Docklands contract buyout speculation

[BringBackTorps]

I am very happy that the AFL, as the keeper of the code, subsidises the northern states financially, and allows them to have academies (Riverina recruitment had dropped off considerably until recent years, unlike the glory years up until the 90's. And we are now getting superior recruitment from other areas of NSW, and throughout Qld. Having club branded academies in the north was crucial to the academies' appeal, club input, promotion, & success. The north dont have the elite TAC Cup)
We need to have the 53% of the population in the north heavily involved in AF -or the code in the traditional areas will suffer in the long term.

My questions relate to, however, a fair and equitable Return On Investment for the 12 VFL clubs of the 50's.

Waverly in the mid 50's was mainly outer suburban orchards, and the land was bought VERY cheaply by the 12 VFL clubs ONLY ie no non- Vic clubs. When it was sold in the 90's, that same land had been rezoned and increased astronomically, perhaps 200 times (back of an envellope calculation). Fitzroy (& Sth Melb./ Syd.) could say they were"robbed"of their 1/12 th of the eventual rezoned & greatly increased value of Waverly land.

When Docklands land was purchased & created in the mid 90's (by virtue only of Waverly's existence), it wasn't prime real estate( railway sheds, industrial use etc; and it was surrounded by unattractive vistas, albeit on the waterfront). Now it has successfully been developed as prime AAA high rise office towers (rezoned also), and very expensive high rise apartments. Some estimates now of Docklands stadium land value is about $1.2 -1.5 billion.

It could be argued that by WA & SA clubs paying "small" license fees (about $4,000,000 each?), they have shared inordinately in this MASSIVE financial windfall of having a 1/18th share of the value of Docklands ie the WA & SA Return On Investment has benefited them enormously, even though it was the 12 VFL clubs ONLY that bought Waverly land in the 50's. WA & SA have "piggy-backed" on this financial windfall.

Should, therefore, the AFL introduce its own "super profits"tax, above a predetermined profit amount whenever it might occur, on the four WA & SA clubs -to claw back this property value windfall? And these taxes raised be used soley for the addition of new clubs, whenever that might be, in the north and in Tasmania?

 

[telsor]

that is bollocks. It wouldn't cost the afl a cent now to have games on 7s secondary digital channels. There would be 10s of thousands of Foxtel subscriptions in Sydney where the swans are the reason for the subscription. In 2009 a survey found the swans were the most "1st supported team" in nsw.

WAFL & SANFL both have to pay to get on FTA in their local markets, and they rate better than AFL rates in Sydney or Brisbane, even though those are bigger markets and games in S&B are more likely to get a decent timeslot (as in, they have some chance). That the AFL pays might be pushing it, but they certainly wouldn't get 4/18th of the media rights for those markets...They'd probably be lucky to get 4/180ths. The media simply isn't dumb enough to pay big money for content that they know nobody is going to watch.

Surveys saying the Swans are well supported are common, but 'supporters' who don't attend any games, buy any merch or even watch any games on TV are pretty meaningless. If pushed, I'd say I support Melbourne Storm because they're the 'local' side...I couldn't tell you how they went last year or who plays for them though....From a Storm/NRL perspective, my support is meaningless. That's what I imagine most of Sydney's 'support' is like.

 

[Garlic muncher]

WAFL & SANFL both have to pay to get on FTA in their local markets, and they rate better than AFL rates in Sydney or Brisbane, even though those are bigger markets and games in S&B are more likely to get a decent timeslot (as in, they have some chance). That the AFL pays might be pushing it, but they certainly wouldn't get 4/18th of the media rights for those markets...They'd probably be lucky to get 4/180ths. The media simply isn't dumb enough to pay big money for content that they know nobody is going to watch.

Surveys saying the Swans are well supported are common, but 'supporters' who don't attend any games, buy any merch or even watch any games on TV are pretty meaningless. If pushed, I'd say I support Melbourne Storm because they're the 'local' side...I couldn't tell you how they went last year or who plays for them though....From a Storm/NRL perspective, my support is meaningless. That's what I imagine most of Sydney's 'support' is like.

Not sure about the first part, but the second part is incorrect.

I thought the WAFL got the sponsorship to pay for the telecast, not money out of its own pocket.

