How Important We Are To The AFL

[Rabman]

Since our inception into the AFL in 1991, our club has contributed enormously to the national game through membership, attendances, TV ratings. Out of all the Non-Victorian clubs there's no doubt us and West Coast have on a consistent bases contributed enormously throughout these categories and will continue to further. Below is a breakdown of our contribution.

Crowds:
Since 1991 when we entered AFL, we became one of the best attended teams on average with 40,530 (445,831) in our first season. This has continued right throughout with 1991, 1993, 2014 and 2016 being the best attended team in the league and being the best non-Victorian attended team from 1991-2009, 2014-2017. In the 292 home games played since 1991 11,948,366 (40,919) have come through the gates, Only Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond better that.
Comparison since 1997 with other non-Victorian clubs.

Adelaide: 9,289,770 (40,924)
West Coast: 8,278,134 (36,308)
Fremantle: 7,116,073 (31,348)
Sydney: 7,035,892 (30,859)
Port: 6,915,477 (30,645)
Brisbane: 5,622,543 (24,769)

Membership:
This year we broke the record for breaking the 70,000 membership barrier, whilst memberships are a bit unreliable, it means the club has a very strong revenue stream. First year in 1991 our membership was 25,087 (massive at the time) and grew regularly from then. 2006 we were the first team in the comp to reach 50,000 members and now boast over 70,000.
Membership compared to other non vic clubs

Adelaide 72,930
West Coast 64,742
Port 58,564
Sydney 58,103
Fremantle 46,028 (more likely to be around 55,000)
Brisbane 21,203

TV Ratings:
Again one of the best clubs when it comes to TV ratings. This year one the best rating Friday night game involved us against Geelong where 1,230,000 watched on all TV formats both FTA (free to air) and Fox, 210,000 FTA in Adelaide and a further 49,000 on FOX in Adelaide as well. On average our FTA rating are 173,000 and 40,000 on Fox. This is the best out of all the non-victorian sides, Western Australian sides are affected with their ratings being telecast on 7mate.

Would happily like to know others thoughts and it would be great if people would like to add anything more to the thread and their opinions.

Lastly i'd like the acknowledge AFLtables, the_wookie and mediaweekAUS on twitter for supplying the data seen on the thread here.
Wookies page: http://www.footyindustry.com/ http://afltables.com/afl/afl_index.html

 

[dogs105]

And license fee

 

[Rabman]

And license fee

Was it 4 million up front, i know in our first decade we made over $11,000,000 to the SANFL and the clubs.

 

[chazwazza]

Was it 4 million up front, i know in our first decade we made over $11,000,000 to the SANFL and the clubs.

I think Port took that and then some.

 

[Pugsley]

Not very because they bend us over at every opportunity.

 

[Rabman]

Not very because they bend us over at every opportunity.

I'd argue west coast have had the worst of it.

 

[DD#23]

Not very because they bend us over at every opportunity.

nah you're wrong, we are important to them they just know we're a sure thing.

we turn up rain hail or shine and we don't complain or make a fuss about anything.

 

[Pugsley]

nah you're wrong, we are important to them they just know we're a sure thing.

we turn up rain hail or shine and we don't complain or make a fuss about anything.

You're right.

 

[Rabman]

nah you're wrong, we are important to them they just know we're a sure thing.

we turn up rain hail or shine and we don't complain or make a fuss about anything.

If the AFL had list of clubs they are concerned about we'd be right at the bottom.

 

[DD#23]

If the AFL had list of clubs they are concerned about we'd be right at the bottom.

absolutely, that's what I'm saying.

why would they be concerned about us when they've got half a dozen other teams dragging the league down?

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

We're a small mature market. They just need to pat us on the head and throw us a bone every now and then and we'll be right by them.

We aren't a priority at all.

 

[GreyCrow]

I am surprised at the lowish ( to me) average attendance figure. Cant recall too many games under 40,000 that wouldnt have been exceeded by the games above 44,000

 

[Rabman]

I am surprised at the lowish ( to me) average attendance figure. Cant recall too many games under 40,000 that wouldnt have been exceeded by the games above 44,000

Adelaide Oval is mending it, The last 5 years at AAMI killed our attendances, 2007 on wards the crowds dropped alarmingly, we had 4 games under 30k in 2013 alone, was a very weather affected season.

