Equalisation is not just handouts its fixturing too

[Balony_pony16]

Then why would you bring it up?
I was only responding to you... and a few Collingwood fans have already posted in this thread about the fixturing needing to be more balanced.

Let me re-word... I wouldnt be against it if the big clubs didnt whine so much every time a poorer club needed assistance elsewhere. Big clubs need to recognise how well they have it. It is more I accept then like what is occuring

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[B4Bear]

Gilligan wants North to relocate to Tasmania.

And I want to win Lotto.

I expect the first to happen about 100 years after the second.

In other words he can get tucked.

 

[B4Bear]

Let me just say that I have already posted that I think the fixturing is unfair, and that although there should be the odd game/rivalry used to maximise attendance (and each team should be able to negotiate 1 rivalry- not multiple), it should a much more random fixture than we have currently.

However, I think posts like the following are pretty unfair:


I love that the Pies are always the team that get's brought into stuff like this.
First off, just to get it out of the way - they were financially in a pretty poor place in the mid-late 90's, and could have very easily ended up amongst the handful of melbourne clubs that have struggled significantly over the last 15-20years... Collingwood did a lot right, on and off field, to turn that around and get themselves where they are now.

Secondly - if you look at results since 2000, they have consistently been one of the best teams over that time. (I think someone posted a combined ladder and we were in the top 3 or 4). Since 2002 we have only missed the finals twice, and have played in 4 Grand Finals (plus a draw) and 7 prelims... If a team maintains that level of performance, and consistently has much larger, and increasing, membership compared to the rest of the competition - then of course they will be a huge drawcard.
If they were consistently poor over a number of years, then membership would probably drop at some stage, and at that point you could make a financial case against "big games"... but if they maintain 80k+ members - you'd be hardpressed to really make that financial case.
(And I am only talking financially here - because that is clearly why clubs ask to play us, AFAIAW, and why the AFL fixtures it a certain way... though I don't agree that this should be the case... and in reality it could actually give us a harder fixture than some, because we usually dont get to play the bottom teams twice)

Do you think your 'brand' is going to be damaged if you had the same type of draw that the Bulldogs have? Part of the reason you are a big club, is because of favourable draws over many years.

A Friday game means a hell of a lot more to a small club as opposed to a big club.

 

[Kwality]

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.

Some clubs require AFL funding to survive - equalisation ($s) is designed to have some clubs pick up this tab.
There is inequality in fixturing, & it appears from what the Hawks have let drop, fixturing is in the equalisation mix. No need to re run the $s argument here, please !

Under the current regime,the AFL picks up the loss on games, there is no incentive to fix the situation

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Some clubs require AFL funding to survive - equalisation ($s) is designed to have some clubs pick up this tab.
There is inequality in fixturing, & it appears from what the Hawks have let drop, fixturing is in the equalisation mix. No need to re run the $s argument here, please !

Under the current regime,the AFL picks up the loss on games, there is no incentive to fix the situation

AFL should pick up the expenses on every game and pocket the gate. Then they distribute evenly amongst ALL clubs. They can then set the fixture for maximum revenue to the benefit of all.
The better performing clubs then get the best time slots and benefit from sponsorship, but the other clubs are still supported and can concentrate on improving their respective football operations.

Under the current system the Etihad Clubs are subsidising the purchase by the AFL of the stadium. Once owned the benefit will be for all clubs, so there needs to be recognition and assistance for the clubs who are paying the cost now.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Do you think your 'brand' is going to be damaged if you had the same type of draw that the Bulldogs have? Part of the reason you are a big club, is because of favourable draws over many years.

I will not argue that the fixture is not one of the factors to us being a big club (because it is one of many factors, though I think it is a smaller factor than some are trying to make it seem), but it is a chicken-egg phenomenon - in that we get those fixtures because that is what clubs ask for and what the AFL wants. I think some 'brands' would be much more vulnerable to losing those fixtures than others.