 

[telsor]

is that ongoing circumstance related to financially viability?

The afl commission is not known for its acts of devolution of power! Imo I would like to see the afl ultimately hand over all clubs it "owns" or controls to democratic memberships

The bit that scares me about the AFL owned clubs is....Do they have a vote about commission matters? (e.g appointing a new commissioner, introducing new clubs)...It's a bit of a worry is they do.

 

[telsor]

Not sure about the first part, but the second part is incorrect.

I thought the WAFL got the sponsorship to pay for the telecast, not money out of its own pocket.

What is incorrect?

Pretty sure the WAFL was extracting money from their clubs to pay for it....The theory is that FTA means the clubs sponsorships are worth more (and gathers interest from fans, meaning more attendances/merch sales, etc), and therefore the investment makes a return. Same would apply in NSW/QLD, except the AFL is paying, and the clubs up there are gaining the benefits.

nb. I don't have a problem with the AFL effectively subsidising the northern clubs in such a way, especially as it would help grow the game up there. I do however object to the crap argument that clubs drawing double digit ratings are paying their way in the media rights when the truth is more likely that the media rights represent another form of support for those clubs.

 

[Garlic muncher]

What is incorrect?

Pretty sure the WAFL was extracting money from their clubs to pay for it....The theory is that FTA means the clubs sponsorships are worth more (and gathers interest from fans, meaning more attendances/merch sales, etc), and therefore the investment makes a return. Same would apply in NSW/QLD, except the AFL is paying, and the clubs up there are gaining the benefits.

nb. I don't have a problem with the AFL effectively subsidising the northern clubs in such a way, especially as it would help grow the game up there. I do however object to the crap argument that clubs drawing double digit ratings are paying their way in the media rights when the truth is more likely that the media rights represent another form of support for those clubs.

The WAFL finds a sponsor to pay for the telecast, in 2016 i remember plenty of ads about RE during the WAFL telecast, from memory Maccas has also sponsored the telecast.

Pretty sure the AFL in Brisbane and Sydney involving local teams generally out rates the WAFL or SANFL match of the day

 

[telsor]

The WAFL finds a sponsor to pay for the telecast, in 2016 i remember plenty of ads about RE during the WAFL telecast, from memory Maccas has also sponsored the telecast.

Pretty sure the AFL in Brisbane and Sydney involving local teams generally out rates the WAFL or SANFL match of the day

Looked in the ratings thread...I'm sure there is more recent data, but there is only so long I was willing to look for...

As at round 10 (post #1004 of last years ratings thread, posted by the_wookie on May 31st)

AVG ratings to that point.
Sydney: 31,605
Brisbane: 21,395

VFL: 54,143
WAFL: 41,500
SANFL: 27,571


Bit surprised at the SANFL figures, and yes, the local NSW/QLD teams probably averaged a bit higher, but they're certainly in the ball park with the competitions that need to pay to get airtime. (That round, in Syd, the avg for those teams was 41,500 and in Bris 15,000, but the Sydney figure was probably a bit higher due to Sydney playing on Friday night and GWS on Saturday night, so that probably isn't representative)

Not sure having a sponsor pay really makes that much difference...After all, either way, the media isn't paying to show it, which is the point at issue.

 

[The_Wookie]

is that ongoing circumstance related to financially viability?

The afl commission is not known for its acts of devolution of power! Imo I would like to see the afl ultimately hand over all clubs it "owns" or controls to democratic memberships

In 14 years or so, the league hands full control of Adelaide and Port Adelaide back to those clubs, it wouldnt surprise me if the league does them all around the same time if they are all viable.

 

[NoobPie]

WAFL & SANFL both have to pay to get on FTA in their local markets, and they rate better than AFL rates in Sydney or Brisbane, even though those are bigger markets and games in S&B are more likely to get a decent timeslot (as in, they have some chance). That the AFL pays might be pushing it, but they certainly wouldn't get 4/18th of the media rights for those markets...They'd probably be lucky to get 4/180ths. The media simply isn't dumb enough to pay big money for content that they know nobody is going to watch.

