No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

[Dewyyyyy]

These discussions are quite healthy but can come from just purely personal rather than business. Some people watch a lot of sport, AFL, Soccer (A League, Premier League, La Liga etc), NFL, NBA, NRL, NHL, MBL. Goes on and on, and the more sports you look at the plethora of different modules used to create even competition and as pointed out, financial benefit to the club and league.

From the AFL perspective. North as mentioned recently subsided with their debt, however a complete basketcase on field. There was also mention of their lack of growth and ROI which is a valid point. Saints are similar except their financial side is poorer.

If you’re to make the decision or have the belief that there are too many teams in Victoria. It’s good to set a precedent on what you’re looking at, not just tunnel visioning on result. Whats the process.

North for example, what do we look at? Talent on the list, coaches to develop talent, the priority picks to help them become more competitive. The financial result, so how much profit, ROI, growth market, etc.

It is unfair to pick on sides who are currently in a slump rather than an ongoing recession in my opinion, which is also an important focal point.

It’s hard to gauge what will happen but looking at what happened, what’s happening and what realistically will happen is a good outcome of guiding a decision.

The other point is people who simply don’t care about changing the games or teams unless it’s obvious, say with University. “The traditionalist”.

There are many ideas with regulation leagues and divisions and the fact is that none are good, or bad ideas. It’s just going to be interesting the approach the AFL continue to take to better market the game and continue consistent growth within and outside of Australia. The market and possible future of football is still highly untapped. There is no reason the sport couldn’t become even more global.

 

[Cleavy]

No argument at all. Seeking clarification.

Considering the Kangaroos have eradicated their debt and St.Kilda have the longest premiership drought I genuinely couldn't tell if you meant from a success point of view or a financial point of view. That does get lost quote often when these discussion arise all over Bigfooty.

Others have put forth the views I share far more eloquently than I, so I'm happy to leave it there.

St K(angaroos) Football Club.

 

[KermitJagger]

People keep acting like it has to be one or the other when it comes to why a club should be dissolved or relocated, it's a combination.

Finance, assets, success, supportership and share of the local market. Both clubs have issues on all fronts, North even more so now they're losing their Tasmanian gift.

 

[Brishawk]

The whole comp is just one big cacophony of compromises, distortions and inefficiencies.

Creating gws and gc just so tv networks can divide the value of games played between clubs people want to watch. Instead of Having Hawthorn v Geelong, you get Hawthorn v GWS and Geelong v GC with the expectation that the total revenue his higher even as the average revenue falls. Those clubs are basically parasites. Or at least that is what they have been in the early days of their existence.

Te AFL knows on field success helps the bottom line of clubs so it compromises the draft and other list management controls (salary cap, what salary cap?) to force on field success. This comes at the cost of on field performance (and off field stability) of other clubs. So the AFL distorts the equal distribution of TV rights money to address inequities it created by expanding the competition and distorting list management. But that isn't enough so it pulls various levers to further distort the draft by allocating priority picks (either directly or under the guise of FA compo). This will not stop while the AFL is trying to maintain an 18 team comp (or 19) where many of the clubs are unstable off field and have extended period of poor on field performance (caused in part by the AFL's actions).

Lets look at crowd figures:

You can see that North are right down the bottom of average attendance even among the worst drawing clubs in the league. There are lots of variables that impact attendance but it should be obvious regardless that North are in danger of been out drawn by teams that were manufactured post-2010. This is a bad sign no doubt and speaks to their diminishing following. The dogs have attendance figures of the level you expect of a team down the bottom of the ladder. Most teams show a giant spike when they are successful but you don't see it for the dogs even though they have played in two grand finals during this period.


But wait, there is more....
To control for some of the distorting factors we can simply look at the attendance of these clubs in Melbourne. This should disadvantage GWS and GC against Melbourne-based teams.

