only been played on training grounds in a long time ... its just a financial arrangement, see the Hawks, see North in Tas - games that make a profit for the club not a loss, e.g any game at Etihad for Melbourne. Collingwood in Melbourne, how many games? Can you get a ticket from Collingwood to these games?

Why play a game in Melbourne that cant turn a profit when there is an alternative ? Fair question when the AFL wants the Dockers & Eagles to kick the equalisation can !!

Doesn't turn a profit because of the venue.

The AFL wanted a new house at Docklands and this is the mortgage, to be paid out in 2025.

 

[Lensen]

As one who questions why so many loss making games continue to be played in Melbourne when some of these games could be in WA particularly ...

Because this is supposed to be a competition, not a corporation?

 

[boncer34]

A home game hasnt only been played on training grounds in a long time ... its just a financial arrangement, see the Hawks, see North in Tas - games that make a profit for the club not a loss, e.g any game at Etihad for Melbourne. Collingwood in Melbourne, how many games? Can you get a ticket from Collingwood to these games?

Why play a game in Melbourne that cant turn a profit when there is an alternative ? Fair question when the AFL wants the Dockers & Eagles to kick the equalisation can !!

Again.

No club in the league has 17 home games.

Spin all you like but try and spin to argue that point. Not one you think you can succesfully argue.

 

[PatrickBateman]

Because this is supposed to be a competition, not a corporation?

It's a business. The problem for many clubs in the modern (post equalisation) era is that you must have great administrators in order to build a successful club or 'organisation'. There's simply no way of bending the rules any more. The years of certain Melbourne clubs getting advantages because of their wealth have disappeared. Refer to Carlton's premierships of 1987 and 1995 as an example. There are many, many other examples of course. It's certainly no secret that the same handful of clubs were successful before equalisation. Money the legitimate difference. I mean, do you think StKilda or Fitzroy could afford the playing list of Hawthorn or Essendon of the 80s? The answer is no.

It's a level playing field, especially in Melbourne. The weak are failing, the strong are not. I feel some clubs still have a thought that success is imminent, or that their turn is next? Nope. Even with a wealth of early draft picks it won't just 'happen'. Some are finding out the hard way that it takes certain people to pull off success in the modern era. These required people are often not ex-football players.

 

[Papa G]

Gilligan wants North to relocate to Tasmania.

 

[I am Jack]

It's a business. The problem for many clubs in the modern (post equalisation) era is that you must have great administrators in order to build a successful club or 'organisation'. There's simply no way of bending the rules any more. The years of certain Melbourne clubs getting advantages because of their wealth have disappeared. Refer to Carlton's premierships of 1987 and 1995 as an example. There are many, many other examples of course. It's certainly no secret that the same handful of clubs were successful before equalisation. Money the legitimate difference. I mean, do you think StKilda or Fitzroy could afford the playing list of Hawthorn or Essendon of the 80s? The answer is no.

It's a level playing field, especially in Melbourne. The weak are failing, the strong are not. I feel some clubs still have a thought that success is imminent, or that their turn is next? Nope. Even with a wealth of early draft picks it won't just 'happen'. Some are finding out the hard way that it takes certain people to pull off success in the modern era. These required people are often not ex-football players.

It's not just pure business that is causing the divide.
The AFL schedule the more popular sides - often the big sides - to play each other more, this generates more revenue for the AFL, and.. The big teams. Big sides get rich.
The bottom sides aren't being scheduled the big games, so they are missing out on this coin.
Hopefully Gill does a better job than Andrew - who has been a diabolical disaster to the game.

 

[Lensen]

It's a business. The problem for many clubs in the modern (post equalisation) era is that you must have great administrators in order to build a successful club or 'organisation'. There's simply no way of bending the rules any more. The years of certain Melbourne clubs getting advantages because of their wealth have disappeared. Refer to Carlton's premierships of 1987 and 1995 as an example. There are many, many other examples of course. It's certainly no secret that the same handful of clubs were successful before equalisation. Money the legitimate difference. I mean, do you think StKilda or Fitzroy could afford the playing list of Hawthorn or Essendon of the 80s? The answer is no.