Channel 7 are paying big money primarily for the big ratings in the "traditional" markets. It is pretty much costless to play these games on their secondary channels in Sydney and Brisbane. I'm pretty sure that the WAFL / SANFL / VFL need to pay to cover the production costs and/or because it is on the primary channel

The point is, why the Swans may not meet the FTA viewer thresholds to make it increase FTA value (now the minority of the rights value), there would be 10s of thousands of Foxtel subscribers who are motivated to some extent to get better coverage of Swans / the AFL

Surveys saying the Swans are well supported are common, but 'supporters' who don't attend any games, buy any merch or even watch any games on TV are pretty meaningless. If pushed, I'd say I support Melbourne Storm because they're the 'local' side...I couldn't tell you how they went last year or who plays for them though....From a Storm/NRL perspective, my support is meaningless. That's what I imagine most of Sydney's 'support' is like.

Most of Sydney's support is no doubt as you say. But. But the survey I am talking about asked for who is your primary sporting team. 7% of Sydney-siders said the Swans were. This was larger than any of the other dozen or so football clubs in Sydney, or, say the the australian cricket team, wallabies, socceroos etc. When you consider how much bigger the Swans are than any other football club in Sydney, this isnt that surprising

 

[telsor]

Channel 7 are paying big money primarily for the big ratings in the "traditional" markets. It is pretty much costless to play these games on their secondary channels in Sydney and Brisbane. I'm pretty sure that the WAFL / SANFL / VFL need to pay to cover the production costs and/or because it is on the primary channel

The point is, why the Swans may not meet the FTA viewer thresholds to make it increase FTA value (now the minority of the rights value), there would be 10s of thousands of Foxtel subscribers who are motivated to some extent to get better coverage of Swans / the AFL

So you agree with my point that NSW & QLD bring in sweet FA when it comes to the TV rights....(the difference between paying $1M/year Vs bringing in $0 is pretty meaningless in a $400M/year deal after all, so not worth quibbling over)

So back to the comment that started this...

I also would have thought the Swans and Brisbane ( few years ago ) have at times put more money into the AFL than what they have taken.

Where are they bringing this money in? and why did you call "Bollocks" on my saying this was crap and not this assertion?

Most of Sydney's support is no doubt as you say. But. But the survey I am talking about asked for who is your primary sporting team. 7% of Sydney-siders said the Swans were. This was larger than any of the other dozen or so football clubs in Sydney, or, say the the australian cricket team, wallabies, socceroos etc. When you consider how much bigger the Swans are than any other football club in Sydney, this isnt that surprising

I don't care if 50% of them said Sydney were their first team, if they don't attend games, buy merch or even watch on TV, then their (lack of) care factor makes such support meaningless. 7%? Less that 1% of the Sydney audience can even be bothered to watch them on TV ever week.

I'd also point out that there are more teams in NSW/QLD than Sydney.

 

[NoobPie]

So you agree with my point that NSW & QLD bring in sweet FA when it comes to the TV rights....(the difference between paying $1M/year Vs bringing in $0 is pretty meaningless in a $400M/year deal after all, so not worth quibbling over)

No I don't. In terms of channel 7, the 4 teams in NSW and QLD would collectively marginally increase the FTA value largely because of increased ratings in September

In terms of Foxtel, an AFL motivated subscription in Sydney (of which their are almost certainly many) is worth no less than an AFL subscription in Melbourne. I hope that point is understood now.

So back to the comment that started this...



Where are they bringing this money in? and why did you call "Bollocks" on my saying this was crap and not this assertion?

If the point GM was making was that, overall, Sydney has at times driven more revenue to the AFL than it has received in distributions then I agree with his statement. I also find the obsession with denying the magnitude of what the swans have established in Sydney a bit boorish.

AFL grand finals with Sydney in them are the highest rating of all time. The GWS prelim final even, was one of the highest non GFs of all time. They do drive TV revenues, just wouldn't come into 7s pricing considerations in the H and A, but would certainly increase Foxtels contribution. Plus the "footprint" would increase what the AFL can derive from sponsorship and give them access to the corporates in Sydney etc etc. There were 120,000 people who went to finals in Sydney last year, probably paying an average nearing $100...

and the Swans, in 2015, received a below average contribution from the AFL anyway

https://hurlingpeoplenow.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/how-much-money-does-your-club-make/

I don't care if 50% of them said Sydney were their first team, if they don't attend games, buy merch or even watch on TV, then their (lack of) care factor makes such support meaningless. 7%? Less that 1% of the Sydney audience can even be bothered to watch them on TV ever week.

