Swans' academy.

[clogged]

Stick your head in the sand. and then repeat twenty times a football league gets most of its revenue from tv rights.

then pull your head out and say i wonder why foxtel bids money for the afl. I wonder which markets are the biggest.

And then if none of that helps open your mind to alternative points of view.

Going by your username, you live in Melbourne?

Tell me, which channel are the Swans broadcast on Sydney? How many people watch it? What kind of advertising profile is there in Sydney? I'll give you hint - little of Sydney's television exposure in Sydney it generates much money for the broadcasters.

You know what generates the bulk of the TV rights for the AFL? Exposure in Melbourne.

 

[melbournehammer]

Fantastic...lets's keep giving Sydney things because in esoteric tv land where no one watches AFL they have a big market.

Anything else we can give Sydney to "help" them cause the have lots of "potential" tv viewers?

I don't think anyone said anything about helping sydney. What I recall saying was that freo fans should stop whinging about how they fund everything. Lets do it one more time and who knows maybe you have learned something today. $20 m a year goes to the wa clubs. This $20 m is funded by tv deals. The tv deals are funded by who is willing to buy the broadcast rights. the people that buy the broadcast rights work out where they can sell things. Where can they sell things.

I again invite you to read "the games are not the same". but there are lots of other books or material on this stuff.

Alternatively just keep firing away.

 

[momentbymoment]

The Northern Academies are undeniably good for the game. The only question is - why won't the AFL fund them?

Still waiting for an answer to this question ... any takers?

 

[melbournehammer]

Going by your username, you live in Melbourne?

Tell me, which channel are the Swans broadcast on Sydney? How many people watch it? What kind of advertising profile is there in Sydney? I'll give you hint - little of Sydney's television exposure in Sydney it generates much money for the broadcasters.

You know what generates the bulk of the TV rights for the AFL? Exposure in Melbourne.

I can play the game - sydney is channel 7, the watching is larger when the swans play but even when they were good in the nineties they could get outrated by the iron chef. so clearly fta isnt the key market. but then it isnt the key market as we know if we have done our research.

No what generates most of the exposure is actually content. TV rights are principally a vehicle (at least since the development of pay tv) for content. When it used to be on fta exclusively then advertising mattered. But the model of pay tv is different and it has been pay tv all round the world which has led to the astronomic increases in tv revenue.

pay tv is about having 47 channels with something on, and live tv makes people more willing to buy pay tv.

the a league has never rated on fta or on foxtel but receives a large amount for exclusive rights based on content for pay tv.

what you need to think through are the next steps - already the afl app on ipads and smartphones is broadcasting games live - this is where the market is heading and this is why there is so much value in markets which are uncoverted.

please i do know a bit about this stuff - not a lot but more than the average fan. dont treat me like an idiot, its not like the swans subsidise the wa teams exclusively because it is a football league which is collectively marketed - its just that without a presence in the sydney and brisbane markets which is meaningful the rights are significantly less valuable because the content is less useful as a means of getting more people to pay their $100 per month.

 

[momentbymoment]

Going by your username, you live in Melbourne?

Tell me, which channel are the Swans broadcast on Sydney? How many people watch it? What kind of advertising profile is there in Sydney? I'll give you hint - little of Sydney's television exposure in Sydney it generates much money for the broadcasters.

You know what generates the bulk of the TV rights for the AFL? Exposure in Melbourne.

Sorry.
TV is looking for national exposure. Not one market.

This is not a big deal. The rights depend on the comp as a whole. Not simply one team, or one state.

 

[Colonial]

Footy happily fills a niche for those too soft for rugby union but see league as too bogan and soccer as too ethnic (although this is changing).

If you think the AFL can make any in roads into this cultural mindset, you're kidding yourself.

When were you last in Sydney? 1972???

The game (and the AFL) made in roads with myself and if the crowd increase in the last 30 years (and memberships) for the Swans are any indication Im not the only one

 

[clogged]

When were you last in Sydney? 1972???

The game (and the AFL) made in roads with myself and if the crowd increase in the last 30 years (and memberships) for the Swans are any indication Im not the only one

Is that why the grand final rematch last year only saw 37,000 attend? Both Sydney and Hawthorn were top four, and the crowd wouldn't have even filled the SCG.

Of a city of nearly 5 million people no more than between 5-10% could be considered the devotees of AFL. A significant proportion of that being expats of the southern and western states. The interest in the game is minimal.

 

[clogged]

please i do know a bit about this stuff - not a lot but more than the average fan. dont treat me like an idiot, its not like the swans subsidise the wa teams exclusively because it is a football league which is collectively marketed - its just that without a presence in the sydney and brisbane markets which is meaningful the rights are significantly less valuable because the content is less useful as a means of getting more people to pay their $100 per month.

The Swans do not subsidise the WA clubs at all, not exclusively or otherwise. The fact you even suppose they do leads me to conclude you know less than the average fan.

The TV rights being paid by Channel 7 are not so they can broadcast the Swans on 7Mate (a channel few people watch). Look at the ratings - AFL consistently does poorest in Sydney, even when the Swans are on.

 

[The_Reaper]

Perth is the second biggest market for AFL easily/ Both Fremantle and West Coast provide far more than their 1/18th share of tv rights value.

 

[melbournehammer]

The Swans do not subsidise the WA clubs at all, not exclusively or otherwise. The fact you even suppose they do leads me to conclude you know less than the average fan.

The TV rights being paid by Channel 7 are not so they can broadcast the Swans on 7Mate (a channel few people watch). Look at the ratings - AFL consistently does poorest in Sydney, even when the Swans are on.

Post is extensively about fox tell and pay tv and response is about ch 7 digital. Carry on

 

[melbournehammer]

Perth is the second biggest market for AFL easily/ Both Fremantle and West Coast provide far more than their 1/18th share of tv rights value.