It's a level playing field, especially in Melbourne. The weak are failing, the strong are not. I feel some clubs still have a thought that success is imminent, or that their turn is next? Nope. Even with a wealth of early draft picks it won't just 'happen'. Some are finding out the hard way that it takes certain people to pull off success in the modern era. These required people are often not ex-football players.

what does any of this have to do with victorian clubs playing home games in WA

also

It's a level playing field, especially in Melbourne.

hahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahaha

yeah i'm sure all those doggies fans that play 11 or whatever it is sunday twilight games will definitely consider themselves on a level playing field with collingwood, carlton, essendon etc that get a disproportionate amount of their games on FTA in prime time. level playing field (financially) indeed

 

[PatrickBateman]

hahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahaha

yeah i'm sure all those doggies fans that play 11 or whatever it is sunday twilight games will definitely consider themselves on a level playing field with collingwood, carlton, essendon etc that get a disproportionate amount of their games on FTA in prime time. level playing field (financially) indeed

Money can help indirectly, sure. But every club must comply with salary restrictions, which can't be broken. This was the main issue pre-equalisation, the bigger clubs just purchase the better players. The Bulldogs have outperformed the Tigers and Carlton since equalisation, as have StKilda. Neither have as much money.

 

[kranky al]

I think we have played two sunday twilight games already this year - certainly made a massive dent ...... Oh wait - no thats right - subi was full and all my mates were watching on the telly if they werent at the game


Eagles play shedloads of these sunday arvo /evening matches every year - i dont see the problem with them - never have - used to love them when i worked saturdays

 

[Lensen]

I think we have played two sunday twilight games already this year - certainly made a massive dent ...... Oh wait - no thats right - subi was full and all my mates were watching on the telly if they werent at the game


Eagles play shedloads of these sunday arvo /evening matches every year - i dont see the problem with them - never have - used to love them when i worked saturdays

the massive difference from a $$$ perspective is that the WC sunday twilight games - correct me if I'm wrong - get FTA coverage in perth. and, with the exception of the very rare 5.30pm start, are played at 2/2.30pm local time anyway

the melbourne equivalents are (a) not on FTA and (b) are at an awful time for attendance, so there's the double whammy of limited exposure (thus sponsors don't get bang for buck) and less attendance revenue

there are obviously reasons the timeslot exists and that's ok, but the disproportionate amount of times the "poorer" melbourne clubs have to play this timeslot vs the richer clubs just entrenches and widens the divide

 

[PatrickBateman]

It's not just pure business that is causing the divide.
The AFL schedule the more popular sides - often the big sides - to play each other more, this generates more revenue for the AFL, and.. The big teams. Big sides get rich.
The bottom sides aren't being scheduled the big games, so they are missing out on this coin.
Hopefully Gill does a better job than Andrew - who has been a diabolical disaster to the game.

But don't forget the AFL is VERY adamant about rotating all clubs through the top 4 as regularly as possible. If the current power clubs (successful in a performance sense) get scheduled 2 games a year against GWS, Saints, Melb etc, they'll be all but guaranteed top 4. And how is Melbourne v Hawthorn a 'big' game anyway? It's a rubbish game.

So, your theory is no good for anyone except the power clubs, is it? The AFL wouldn't make big money from 'more' big games (Geel V Hawthorn etc), and if Melb / Dogs or the like play the power clubs more often and get smashed more often, they're simply no chance of making finals.

Top 8 sides from the previous year, generally, get a top 8 draw. The system works as best as it can IMO. This is coming from a Geelong supporter who's club hasn't had a cushy draw in years.