Again, bollocks! The Swans averaged over 33,000 last year and had 56,000 members (probably 45,000 ish in Sydney). They might only average 40,000 on FTA multis but how many are watching on Foxtel where the Swans are apparently one of the higher watched sides? I'm sure the ungracious would contest this claim given we don't have the actual data, but I would be confident that the Swans get at least 60,000 watching foxtel each week which would mean they have 100,000 all up. That is a solid number

I'd also point out that there are more teams in NSW/QLD than Sydney.

Of course, but the Swans are the one we have been discussing. The others are not where the Swans are yet but the Swans success is exactly the justification for those investments.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Looked in the ratings thread...I'm sure there is more recent data, but there is only so long I was willing to look for...

As at round 10 (post #1004 of last years ratings thread, posted by the_wookie on May 31st)

AVG ratings to that point.
Sydney: 31,605
Brisbane: 21,395

VFL: 54,143
WAFL: 41,500
SANFL: 27,571


Bit surprised at the SANFL figures, and yes, the local NSW/QLD teams probably averaged a bit higher, but they're certainly in the ball park with the competitions that need to pay to get airtime. (That round, in Syd, the avg for those teams was 41,500 and in Bris 15,000, but the Sydney figure was probably a bit higher due to Sydney playing on Friday night and GWS on Saturday night, so that probably isn't representative)

Not sure having a sponsor pay really makes that much difference...After all, either way, the media isn't paying to show it, which is the point at issue.

We can all use selective stats, Sydney rated 136,000k viewers per match over the AFL finals series, you are also using one game per week in Adelaide and Perth against 4 games in Sydney and Brisbane over a weekend.

You also stated comprehensively that the WAFL and SANFL pay to have their games on 7, AFAIK sponsorship covers it, from what i understand at the WAFL is that sponsorship through Maccas and others pays for it.

That sponsorship without TV coverage may be a lot smaller.

 

[Prince Imperial]

In 14 years or so, the league hands full control of Adelaide and Port Adelaide back to those clubs, it wouldnt surprise me if the league does them all around the same time if they are all viable.

The Swans have had continual on field and off field success for two decades and are still owned and controlled by the League so I would be very surprised. At some stage, they may give members the right to appoint a director or two (subject to the League's approval) though.

 

[The_Wookie]

You also stated comprehensively that the WAFL and SANFL pay to have their games on 7, AFAIK sponsorship covers it, from what i understand at the WAFL is that sponsorship through Maccas and others pays for it.

That sponsorship without TV coverage may be a lot smaller.

In a sense you are both right. The WAFL and SANFL are paying Seven $1 million a year to be broadcast, however the agreement with Seven allows them to find sponsors to underwrite the cost.

 

[The_Wookie]

The Swans have had continual on field and off field success for two decades and are still owned and controlled by the League so I would be very surprised. At some stage, they may give members the right to appoint a director or two (subject to the League's approval) though.

I believe they can do this already.

 

[telsor]

We can all use selective stats, Sydney rated 136,000k viewers per match over the AFL finals series, you are also using one game per week in Adelaide and Perth against 4 games in Sydney and Brisbane over a weekend.

I didn't select those stats, they were simply the first I found. I'm open to you finding others. Please do.

136k during finals....That's still not impressive. Most clubs get that into their home markets every week. (WAFL/SANFL/VFL also presumably rate higher for their finals).

One game in Adelaide/Perth...You mean apart from the 4 AFL games that are also on each week and competing for viewers? Also, it shows there are ~10 hours on FTA into Sydney/Brisbane each week, including peak times like Friday nights, all getting stuff all ratings. WAFL/SANFL games are all at low ratings times (sat/sun afternoons).

You also stated comprehensively that the WAFL and SANFL pay to have their games on 7, AFAIK sponsorship covers it, from what i understand at the WAFL is that sponsorship through Maccas and others pays for it.

That sponsorship without TV coverage may be a lot smaller.