I have already proposed a simple solution - give each club 1 nominated rivalry (who they play twice a year) and rotate the rest of the games (either randomly, or rolling over 4 years)... watch the melbourne club jump all over each other to get that 2nd game against Collingwood. (Do not blame Collingwood for this - blame the AFL for allowing clubs to ask for certain fixtures).
---

More broadly, I think the NBA is a great example for the issues with uneven market share.

You will always have those big market teams who command a greater TV audience/revenue no matter how good they are. And you get a number of small market teams who are consistently just treading water... but you also get quite a few small market teams, who, though they might get lucky with draft picks, are managed incredibly well and are consistently contenders, despite not ever getting their fair share of the TV market or revenues.

A Friday game means a hell of a lot more to a small club as opposed to a big club.

And Im not disagreeing - and I think that should be equalised.

 

[Scotland]

AFL should pick up the expenses on every game and pocket the gate. Then they distribute evenly amongst ALL clubs.

Yeah, nah.

Why should 40,000 West Coast season ticketholders subsidise any other club?

The AFL can do what they like with general admin tickets, TV rights etc. but revenue from club members should stay with clubs.

 

[Kwality]

AFL should pick up the expenses on every game and pocket the gate. Then they distribute evenly amongst ALL clubs. They can then set the fixture for maximum revenue to the benefit of all.
The better performing clubs then get the best time slots and benefit from sponsorship, but the other clubs are still supported and can concentrate on improving their respective football operations.

Under the current system the Etihad Clubs are subsidising the purchase by the AFL of the stadium. Once owned the benefit will be for all clubs, so there needs to be recognition and assistance for the clubs who are paying the cost now.

Seen the claim that some clubs are paying off Docklands ... got anything to support that, numbers, dollars or is it folklore?

Only way it'll benefit most clubs is if it was sold & a special dividend declared ... easy claim that one !!

 

[B4Bear]

Seen the claim that some clubs are paying off Docklands ... got anything to support that, numbers, dollars or is it folklore?

Only way it'll benefit most clubs is if it was sold & a special dividend declared ... easy claim that one !!

The clubs that play Docklands are the providing the AFL with a large chunk of the revenue that buys the facility.

This has been stated and proven ad-nauseum on BF for years.

Once owned by the AFL, the profit from that facility will go into the FL general revenue, and everyone, including WCE will receive money.

 

[clogged]

taking into account fta "stand alone games" - monday/thursday/friday nights or public holidays on FTA*, this is the exposure each club gets. i've not included saturday games nor sunday games as they aren't "stand alone"

Carlton 8
Collingwood 7
Essendon 7
Hawthorn 7
Geelong 6
Richmond 6
North Melb 5
Fremantle 4
Sydney 4
Adelaide 2
St Kilda 2
Brisbane 1
Melbourne 1
Port Adelaide 1
West Coast 1
Gold Coast 0
GWS Giants 0
Wst Bulldogs 0

It's a ludicrous mix the clearly has no correlation with performance and exists simply to re-affirm the status quo of collingwood/carlton/essendon/richmond being the "big 4". with the hawks and cats up there due to long term domination

with 62 slots i'd be happier to see it split up something along the below lines using the previous year's results:

1-4: 6 games
5-8: 4 games
9-12: 3 games
13-16: 2 games
17-18: 1 game

i mean, i understand the commercial realities of not having current day melbourne, gws etc on tv on four friday nights a year - but having something like this that's transparent and means that the top clubs are rewarded with additional exposure means it is fair and equitable and each club has the same opportunity to get their brand out there and attract sponsors

could probably also help with tanking to a point, not sure if going from pick 3 to pick 2 is worth one less prime time FTA exposure

Great post.

Absolutely staggering that Port Adelaide gets 1 FTA game versus an average of 7 for the typical Vic big four despite the fact Port are a club that finished in a similar bracket to them.

This year your average footy fan on FTA is missing out on one of the most exciting teams in the comp. Meanwhile, they get 8 chances to watch Carlton!

 

[GumbyRules]

Brisbane doesnt have a very favorable deal playing at the gabba and there is no end in sight where it will be made equatible. We need at last 20k at a game to break even. With the draw the larger clubs most of the time dont play at brisbane and hence we are a basket case financially. An example Hawthorn last played at the gabba in 2009.