Actually that would be a good experiment. Drop the two wa clubs and what would vale be. Drop the four northern clubs and what would the value be

 

[Colonial]

Is that why the grand final rematch last year only saw 37,000 attend? Both Sydney and Hawthorn were top four, and the crowd wouldn't have even filled the SCG.

Of a city of nearly 5 million people no more than between 5-10% could be considered the devotees of AFL. A significant proportion of that being expats of the southern and western states. The interest in the game is minimal.

And yet 20 years ago it would of gotten 7k. So see? Growth.

That's what the 2 teams up here are about. Growth, 1 club is on 21/2 years old so give us time. Same for the academies (which every fan up here says let the AFL pay for it and open it up for all teams)

As for no one cares.....


God I hate you for the fact of making me defend lesser Eastern Sydney!!!

 

[The_Reaper]

Actually that would be a good experiment. Drop the two wa clubs and what would vale be. Drop the four northern clubs and what would the value be

You'd lose more from the two Perth clubs.
Perth and WA in general is just too big an AFL market.

The two Adelaide clubs would also be worth more.

And that's ignore the net contribution those two states make with players.

 

[Tedeski]

The Northern Academies are undeniably good for the game. The only question is - why won't the AFL fund them?

Still waiting for an answer to this question ... any takers?

-It will cost the AFL $7.5M annually minimum to fund the academies.
-Eddie & Newbold now run the AFL.
-Therefore it will cost Eddie & Newbold $7.5M annually minimum to fund the academies

 

[L_W_P]

Multiple issues with a panel deciding an academy players value -

How do they judge? Heeney is playing very very well but that's no guarantee of talent.

Prior to the 2012 draft Kevin Sheahan, Terry Wallace and Ben Dixon all had Tom Lee rated as worth pick 10-15. The Saints traded pick 12 for Lee + 24 + 43 so obviously the Giants and Saints rated him lower than that panel.

How.would they rate injured players? Jake Lever was tipped as a top 3 pick last year but hasn't played a game this season. How do you fairly judge his value in this draft now?

What about under performing players? Hugh Goddard was talked about at #1 just 12 months ago but now some people have him going in the mid to late teens. Would he be worth a 2nd rounder as an academy player?

What's to stop teams from hiding players? The Swans see Heeney is a gun and that he will cost them their first 2 picks. They have him sit out for the final 2/3rds of the season and lower his value.

In my opinion it would open the system up to a lot more issues than we have now.

 

[Colonial]

-It will cost the AFL $7.5M annually minimum to fund the academies.
-Eddie & Newbold now run the AFL.
-Therefore it will cost Eddie & Newbold $7.5M annually minimum to fund the academies

Exactly, this way they can complain about the traditional areas being "screwed" and hopefully get the funding the same way but open up the players to the draft

 

[The 747]

The Northern Academies are undeniably good for the game. The only question is - why won't the AFL fund them?

Still waiting for an answer to this question ... any takers?

I have no problem with the AFL funding the academies. They should be funding the development of talent particularly in non football states. I object to established AFL clubs having draft or salary cap advantages.

 

[The_Reaper]

I have no problem with the AFL funding the academies. They should be funding the development of talent particularly in non football states. I object to established AFL clubs having draft or salary cap advantages.

This is the correct solution.
The AFL should create the academies and fund them. They should not give the lure of getting to automatically play for GWS or Sydney if you're good enough to do it.

 

[L_W_P]

I object to established AFL clubs having draft or salary cap advantages.

Like the Father/Son rule?

 

[Colonial]

This whole funding thing is rather amusing considering the funding to the junior and lower tier comps in the traditional states is millions more than what the Northern states get.

So Yeah Please AFL start funding the juniors and lower tiers up here with the same amount as the traditional states. Then it can be equal

 

[clogged]

And yet 20 years ago it would of gotten 7k. So see? Growth.

20 years ago Sydney had lost 26 games in a row, so there's no wonder no one showed up. They were worse than GWS.

In 1987 however Sydney were top of the ladder and hosted Carlton (the eventual premiers) and got 33,000. In 1986 they averaged crowds of 28,000 to their home games. When you consider that the city has grown by 50% in that time, the crowds they attract now is a marginal increase, at best.

Sydney are doing no more for viewership in the modern era than they did in the 1980s. And that's in spite of 20 years worth of sustained investment and concessions to keep them near the top of the table.

 

[The 747]

Like the Father/Son rule?

All clubs aside from the two expansion clubs have equal access to Father/Sons now. It's just bad luck for St Kilda that your past players have daughters.

 

[Lach72]

Like the Father/Son rule?

Do Geelong have exclusive access to the Father son advantages?

 

[Colonial]

This is the correct solution.
The AFL should create the academies and fund them. They should not give the lure of getting to automatically play for GWS or Sydney if you're good enough to do it.

Wait, we are a lure now? I thought we were a fake club that no one wanted to play for....

And as been stated often, we want the AFL to fund it. Would make us all happier. You guys would need to find a new complaint for one thing...

 

[Scotland]

The Northern Academies are undeniably good for the game. The only question is - why won't the AFL fund them?

Still waiting for an answer to this question ... any takers?

If Sydney fund them then it gives further justification to the AFL giving them priority draft access to academy players.

The fact that the AFL effectively fund Sydney is just an aside...

The AFL love being disingenuous. The CoLA was never about 'cost of living', it was about helping Sydney to attract and retain players. Sydney having a higher cost of living gave them a justification for it hence it lasted longer than Brisbane's player retention allowance. If some study showed Brisbane had a higher cost of living than Melbourne then the AFL probably would've kept Brisbane's allowance also.