The FTA station gets paid to show it. In terms of media rights (and what the AFL would get paid for them), that's the relevant part. If it's the league, or the league's sponsors doesn't really change much. If they require money to show a 40K rating show into a market of 1.8Million, how do you think they feel about showing 4 times the content into a market over twice the size, often at high otherwise high rating times, and receiving even LOWER ratings.

If they showed a repeat of master chef (or whatever the reality TV de jour is), it would cost them $0 (they already have the rights, and have done all the production) and they'd rate higher, earning them more money from their advertisers. Do you really think they'd pay big money to earn less?

 

[telsor]

No I don't. In terms of channel 7, the 4 teams in NSW and QLD would collectively marginally increase the FTA value largely because of increased ratings in September

Marginal is right...and they get that by the AFL skewing the comptition to make sure they make the finals.

In terms of Foxtel, an AFL motivated subscription in Sydney (of which their are almost certainly many) is worth no less than an AFL subscription in Melbourne. I hope that point is understood now.

Of course they're worth the same...but there is no reason to believe there are all that many of them.
Indeed, logic would suggest that people in Melbourne would be more likely to join foxtel, because unlike Sydney fans, people in Melbourne don't get to see their team live on FTA every game unless they have foxtel.

If the point GM was making was that, overall, Sydney has at times driven more revenue to the AFL than it has received in distributions then I agree with his statement. I also find the obsession with denying the magnitude of what the swans have established in Sydney a bit boorish.

So where has this money come from?

Hundreds of millions pumped up north...where is this return?

Oh, and BTW, we were talking about ALL the northern club, so last year alone they'd have needed to bring in over $60Million, just to cover the direct funding.

AFL grand finals with Sydney in them are the highest rating of all time. The GWS prelim final even, was one of the highest non GFs of all time. They do drive TV revenues, just wouldn't come into 7s pricing considerations in the H and A, but would certainly increase Foxtels contribution. Plus the "footprint" would increase what the AFL can derive from sponsorship and give them access to the corporates in Sydney etc etc. There were 120,000 people who went to finals in Sydney last year, probably paying an average nearing $100...

So how much extra money do you think Ch7 pays over a 6 year deal on the basis of 'If Sydney make the GF it'll be big'?

and the Swans, in 2015, received a below average contribution from the AFL anyway

https://hurlingpeoplenow.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/how-much-money-does-your-club-make/

Directly, yes...but what about the other 3 clubs?

Again, bollocks! The Swans averaged over 33,000 last year and had 56,000 members (probably 45,000 ish in Sydney). They might only average 40,000 on FTA multis but how many are watching on Foxtel where the Swans are apparently one of the higher watched sides? I'm sure the ungracious would contest this claim given we don't have the actual data, but I would be confident that the Swans get at least 60,000 watching foxtel each week which would mean they have 100,000 all up. That is a solid number

a) What source do you have for that assertion?
b) Even 100K isn't all that solid...it's still below average.

Of course, but the Swans are the one we have been discussing. The others are not where the Swans are yet but the Swans success is exactly the justification for those investments.

No, we're discussing all the northern clubs, you just only want to talk about the Swans because after being propped up, on and off field for decades, they're the only one that's coming close to break even.

 

[NoobPie]

Marginal is right...and they get that by the AFL skewing the comptition to make sure they make the finals.



Of course they're worth the same...but there is no reason to believe there are all that many of them.
Indeed, logic would suggest that people in Melbourne would be more likely to join foxtel, because unlike Sydney fans, people in Melbourne don't get to see their team live on FTA every game unless they have foxtel.



So where has this money come from?

Hundreds of millions pumped up north...where is this return?

Oh, and BTW, we were talking about ALL the northern club, so last year alone they'd have needed to bring in over $60Million, just to cover the direct funding.



So how much extra money do you think Ch7 pays over a 6 year deal on the basis of 'If Sydney make the GF it'll be big'?




Directly, yes...but what about the other 3 clubs?




a) What source do you have for that assertion?
b) Even 100K isn't all that solid...it's still below average.



No, we're discussing all the northern clubs, you just only want to talk about the Swans because after being propped up, on and off field for decades, they're the only one that's coming close to break even.

Ok so I explicitly state that I am engaging in conjecture and your response is to ask me for a source?

