The economics of footy tourism & finals

[Rob]

Yes, the AFL banks a lot from finals...They do it every year, at every ground. Somebody has to pay for football in NSW/QLD/Tas, but before you complain about them ripping money out of WA, think for a moment about the AFL's deal with the MCG... Do you think the AFL pays the same price to 'rent' the ground that the clubs pay during the year, or are the Vic clubs, once again, subsidising the rest of the league?

A minimum of 4 finals a year at the MCG makes a mint for the AFL, and unlike the WA clubs in this article, the clubs will be lucky to get anything, and the local league nothing (VFL not being ground manager).

The WA clubs would get a cut for selling the corporate facilities on the AFL's behalf. The AFL would have no idea how to do it otherwise on such short notice.

If Victorian clubs provided a service to the AFL of similar value, i'm sure they'd get a similar amount of money.

 

[Kwality]

Yes, the AFL banks a lot from finals...They do it every year, at every ground. Somebody has to pay for football in NSW/QLD/Tas, but before you complain about them ripping money out of WA, think for a moment about the AFL's deal with the MCG... Do you think the AFL pays the same price to 'rent' the ground that the clubs pay during the year, or are the Vic clubs, once again, subsidising the rest of the league?

A minimum of 4 finals a year at the MCG makes a mint for the AFL, and unlike the WA clubs in this article, the clubs will be lucky to get anything, and the local league nothing (VFL not being ground manager).

diddums relax, it is great info on the economics of the finals.
Read, learn & apply the knowledge to your posts. Sure the WA model is different to SA, & different again to Vic, etc & the ground management role of the WAFC (not the VFL equivalent, the WAFL) is of interest as the role at Perth stadium is currently being decided.

 

[telsor]

diddums relax, it is great info on the economics of the finals.
Read, learn & apply the knowledge to your posts. Sure the WA model is different to SA, & different again to Vic, etc & the ground management role of the WAFC (not the VFL equivalent, the WAFL) is of interest as the role at Perth stadium is currently being decided.

Just assuming it related to your usual comments about how the AFL keeps taking money from WA, when the reality is that it's Vic that gets shafted far worse.

 

[madmug]

Yes, the AFL banks a lot from finals...They do it every year, at every ground. Somebody has to pay for football in NSW/QLD/Tas, but before you complain about them ripping money out of WA, think for a moment about the AFL's deal with the MCG... Do you think the AFL pays the same price to 'rent' the ground that the clubs pay during the year, or are the Vic clubs, once again, subsidising the rest of the league?

A minimum of 4 finals a year at the MCG makes a mint for the AFL, and unlike the WA clubs in this article, the clubs will be lucky to get anything, and the local league nothing (VFL not being ground manager).

Tasmania pays for its AFL football you goose. Its the AFL ripping Tasmania off.

 

[telsor]

Tasmania pays for its AFL football you goose. Its the AFL ripping Tasmania off.

So AFLTas isn't funded by the AFL, and doesn't give each club money?

 

[The_Terminator]

Extraordinary year in both football codes. Preliminary finals of both the NRL & AFL will hosted in 'interstate' venues. Given Stadium Australia & the MCG are the largest sporting venues in Australia, it must hurt the bottom line for both codes.

Both codes could be hosting grand finals with no 'home' teams playing for the first time since 2006. Adelaide & Sydney Swans win next week & the preliminary finals will be all 'interstate' clubs. 3 of them being 'soul less franchises' & one relocated club. Shouldn't these better performing teams be rewarded with a higher share of the all important television revenue?

 

[madmug]

So AFLTas isn't funded by the AFL, and doesn't give each club money?

Far more money goes back to the AFL than comes here. The pissy amount given to TSL clubs is all about player development to enhance draft prospects. Again its all about what the AFL can get out of Tasmania.

Once again your imagination gives you such a warped view of things outside of Victoria.

 

[Kwality]

Just assuming it related to your usual comments about how the AFL keeps taking money from WA, when the reality is that it's Vic that gets shafted far worse.

You need to heed the meaning of assume, ass - u -me, not me telsor , definitely you.

 

[Kwality]

Extraordinary year in both football codes. Preliminary finals of both the NRL & AFL will hosted in 'interstate' venues. Given Stadium Australia & the MCG are the largest sporting venues in Australia, it must hurt the bottom line for both codes.

Both codes could be hosting grand finals with no 'home' teams playing for the first time since 2006. Adelaide & Sydney Swans win next week & the preliminary finals will be all 'interstate' clubs. 3 of them being 'soul less franchises' & one relocated club. Shouldn't these better performing teams be rewarded with a higher share of the all important television revenue?