 

[kranky al]

the massive difference from a $$$ perspective is that the WC sunday twilight games - correct me if I'm wrong - get FTA coverage in perth. and, with the exception of the very rare 5.30pm start, are played at 2/2.30pm local time anyway

the melbourne equivalents are (a) not on FTA and (b) are at an awful time for attendance, so there's the double whammy of limited exposure (thus sponsors don't get bang for buck) and less attendance revenue

there are obviously reasons the timeslot exists and that's ok, but the disproportionate amount of times the "poorer" melbourne clubs have to play this timeslot vs the richer clubs just entrenches and widens the divide

Fair enough - i wasnt aware that it didnt get fta coverage - that sucks

In this day and age to not even chuck them up on the second or third channel is inexcusable - surely the dogs vs melbourne would get more viewers than reruns of i love lucy or wtf they play on channel s**t

 

[Lensen]

So, your theory is no good for anyone except the power clubs, is it? The AFL wouldn't make big money from 'more' big games (Geel V Hawthorn etc), and if Melb / Dogs or the like, play the power clubs more often and get smashed more often, they're simply no chance of making finals..

you don't improve if you play other scrubs. mid range teams improve if they play top range teams more. beating up on rubbish teams - whilst it might get them to 7th or 8th - isn't actually helping them improve

this sounds like you are for equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. it may as well be pro wrestling if it's OK for the AFL to try and contrive an end result rather than allowing for a level as possible playing field and letting the best sides win

 

[boncer34]

Gilligan wants North to relocate to Tasmania.

Just cause he had trouble getting off the Island.....

 

[ziad]

Gilligan wants North to relocate to Tasmania.

would that be Gilligan's island?

 

[PatrickBateman]

you don't improve if you play other scrubs. mid range teams improve if they play top range teams more. beating up on rubbish teams - whilst it might get them to 7th or 8th - isn't actually helping them improve

The 'scrubs' or mid range teams get enough games against the best sides to see where the yardstick is. Complete equality of opportunity is simply not possible in this competition. If anything, the AFL is about trying to see the more successful sides slide back down the ladder, I don't know why you can't see this. Money is simply not as big a factor as it used to be.

 

[Lensen]

Complete equality of opportunity is simply not possible in this competition. If anything, the AFL is about trying to see the more successful sides slide back down the ladder, I don't know why you can't see this

the AFL's actually about maximisation of revenue, trying to force equalisation of outcome is merely a symptom of that. of course i can see that that the draft etc are designed to rotate top clubs; how it's working in practice though with disproportionate coverage and thus financial opportunity is that "big" victorian clubs are getting a leg up over "small" victorian clubs, even before the draft/salary cap does its thing

 

[PatrickBateman]

the AFL's actually about maximisation of revenue, trying to force equalisation of outcome is merely a symptom of that. of course i can see that that the draft etc are designed to rotate top clubs; how it's working in practice though with disproportionate coverage and thus financial opportunity is that "big" victorian clubs are getting a leg up over "small" victorian clubs, even before the draft/salary cap does its thing

Maximising of revenue long term is rotating ALL clubs through the top 4, especially those lesser clubs. Having less 'down time' or rebuilding phases so that members don't drop off. This is the easiest way to attract new money to the game, get the band wagon supporters back in the mix. If the same clubs dominate year after year, eventually the members numbers more or less max out. This is not maximising revenue.

 

[Lensen]

Maximising of revenue long term is rotating ALL clubs through the top 4, especially those lesser clubs. Having less 'down time' or rebuilding phases so that members don't drop off. This is the easiest way to attract new money to the game, get the band wagon supporters back in the mix. If the same clubs dominate year after year, eventually the members numbers more or less max out. This is not maximising revenue.

i should have clarified: it's about maximising revenue in the short term. i agree the league will be better off in the long term with equality of opportunity in an off field sense (TV coverage, even distribution of Friday nights etc). but the AFL is all about the current TV rights agreement and maximising that, and IMV it's at the expense of the long term health of the game (and we're already starting to see cracks appear wrt attendances)

 

[DangerSloane]

This annoys me.
You look at teams like the Bulldogs or North, who are on the up and playing exciting footy, but still get shafted with timeslots that nobody sees.

 

[Papa G]

This annoys me.
You look at teams like the Bulldogs or North, who are on the up and playing exciting footy, but still get shafted with timeslots that nobody sees.

North have 5 Friday night games this year, hold back your annoyance.