 

[Simmo28]

And license fee

And the totally ****ed up equalisation tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pirate bob]

I'd argue west coast have had the worst of it.

I was born here, however I was living in WA when WC entered the league and for a number of years afterwards. I'd be interested to know why you think WC have had the worst of it.

 

[Rabman]

I was born here, however I was living in WA when WC entered the league and for a number of years afterwards. I'd be interested to know why you think WC have had the worst of it.

Being one of the richest AFL clubs they have to pay a large equalization tax yearly which will end this season. Only now are they getting a stadium that is warranted of the size of their club. Back in the 1996 and 1999 they got screwed over by the MCG contract having to play a "home" game there both against Essendon and Carlton which they lost both. AFL haven't treated them greatly.

 

[pirate bob]

Being one of the richest AFL clubs they have to pay a large equalization tax yearly which will end this season. Only now are they getting a stadium that is warranted of the size of their club. Back in the 1996 and 1999 they got screwed over by the MCG contract having to play a "home" game there both against Essendon and Carlton which they lost both. AFL haven't treated them greatly.

All good points. Interestingly talking to a lot folk from WA their main gripe always revolves around the inequality of their travel schedule in comparison to Melbourne (Collingwood) based clubs.

 

[Rabman]

All good points. Interestingly talking to a lot folk from WA their main gripe always revolves around the inequality of their travel schedule in comparison to Melbourne (Collingwood) based clubs.

Collingwood is contracted by the MCG to play at least 14 game there every season. There a massive club and when you look at the crowds at the MCG this year and in the past its understandable why. 10 teams in Victoria means there's always going to be that inequity. The recent CBA deal that was done means that both Western Australian teams will fly business class from now on. better them for when they travel to Melbourne.

 

[GameofSloanes]

I'd argue west coast have had the worst of it.

And yet were allowed to win a flag with a team of illicit drug users, allegedly

 

[pirate bob]

Collingwood is contracted by the MCG to play at least 14 game there every season. There a massive club and when you look at the crowds at the MCG this year and in the past its understandable why. 10 teams in Victoria means there's always going to be that inequity. The recent CBA deal that was done means that both Western Australian teams will fly business class from now on. better them for when they travel to Melbourne.

I understand that. WA fans understand that. It doesn't stop them have whinge about it. Business class is great, most domestic flights only cater for 12-16 passengers.

 

[Rabman]

I

And yet were allowed to win a flag with a team of illicit drug users, allegedly

Illicit drugs have proven they don't increase performance levels, in fact you be worse on the field if you took them than not. Feel the pain though.

 

[Rabman]

I understand that. WA fans understand that. It doesn't stop them have whinge about it. Business class is great, most domestic flights only cater for 12-16 passengers.

Everyone's entitled to whinge

 

[Coopers]

We're a small mature market. They just need to pat us on the head and throw us a bone every now and then and we'll be right by them.

We aren't a priority at all.

They don't even throw us bones though.

 

[Coopers]

I

Illicit drugs have proven they don't increase performance levels, in fact you be worse on the field if you took them than not. Feel the pain though.

I'd be surprised if some of them did not enhance performance.

Other ones would actively detract from it.

I'd also suggest that all of them would detract from performance with long term use.

It all depends on what you're on.

 

[cmndstab]

The answer really depends on how you ask the question.

How important are we to the AFL? Super important. We're one of the most valuable clubs to the league, without question.

On the other hand, how important is to the AFL to look after us? Not important at all. They know the Crows have got a captive market that, barring disaster, will always be there. Or, in the worst case scenario, bleed over into Port's revenue stream instead. We don't need to be successful to draw crowds and retain memberships, we don't need to be supported to stay financially viable. They can safely whack us for any issue and we will rebound. And if fans or club officials are upset about it, that's okay because the majority of them are in a different state to the administration.

We're vitally important to the AFL, but right near the bottom of the list in terms of their consideration. We are super valuable to them and they don't need to do anything to maintain that value.