Spot on, though the clubs getting extra money would cause a short somewhere else, somewhere else in the AFLs expenditure, yep Arnie, you are spot on.

 

[telsor]

Far more money goes back to the AFL than comes here. The pissy amount given to TSL clubs is all about player development to enhance draft prospects. Again its all about what the AFL can get out of Tasmania.

Once again your imagination gives you such a warped view of things outside of Victoria.

Considering this thread is all about the economic activity generated by games, are you sure you don't want to reconsider that?

 

[madmug]

Considering this thread is all about the economic activity generated by games, are you sure you don't want to reconsider that?

You're the one saying the money gets paid to Tasmania & its clubs. I said thats a piss in the ocean compared to what leaves the state.

If you dont want to argue that obvious fact, then dont make it sound like the AFL 'support' Tasmanian football with what they make out of AFL finals matches, when in fact they actually take far more than they give to Tasmania.

 

[The_Wookie]

Just shows you why the Victorian state government and the AFL are in bed together.

Tourism and state promotion were literally cited by the Government as the reason the AFL was never allowed to buy out finals and will never be allowed to buy out the Grand Final to play it elsewhere while the contract remains in place.

AFL must have looked at the SANFL/SMA's regular season business model.

The AFL has collected all finals revenue since well before it was even the AFL.

Tasmania pays for its AFL football you goose. Its the AFL ripping Tasmania off.

This isnt a heist. The Tasmanian government continually points to tourism factors just like everybody else to justify its sponsorships of Hawthorn and North.

 

[Kwality]

Tourism and state promotion were literally cited by the Government as the reason the AFL was never allowed to buy out finals and will never be allowed to buy out the Grand Final to play it elsewhere while the contract remains in place.



The AFL has collected all finals revenue since well before it was even the AFL.



This isnt a heist. The Tasmanian government continually points to tourism factors just like everybody else to justify its sponsorships of Hawthorn and North.

The pro Tas argument is that the money spent on the Hawks/North sponsorship should be directed thru a Tas team playing 11 games a year in Tas.

That the Hawks do such a good job servicing the sponsorship makes it difficult to argue an anti Hawk line.

The use of heist indicates the frustration with the language from Gil & Co.

 

[madmug]

Tourism and state promotion were literally cited by the Government as the reason the AFL was never allowed to buy out finals and will never be allowed to buy out the Grand Final to play it elsewhere while the contract remains in place.



The AFL has collected all finals revenue since well before it was even the AFL.



This isnt a heist. The Tasmanian government continually points to tourism factors just like everybody else to justify its sponsorships of Hawthorn and North.

Goodness you write some tripe. Did you even bother reading what I was responding to?

Fact is, far more money leaves this state to the AFL & its minions, than ever comes in via the AFL.

But please read the thread before sprouting more of your set defensive, & quite irrelevant, diatribe.

In this regard your score is 2-0.

Are you Telsor's mother?

 

[The_Wookie]

Goodness you write some tripe. Did you even bother reading what I was responding to?

Fact is, far more money leaves this state to the AFL & its minions, than ever comes in via the AFL.

But please read the thread before sprouting more of your set defensive, & quite irrelevant, diatribe.

In this regard your score is 2-0.

Are you Telsor's mother?

This is how you get banned from another thread. How many times must you be told not to play the man and in how many threads?

You specifically wrote - and it doesnt matter who it was in response to - that the AFL was ripping off Tasmania. The Government says the investment is working, citing the same factors that others are using to justify their position - tourism and state reputation - and believes that both of those outweigh the money going out of the state.

 

[The_Wookie]

The pro Tas argument is that the money spent on the Hawks/North sponsorship should be directed thru a Tas team playing 11 games a year in Tas.

And it should be. Especially when business arms of the government also sponsor Norths games in Hobart.

That the Hawks do such a good job servicing the sponsorship makes it difficult to argue an anti Hawk line.

Also true.

The use of heist indicates the frustration with the language from Gil & Co.

Maybe, but according to the Tasmanian government at least, its ill directed.

 

[Papa G]

Successive Tasmanian governments thought the Franklin River Dam was a good idea too.

 

[The_Wookie]

Successive Tasmanian governments thought the Franklin River Dam was a good idea too.

And the Federal Government and the High Court disagreed. This has nothing to do with the situation at hand with football and isnt remotely comparable.

 

[Papa G]

So the government are right when it suits your argument. Got it.

 

[madmug]

This is how you get banned from another thread. How many times must you be told not to play the man and in how many threads?

You specifically wrote - and it doesnt matter who it was in response to - that the AFL was ripping off Tasmania. The Government says the investment is working, citing the same factors that others are using to justify their position - tourism and state reputation - and believes that both of those outweigh the money going out of the state.