If the average crowds for 2024 hold, GWS will out draw Dogs and North in Melbourne two years in a row. If we are willing to accept the AFL is an entertainment product and are willing to distort the cap and draft system to maximise returns, then the obvious question is, what future does North have when they get out drawn in their home city by an interstate side few people could care less about?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

The whole comp is just one big cacophony of compromises, distortions and inefficiencies.

Creating gws and gc just so tv networks can divide the value of games played between clubs people want to watch. Instead of Having Hawthorn v Geelong, you get Hawthorn v GWS and Geelong v GC with the expectation that the total revenue his higher even as the average revenue falls. Those clubs are basically parasites. Or at least that is what they have been in the early days of their existence.

Te AFL knows on field success helps the bottom line of clubs so it compromises the draft and other list management controls (salary cap, what salary cap?) to force on field success. This comes at the cost of on field performance (and off field stability) of other clubs. So the AFL distorts the equal distribution of TV rights money to address inequities it created by expanding the competition and distorting list management. But that isn't enough so it pulls various levers to further distort the draft by allocating priority picks (either directly or under the guise of FA compo). This will not stop while the AFL is trying to maintain an 18 team comp (or 19) where many of the clubs are unstable off field and have extended period of poor on field performance (caused in part by the AFL's actions).

Lets look at crowd figures:

You can see that North are right down the bottom of average attendance even among the worst drawing clubs in the league. There are lots of variables that impact attendance but it should be obvious regardless that North are in danger of been out drawn by teams that were manufactured post-2010. This is a bad sign no doubt and speaks to their diminishing following. The dogs have attendance figures of the level you expect of a team down the bottom of the ladder. Most teams show a giant spike when they are successful but you don't see it for the dogs even though they have played in two grand finals during this period.
View attachment 1990148

But wait, there is more....
To control for some of the distorting factors we can simply look at the attendance of these clubs in Melbourne. This should disadvantage GWS and GC against Melbourne-based teams.

If the average crowds for 2024 hold, GWS will out draw Dogs and North in Melbourne two years in a row. If we are willing to accept the AFL is an entertainment product and are willing to distort the cap and draft system to maximise returns, then the obvious question is, what future does North have when they get out drawn in their home city by an interstate side few people could care less about?
View attachment 1990151

Do the average home crowds in that first chart only factor their Marvel games? They have had diminishing returns in Hobart for many years now so those outliers would drag down their average unfairly much like Launceston games do to us when not factoring them in. Edit - I think you do have the Hobart games skewing those numbers - I have their Docklands home attendance averaging at 29,237.

The second graph - GWS last year played Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood in Melbourne, this year it has been a resurgent Bombers and Carlton again - that would inflate those numbers. If they had played St Kilda, Norf and the Bulldogs you'd see a fairly different result. GWS are not a drawcard - people are just rocking up to watch their home side. The fact that only 37,000 showed up to the Collingwood game is a testament to how crap GWS draw fans in.

This is a prime example of why using a pure numbers based approach to things like this doesn't work because what the hell is behind the numbers. Like when I was at a workplace and they set a staff measurement of completing a task at 3 hours because that's what a testing team averaged out at. It wasn't working out in the real world of course and was taking far longer. When I looked at the numbers of hours it took to complete the testing team - some of the figures were in negative hours which incorrectly impacted the score. So we had dejected staff and panicked management because nobody looked behind the numbers.

It's not 1996 any more - every existing club will continue to exist because the league funding model allows for it. There will be swings and roundabouts for all clubs - booms and busts. People's odd little dreams of killing off clubs will thankfully never come to fruition.

 

[Billyc]

5 years for Sam Fisher

Sam Fisher

Age

41

Ht

191cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.3

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

7.0

4star

M

7.0

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

220.2

3star

No current season stats available

D

9.0

3star

K

6.6

3star

HB

2.4

3star

M

2.8

3star

T

1.2

3star

Ex-AFL star Sam Fisher cries as he’s jailed for drug trafficking

The former St Kilda footballer will spend at least three years in prison over his involvement in a cross-country drug trafficking ring.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Yardie]

Yup, there’s only one trophy that counts. I doubt any Melbourne supporter gives the slightest toss about being the present holders of the McClelland Trophy.