Wookie's stats suggest that the average Foxtel telecast draws 190,000 (whether it's similcast, up against another game etc). I don't have the spreadsheets to be able to do the analysis but I'm pretty confident that swans have an above average viewership and I think that conservatively that on average 25 per cent of viewers for swans games on fox might be swans supporters. Someone here has said fox has said publicly the ratings are going very well in Sydney. If there are say 500'000 subscriptions driven by the afl rights, just 25,000 of those would need to be Sydney based to pay for the entire swans rights distribution.

This worthless discussion began when I contested a hypocritically sourceless assertion by you that the swans are costing the afl money (or something to that effect). You were almost certainly, like a duck quacks, railing more broadly against the northern clubs. We get that you want to make Victoria great again and attach no value to game development north of the Murray, nor do you have any time for what that entails, whatsoever.

Unfortunately for you the afl has taken a course that's not for turning. For those of us that see the importance of it it's a great thing to watch unfold. Those like you are the proverbial dogs barking at the caravan that has long gone off towards greener pastures. Pity for you. We can't observe the parallel universe where the afl sat on its hands and the game thrived anyway, nor the one where it declined towards the Oblivian.

The bottom line is that the swans more than pay for themselves and are precisely relevant to the other 3 as a "one we prepared earlier". The four of them received less than $70million combined in 2015, half of which was the base afl distribution. The games total revenue (afl plus clubs) from next year would be at least 20 times it is 1/6th of the ratings alone. Very possibly the four are already paying for themselves already

 

[The_Wookie]

Ok so I explicitly state that I am engaging in conjecture and your response is to ask me for a source?

Wookie's stats suggest that the average Foxtel telecast draws 190,000 (whether it's similcast, up against another game etc). I don't have the spreadsheets to be able to do the analysis but I'm pretty confident that swans have an above average viewership and I think that conservatively that on average 25 per cent of viewers for swans games on fox might be swans supporters. Someone here has said fox has said publicly the ratings are going very well in Sydney. If there are say 500'000 subscriptions driven by the afl rights, just 25,000 of those would need to be Sydney based to pay for the entire swans rights distribution.

https://www.bigfooty.com/news/2016/10/who-was-the-most-watched-afl-team-of-2016/

 

[telsor]

https://www.bigfooty.com/news/2016/10/who-was-the-most-watched-afl-team-of-2016/

Thanks for that, and your work on this stuff in general.

By any chance do you have a similar chart for H&A?

 

[telsor]

Ok so I explicitly state that I am engaging in conjecture and your response is to ask me for a source?

Wookie's stats suggest that the average Foxtel telecast draws 190,000 (whether it's similcast, up against another game etc). I don't have the spreadsheets to be able to do the analysis but I'm pretty confident that swans have an above average viewership and I think that conservatively that on average 25 per cent of viewers for swans games on fox might be swans supporters. Someone here has said fox has said publicly the ratings are going very well in Sydney. If there are say 500'000 subscriptions driven by the afl rights, just 25,000 of those would need to be Sydney based to pay for the entire swans rights distribution.

OK, by source I meant back up your claim. After all, when most of the country has less viewers on Foxtel than any FTA, and you're claiming foxtel figures are around twice what FTA is in Sydney, even though every game they have is on FTA, it's a claim that needs supporting.

Now you've provided more, and, I note, pulled back from your earlier claim of 60K on foxtel (25% of 190k would be 47.5K), on top of your generous rounding up of FTA viewers to 40K. As I said though, even if you were right, 100K is a poor audience and wouldn't justify their share of the media rights. and of course, that's just one of the 4 clubs!

This worthless discussion began when I contested a hypocritically sourceless assertion by you that the swans are costing the afl money (or something to that effect). You were almost certainly, like a duck quacks, railing more broadly against the northern clubs. We get that you want to make Victoria great again and attach no value to game development north of the Murray, nor do you have any time for what that entails, whatsoever.

Nonsense. Just because I call you and GM on your crap doesn't mean I don't support the growth of the game up there. I just get sick of bullshit claims about such clubs being able to stand on their own, when they demonstrably cannot.

Believe it or not, is is possible to agree with the purpose of something without buying into every myth and lie about it.