 

[Kwality]

The clubs that play Docklands are the providing the AFL with a large chunk of the revenue that buys the facility.

This has been stated and proven ad-nauseum on BF for years.

Once owned by the AFL, the profit from that facility will go into the FL general revenue, and everyone, including WCE will receive money.

Rubbish. Given its ad nauseum you will, if you are right, flick one back , one only $s etc pronto - if not, its khyber stuff. Its folklore for sure, fact, not seen it & I've been looking.

Profits claimed?

Fixture big games - there will produce profits, the 'no bums on seats' clubs need magic, pokies wont do it, nor will 2025.

 

[Kwality]

AFL should pick up the expenses on every game and pocket the gate. Then they distribute evenly amongst ALL clubs. They can then set the fixture for maximum revenue to the benefit of all.
The better performing clubs then get the best time slots and benefit from sponsorship, but the other clubs are still supported and can concentrate on improving their respective football operations.

Under the current system the Etihad Clubs are subsidising the purchase by the AFL of the stadium. Once owned the benefit will be for all clubs, so there needs to be recognition and assistance for the clubs who are paying the cost now.

What is the gate Joe, take the sell out at Geelong, you want what?

 

[Dave]

You guys do realise the AFL schedule the fixture based on maximising attendances, ratings & fulfilling their stadium contractual obligations? "Fair" went out the window a long time ago.

 

[Kwality]

You guys do realise the AFL schedule the fixture based on maximising attendances, ratings & fulfilling their stadium contractual obligations? "Fair" went out the window a long time ago.

Dave, you do realise the games in question are the low raters, no bums on seats FIXtures ... lose money, dont put bums on seats replaced by make money, sell out crowds.
See the difference.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

What is the gate Joe, take the sell out at Geelong, you want what?

Yes.
Whatever, wherever. The AFL run the game and schedule for maximum revenue. All clubs are equal stakeholders and should get an even distribution.

It is untenable that Geelong can make a substantial profit at their Stadium when the same number of fans would not be profitable for a team scheduled to play at Etihad.

The AFL tells them where they must play, so the AFL should provide an even distribution.

..and yes, the stadium is being purchased by the AFL in 2025 for ONE Dollar (that is $1.00 NO CENTS) provided that meet an obligation for a minimum number of games at the venue. Those games are being played primarily by North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and St Kilda as home teams where they make NO MONEY. When the stadium comes into AFL ownership it will be owned by ALL the clubs.

Hardly justified that West Coast Eagles, Fremantle, Collingwood and others are excluded from the financial pain of playing home games there, yet share the benefits of full ownership.

 

[Kwality]

Yes.
Whatever, wherever. The AFL run the game and schedule for maximum revenue. All clubs are equal stakeholders and should get an even distribution.

It is untenable that Geelong can make a substantial profit at their Stadium when the same number of fans would not be profitable for a team scheduled to play at Etihad.

The AFL tells them where they must play, so the AFL should provide an even distribution.

..and yes, the stadium is being purchased by the AFL in 2025 for ONE Dollar (that is $1.00 NO CENTS) provided that meet an obligation for a minimum number of games at the venue. Those games are being played primarily by North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and St Kilda as home teams where they make NO MONEY. When the stadium comes into AFL ownership it will be owned by ALL the clubs.

Hardly justified that West Coast Eagles, Fremantle, Collingwood and others are excluded from the financial pain of playing home games there, yet share the benefits of full ownership.

What do you charge a coterie member?
Are all people through the gate paid to the AFL at the same rate?
If WA footy goers pay a premium should this premium be given to the AFL when other footy goers in other markets pay a discounted price?

Why would WA clubs be penalised for a good stadium deal when the Melb stadiums have taken Melb clubs to the cleaners, favourable treatment to some, & the rest placed in a straight jacket (aka straitjacket) by an incompetent footy administration. Geelong followed the WA model, & guess what - the lowest common denominator will never be a winner.
No free loaders at WA footy: no cricket club members, Medallion Club members, no AFL Members club types - 000s of these guys get entry to Etihad, why would WA footy followers be penalised. Are you targeting footy club members?