I gave zero *s about that trophy during 2013.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I gave zero *s about that trophy during 2013.

I guess at the end of the day we are talking about Geelong who are still barking up the 'lets count trophies from the 1860s' tree. Clearly they are trying to find ways to bolster their false claim of being the 'greatest team of all'.

 

[Brishawk]

5 years for Sam Fisher

Ex-AFL star Sam Fisher cries as he’s jailed for drug trafficking

The former St Kilda footballer will spend at least three years in prison over his involvement in a cross-country drug trafficking ring.

www.theage.com.au

Afl’s drug policy in action.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Afl’s drug policy in action.

Except his admitted involvement in the drug culture was based on his experiences after retiring from the game and he started the dealing side of things after a property investment went awry in the midst of covid. Great quantum leap that one.

 

[Brishawk]

Except his admitted involvement in the drug culture was based on his experiences after retiring from the game and he started the dealing side of things after a property investment went awry in the midst of covid. Great quantum leap that one.

No he said it got out of control after retirement. But was it really in control before then? Or was he functioning because of his high income plus afl and club support to ensure he imposed limits on his drug use?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

No he said it got out of control after retirement. But was it really in control before then? Or was he functioning because of his high income plus afl and club support to ensure he imposed limits on his drug use?

So you have made multiple assumptions but still felt compelled to blame it on the AFL drug policy.

 

[Yardie]

No he said it got out of control after retirement. But was it really in control before then? Or was he functioning because of his high income plus afl and club support to ensure he imposed limits on his drug use?

There are so many people that do drugs and don't end up dealing and in jail.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

There are so many people that do drugs and don't end up dealing and in jail.

The real highlight here is player welfare in retirement - something that seemingly the AFLPA and AFL don't seem to be doing all that well on. Not every player ends up in well paid, cushy media gigs or coaching - Fisher is a cautionary tale as is Brent Guerra with his gambling addiction. Rather than pointing fingers at the drugs policy I would rather look at what's there for retired players to ensure that they can transition to post-footy life. Coming off that income onto a regularish one would be a hell of an adjustment for starters.

That the AFLPA is in bed with a dodgy lender such as Snaffle makes me wonder exactly how interested they are in player welfare once they are retired mind you.

 

[Brishawk]

There are so many people that do drugs and don't end up dealing and in jail.

Do you think the likelihood of transitioning from user to trafficker is increased or decreased by developing a drug habit while being paid a lot of money with the protection of your employer shielding you from consequences and then having that money and protection taken away?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Do you think the likelihood of transitioning from user to trafficker is increased or decreased by developing a drug habit while being paid a lot of money with the protection of your employer shielding you from consequences and then having that money and protection taken away?

If your construction business fails and covid lockdowns put you into a deep depression - sure. But that's a pretty isolated case I would say.

The sheer number of AFL players who use recreational drugs and only a handful of players have so far ended up in this predicament doesn't really paint the AFL drugs policy as the cause. Players going off the rails post-retirement isn't exactly a new and growing phenomenon - just look at Gablett Snr decades ago.

 

[Yardie]

Do you think the likelihood of transitioning from user to trafficker is increased or decreased by developing a drug habit while being paid a lot of money with the protection of your employer shielding you from consequences and then having that money and protection taken away?

Worked in mining for years with a similar policy. Majority don't end up dealing in drugs when they leave the industry. And similar statement can be applied to AFL players.

Not saying the AFLPA shouldn't do more as suggested by Ned Ryerson but people so have to take some level of accountability for their actions.

 

[Brishawk]

If your construction business fails and covid lockdowns put you into a deep depression - sure. But that's a pretty isolated case I would say.

The sheer number of AFL players who use recreational drugs and only Fisher has so far ended up in this predicament doesn't really paint the AFL drugs policy as the cause. Players going off the rails post-retirement isn't exactly a new and growing phenomenon - just look at Gablett Snr decades ago.