Its a waste of time writing anything really. I was making a point to Telsors comment about AFL money from finals paying for football in Tasmania. So you hijack that for your own conversation once again.

Threatening & bullying is not very civil is it?

 

[The_Wookie]

Its a waste of time writing anything really. I was making a point to Telsors comment about AFL money from finals paying for football in Tasmania. So you hijack that for your own conversation once again.

And my response was in line with that conversation.

Threatening & bullying is not very civil is it?

Again. This is a warning. And Im getting tired of having to give you them.

 

[The_Wookie]

So the government are right when it suits your argument. Got it.

Sure. I said that didnt I. No wait, I didnt.

 

[telsor]

Its a waste of time writing anything really. I was making a point to Telsors comment about AFL money from finals paying for football in Tasmania. So you hijack that for your own conversation once again.

Threatening & bullying is not very civil is it?

The AFL != The clubs.

Tasmanian money for H&A games go to THE 2 CLUBS that play home games there. The government justifies this by saying the economic activity, tourism & advertising results in a net gain to Tasmania.

The AFL on the other hand, takes money from finals (and many other sources) and puts some of it into development and supporting lower leagues, with one example being AFLTas.

These are DIFFERENT entities doing DIFFERENT things.



BTW. If you've got a problem with Wookie's moderation, complain to the other mods ... I suspect Chief (etc) will back him up though, as you probably realise.

 

[madmug]

The AFL != The clubs.

Tasmanian money for H&A games go to THE 2 CLUBS that play home games there. The government justifies this by saying the economic activity, tourism & advertising results in a net gain to Tasmania.

The AFL on the other hand, takes money from finals (and many other sources) and puts some of it into development and supporting lower leagues, with one example being AFLTas.

These are DIFFERENT entities doing DIFFERENT things.



BTW. If you've got a problem with Wookie's moderation, complain to the other mods ... I suspect Chief (etc) will back him up though, as you probably realise.

The only problem I have is that I simply dont understand the warnings? I dont see what I've said thats any different to a myriad of others on here, including yourself & Wookie.

Your comment that the AFL make money from finals to pay for football in ----/Tas. That is absolutely wrong. The AFL put money into AFLtas who, as clubs & the public have been told time & time again, is 'the AFL IN Tasmania'. In otherwords, a branch office. Their activities are for the AFL. The pissy amount the TSL clubs get is to operate statewide. Its of little use otherwise as it helps offset the costs of state wide travel, loss of home spectators & helping develop draft chances. Financially & for supporters & families etc, they'd be better off playing locally. But the AFL want some better level of club football for the development of players.

Overall with money the Gument pays AFLTas (some $500k p.a.) the sponsorships & paying for games & the host of AFL memberships, Tasmania is a net contributor to the AFL. NOT the other way around.

The economic argument of what AFL games generate in the economy is irrelevant to my point. Its a different issue & nothing to do with your comment.

Is that such an insult? Is it such a difficult point to understand? I speak to people from 3-4 other clubs & the above is a fact.

 

[The_Wookie]

The only problem I have is that I simply dont understand the warnings? I dont see what I've said thats any different to a myriad of others on here, including yourself & Wookie.

Your comment that the AFL make money from finals to pay for football in ----/Tas. That is absolutely wrong. The AFL put money into AFLtas who, as clubs & the public have been told time & time again, is 'the AFL IN Tasmania'. In otherwords, a branch office. Their activities are for the AFL. The pissy amount the TSL clubs get is to operate statewide. Its of little use otherwise as it helps offset the costs of state wide travel, loss of home spectators & helping develop draft chances. Financially & for supporters & families etc, they'd be better off playing locally. But the AFL want some better level of club football for the development of players.

Overall with money the Gument pays AFLTas (some $500k p.a.) the sponsorships & paying for games & the host of AFL memberships, Tasmania is a net contributor to the AFL. NOT the other way around.

The economic argument of what AFL games generate in the economy is irrelevant to my point. Its a different issue & nothing to do with your comment.

Is that such an insult? Is it such a difficult point to understand? I speak to people from 3-4 other clubs & the above is a fact.

There might be no direct link between finals revenue and AFL Tasmania funding - The AFL doesnt exactly publish anything that specifically points out where its allocated monies originate from in its revenue scheme.

As for the warnings - if you wrote all your posts like the last one without insulting the poster you are responding to personally that would be fine, but you dont. Many of your posts attack the poster because they hold a different position, rather than just the argument itself - and thats where you cross the line from civil discussion to playing the man.

In any case, Ill not discuss moderation further in this thread.