So tell me Joe, what do you want?
Have you considered that clubs who benefit from your misfortune, they bank the profits, why arent these clubs charged for their gains - why are clubs who dont share the benefits expected to pay - are you rewarding the clubs that cause you pain?

Vic pain, by Vic mismanagement ... ?

 

[go you pups]

Does this mean we can trade one of our 14 Sunday games (with a probable 15th coming in round 23) for something better?

IFFFFFFFFFF GWS or US finish top 8 we'll get that 1:45 CH7 delayed Saturday Arvo game

 

[Balony_pony16]

End of the day IN GENERAL some clubs get great draws and make the money, others need financial handouts. You cant change one without changing the others.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[go you pups]

What you deem as 'better' is likely to be a loss though. This is the thing people don't think about, would you rather take a few extra wins on Sundays against 'weaker' opposition, or get smashed on Friday / Saturday nights against the top sides? What's the point of a few thousand more revenue from the gate when you're members are dropping off due to too many losses and an absence of faith?

We will improve by playing these clubs and games at home or at the MCG, but the AFL have made us play most of the power Victorian clubs away etc Geelong at Simmonds, Hawthorn in Launceston, Essendon and Collingwood at Etihad, the Collingwood game has regularly been at Etihad (some deal Eddie did years ago to helps us out I think) only 1 game at the MCG against Melbourne. We probably had our 2nd or 3rd best drawing game already against Richmond (31-32k for that) and our best drawing home game will be when we play Essendon later in the season but it's a Sunday twilight so who knows what it'll be.
GWS, Brisbane, Freo, Adelaide and Sydney home, GCS in Cairns, Melbourne 1:10 Sunday, Carlton and Essendon both 4:40 Sunday. No Friday nights and only 1 home Saturday night fixture against Brisbane and it's a Fox game.

 

[Kwality]

We will improve by playing these clubs and games at home or at the MCG, but the AFL have made us play most of the power Victorian clubs away etc Geelong at Simmonds, Hawthorn in Launceston, Essendon and Collingwood at Etihad, the Collingwood game has regularly been at Etihad (some deal Eddie did years ago to helps us out I think) only 1 game at the MCG against Melbourne. We probably had our 2nd or 3rd best drawing game already against Richmond (31-32k for that) and our best drawing home game will be when we play Essendon later in the season but it's a Sunday twilight so who knows what it'll be.
GWS, Brisbane, Freo, Adelaide and Sydney home, GCS in Cairns, Melbourne 1:10 Sunday, Carlton and Essendon both 4:40 Sunday. No Friday nights and only 1 home Saturday night fixture against Brisbane and it's a Fox game.

so which clubs benefit from your 5hit FIXture? Specifically as outlined above please.

 

[go you pups]

If we played 7 Vic teams and 4 interstate teams at home it would help but na we get 6 interstaters and 5 Vics = the AFL doing what they did to North a couple of years back to us.

 

[Kwality]

If we played 7 Vic teams and 4 interstate teams at home it would help but na we get 6 interstaters and 5 Vics = the AFL doing what they did to North a couple of years back to us.

No club gets any benefit from your FIXture ?

 

[go you pups]

so which clubs benefit from your 5hit FIXture?

The power teams who have us at home = probable wins, the only power team from that 4 who we have a slight chance to beat at the moment is Collingwood but we haven't beat them in 5 years so will probably lose, those said clubs also play less 4:40 footy = more prime time for them and exposure which gains them more fans etc young kids growing up who don't have any influence from their parents or siblings on who to support, my family is Bulldogs through and through but my club relies heavily geographically on gaining more fans out in Western Melbourne, we have North Melbourne, Geelong and Essendon to compete with on a geographical basis. WA has to play a few 4:40s due to it being a 2:40 game and a normal sort of timeslot, you don't get too many 1:20 games (3:20 FTA slot in Victoria).

 

[go you pups]

No club gets any benefit from your FIXture ?

Just the 4 points bud