It is not only sam fisher

 

[Ned Ryerson]

It is not only sam fisher

Fair point and I amended that comment - but the percentage of ex-players doing jail time for drug offences would be so small that I still think laying the blame at the feet of the AFL drugs policy is naïve.

 

[Billyc]

Except his admitted involvement in the drug culture was based on his experiences after retiring from the game and he started the dealing side of things after a property investment went awry in the midst of covid. Great quantum leap that one.

His reputation was very well known during his playing days. Not saying that's the fault of the AFL policy at all but this didn't start after his retirement. He was a mess and a concern during his footy career, Caroline Wilson was constantly inferring it at the time. Not unlike Ben Cousins.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

His reputation was very well known during his playing days. Not saying that's the fault of the AFL policy at all but this didn't start after his retirement. He was a mess and a concern during his footy career, Caroline Wilson was constantly inferring it at the time. Not unlike Ben Cousins.

Fair call - so there was a possible predisposition there. Which would add to my point that the issue would be more to do with the lack of welfare, systems and support for ex-players than the AFL drugs policy. Much like I wouldn't blame the proliferation of sports gambling in the game resulting in Guerra's gambling addiction.

 

[peetoo]

I can’t base this on anything, but I’d imagine risk taking is in an AFL players makeup typically

 

[Brishawk]

Worked in mining for years with a similar policy. Majority don't end up dealing in drugs when they leave the industry. And similar statement can be applied to AFL players.

Not saying the AFLPA shouldn't do more as suggested by Ned Ryerson but people so have to take some level of accountability for their actions.

We are not talking about a deterministic outcome. We are talking about policy. What gets the best results? The afl’s policy is not based on any principle except ‘protect the brand’ and its going to churn out a mix of outcomes. Some we will tolerate and others we wont. What im suggesting is the policy is not one that will intervene in the players best interest and their long term outcomes can expect to be worse under this policy than alternatives.

 

[DogDaySonny]

We are not talking about a deterministic outcome. We are talking about policy. What gets the best results? The afl’s policy is not based on any principle except ‘protect the brand’ and its going to churn out a mix of outcomes. Some we will tolerate and others we wont. What im suggesting is the policy is not one that will intervene in the players best interest and their long term outcomes can expect to be wore under this policy than alternatives.

I'll suggest further that the policy likely operates opposite the interests of the players. Without the AFL-assisted drug-taking scheme, fewer players would be risking the WADA doping tests. The AFL is actively increasing drug use by assisting players in avoiding the employment consequences of that usage. Unless someone is going to argue that net drug use is a healthy outcome and clearly in the interest of the players, then the AFL is acting opposite the player's actual health interests. In support of the AFL's financial interests.

And here the AFL is forcing 19-year-olds to give up their game because of concussion but enabling stars to partake in drug use and all the health consequences that come with that. The only consistency here is the AFL's bottom line.

 

[GerryLewis]

The real highlight here is player welfare in retirement - something that seemingly the AFLPA and AFL don't seem to be doing all that well on. Not every player ends up in well paid, cushy media gigs or coaching - Fisher is a cautionary tale as is Brent Guerra with his gambling addiction. Rather than pointing fingers at the drugs policy I would rather look at what's there for retired players to ensure that they can transition to post-footy life. Coming off that income onto a regularish one would be a hell of an adjustment for starters.

That the AFLPA is in bed with a dodgy lender such as Snaffle makes me wonder exactly how interested they are in player welfare once they are retired mind you.

It's a great point you make around past player welfare. Carlton great Ken Hunter formed 'The Fifth Quarter' several years ago as a non profit organisation, dedicated to filling this exact gap. The man can speak from experience and has an encyclopedia of stories from ex-players who have been let down post-retirement. The AFL and AFLPA both wanted nothing to do with his organisation for years, now they're knocking his door down.