Unfortunately for you the afl has taken a course that's not for turning. For those of us that see the importance of it it's a great thing to watch unfold. Those like you are the proverbial dogs barking at the caravan that has long gone off towards greener pastures. Pity for you. We can't observe the parallel universe where the afl sat on its hands and the game thrived anyway, nor the one where it declined towards the Oblivian.

I love this...The only state that was willing/able to look beyond it's borders and expand the game was Victoria, and yet somehow we're the parochial bad guys in all of your minds.

The bottom line is that the swans more than pay for themselves and are precisely relevant to the other 3 as a "one we prepared earlier".

Again...HOW DO THE SWANS PAY FOR THEMSELVES?

Also, Brisbane has been about almost as long...Why don't they count?

The four of them received less than $70million combined in 2015, half of which was the base afl distribution. The games total revenue (afl plus clubs) from next year would be at least 20 times it is 1/6th of the ratings alone. Very possibly the four are already paying for themselves already

that half is base distribution doesn't change anything...

what in the hell is "The games total revenue (afl plus clubs) from next year would be at least 20 times it is 1/6th of the ratings alone" HUH? Can we try that again in english (or as maths).

20 times what? 1/6th of what?

Very possibly the four are already paying for themselves already

So to go back to the original premise, you've backed away from supporting the premise that they've 'have put more money in than they've taken' to 'possibly already paying for themselves' (with no clear reference to past contributions)

Well, that's some progress at least.

 

[NoobPie]

https://www.bigfooty.com/news/2016/10/who-was-the-most-watched-afl-team-of-2016/

Awesome, so the swans were the most watched team on Foxtel including finals, and comfortably second to hawthorn for home and away. They averaged roughly 25% (50,000) above the afl average in h&a

 

[NoobPie]

OK, by source I meant back up your claim. After all, when most of the country has less viewers on Foxtel than any FTA, and you're claiming foxtel figures are around twice what FTA is in Sydney, even though every game they have is on FTA, it's a claim that needs supporting.

Now you've provided more, and, I note, pulled back from your earlier claim of 60K on foxtel (25% of 190k would be 47.5K), on top of your generous rounding up of FTA viewers to 40K..

Alright new rule with you, if you are going to carve up my post and then proceed to reply to each chunk either misrepresenting me Or missing the point etc then I'm going to stop at the first instance and only reply to that.

I did not back away from anything. I only tried to demonstrate that the swans didn't need a great deal of Foxtel subscribers to cover their afl distributions. Also, I said conservatively they get 60,000 viewers (which we now know is less than a quarter of their ave Foxtel ratings) per game...the 25,000 related to subscriptions not ratings. I suspect, after seeing wookies numbers, that's far greater than that

I'll give you a little bonus today (only cos it really gave me the shits), I'll explain the typo that you Were so wound up by.

The total afl distribution is less than $70 million. This is less than 1/20th of what the total game revenue will be next year. This is also less than 1/6th of the new tv rights deal. I think the northern footprint is already paying for itself in terms increased tv rights and sponsorships, including Victorian clubs being able to sell access to a national audience. You clearly don't agree.

You continually miss represent my points or ignore them. You set the bar far higher in terms of supporting evidence of others than you hold your self to. I can't work out if you're a troll or just not very bright. Either way, I'm done engaging with you while you behave in this way

 

[telsor]

I did not back away from anything. I only tried to demonstrate that the swans didn't need a great deal of Foxtel subscribers to cover their afl distributions. Also, I said conservatively they get 60,000 viewers (which we now know is less than a quarter of their ave Foxtel ratings) per game...the 25,000 related to subscriptions not ratings. I suspect, after seeing wookies numbers, that's far greater than that

OK. I understand the problem now.

You think 60,000 is less than a quarter of 190,000 (your own figure).

Perhaps you should learn some maths before you enter discussions about numbers.

 

[NoobPie]

OK. I understand the problem now.

You think 60,000 is less than a quarter of 190,000 (your own figure).

Perhaps you should learn some maths before you enter discussions about numbers.

Less than a quarter of 250,000 which was the swans average ratings derived from wookies aggregate after subtracting the finals ratings.

I'd call it arithmetic rather than maths but then I'd be the one being a pedantic flog