MCG to host GF through to 2057

[LoungeLizard]

The obvious thing then is why only 4 in WA/SA but 4 in Northern states & 10 in Vic? How does that compute?



Because it mucks up the argument. They dont have AFL clubs either, so they dont rate. I mean giving no weight to QLd & NSW at all is crazy. Clearly they all have Aussie supporters.

Did you read the bit about "market"?

I think you already know why.

 

[telsor]

And gets 100% of Grand Finals.

Yes.

 

[madmug]

Did you read the bit about "market"?

I think you already know why.

You mean the thing the AFL flogs to those paying for media rights & includes the Qld & NSW 'market' reach?

 

[HTT]

And gets 100% of Grand Finals.

And wins 50% of them
And has 100% of the country’s 100k plus stadiums

 

[LoungeLizard]

You mean the thing the AFL flogs to those paying for media rights & includes the Qld & NSW 'market' reach?

Yeah that.
The market the AFL wants desperately to break into.
The market that most follow rugby, you know, rugby states.

 

[Suma Magic]

AFL could have got so much more for the GF rights if they had waited and opened it up to all states to bid in the mid 2030s.

So short-sighted.

Not to mention the inequity of putting the same 8 clubs at a huge disadvantage every year.

 

[telsor]

AFL could have got so much more for the GF rights if they had waited and opened it up to all states to bid in the mid 2030s.

So short-sighted.

Not to mention the inequity of putting the same 8 clubs at a huge disadvantage every year.

They got ~$500M for 20 years, so $25M/year.

Paid long in advance, so add interest/return on investment.

They also get the additional money they receive from the larger ground for 20 years. (AFL members, etc.)

So somewhere over $50M/year for 20 years.

Just how much do you, realistically, think other potential venues would pay?

 

[Pessimistic]

The MCG precinct, richmond station, punt road and punt road are huge priorities for Melbourne. As the MCG is the earner in the vicinity it has to be in the discussion

 

[Suma Magic]

They got ~$500M for 20 years, so $25M/year.

Paid long in advance, so add interest/return on investment.

They also get the additional money they receive from the larger ground for 20 years. (AFL members, etc.)

So somewhere over $50M/year for 20 years.

Just how much do you, realistically, think other potential venues would pay?

Some economist estimated the benefit at $125 million currently.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...ty-match-consumes-a-city-20151003-gk0edl.html

 

[Suma Magic]

But I suppose the main issue is not that they got less than they should of, its the equity.

AFL asset: value gained from selling rights to hosting AFL grand final to state governments.

Equity consideration 1: teams have an advantage if the GF is played in their home state.

Equity consideration 2: Distribution of Funds of sale should be done equally.

Efficiency consideration: larger grounds can generate bigger revenue.

They have ignored the two equity considerations and focussed only on the efficiency consideration.

It’s so ridiculous it’s almost funny.

 

[telsor]

Some economist estimated the benefit at $125 million currently.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...ty-match-consumes-a-city-20151003-gk0edl.html

The benefit would be smaller with smaller stadia (fewer people/tourists = less money).
It'd also be lower if it moved due to extra one off costs.
Add to that that not all of the benefits will go to the AFL.

So $50M/year to the AFL is still a lot compared to what other cities can/would/should pay.

 

[Suma Magic]

The benefit would be smaller with smaller stadia (fewer people/tourists = less money).
It'd also be lower if it moved due to extra one off costs.
Add to that that not all of the benefits will go to the AFL.

So $50M/year to the AFL is still a lot compared to what other cities can/would/should pay.

Let’s agree to disagree on that. I’ll side with the economist.

 

[Pessimistic]

But I suppose the main issue is not that they got less than they should of, its the equity.

AFL asset: value gained from selling rights to hosting AFL grand final to state governments.

Equity consideration 1: teams have an advantage if the GF is played in their home state.

Equity consideration 2: Distribution of Funds of sale should be done equally.

Efficiency consideration: larger grounds can generate bigger revenue.

They have ignored the two equity considerations and focussed only on the efficiency consideration.

It’s so ridiculous it’s almost funny.

The WA govt wouldn’t give a toss about Victoria and vice versa.

Always back self interest you’ll know it’s trying

 

[telsor]

But I suppose the main issue is not that they got less than they should of, its the equity.

AFL asset: value gained from selling rights to hosting AFL grand final to state governments.

Equity consideration 1: teams have an advantage if the GF is played in their home state.

Equity consideration 2: Distribution of Funds of sale should be done equally.

Efficiency consideration: larger grounds can generate bigger revenue.

They have ignored the two equity considerations and focussed only on the efficiency consideration.

It’s so ridiculous it’s almost funny.

Consideration 1 loses out to there being no practical alternative.

Consideration 2 pretty much happens already. (MCG based teams lose out a bit due to the MCG deal & AFL members, but that's more a whole season thing rather than a GF thing).

But an equity consideration for you....the advantage non Vic teams gets during H&A (and thus, them being more likely to host finals and make the GF).

 

[Suma Magic]

The WA govt wouldn’t give a toss about Victoria and vice versa.

Always back self interest you’ll know it’s trying

Can you explain how your post relates to mine?

Consideration 1 loses out to there being no practical alternative.

Consideration 2 pretty much happens already. (MCG based teams lose out a bit due to the MCG deal & AFL members, but that's more a whole season thing rather than a GF thing).

But an equity consideration for you....the advantage non Vic teams gets during H&A (and thus, them being more likely to host finals and make the GF).

The practical alternative is to consider it in the policy. That could include selling each 5th GF to a non-vic location.

Consideration 2 - I can’t agree. There isn’t much correlation between vic/nonvic and contribution to the AFL coffers. We give heaps while GC take heaps. Same with pies and saints.

The main point here is that it’s league-earned money distributed to vic clubs for a vic club benefit. That’s a fact.

Kudos to you for trying to spin it as fair or reasonable - I can understand why you are taking this approach considering you support a club that benefits from the decision. Confirmation bias is tough to recognise when it impacts you.

 

[Pessimistic]

Can you explain how your post relates to mine?



The practical alternative is to consider it in the policy. That could include selling each 5th GF to a non-vic location.

Consideration 2 - I can’t agree. There isn’t much correlation between vic/nonvic and contribution to the AFL coffers. We give heaps while GC take heaps. Same with pies and saints.

The main point here is that it’s league-earned money distributed to vic clubs for a vic club benefit. That’s a fact.

Kudos to you for trying to spin it as fair or reasonable - I can understand why you are taking this approach considering you support a club that benefits from the decision. Confirmation bias is tough to recognise when it impacts you.

I recall the proceeds from the sale of Waverley went to all afl clubs.

Don’t forget the vic govt is central to this deal. It’s not in their brief to support WA or it’s clubs and they just got a new stadium over there. Eagles and dockers will benefit from that, no? That’s my point

 

[telsor]

Can you explain how your post relates to mine?



The practical alternative is to consider it in the policy. That could include selling each 5th GF to a non-vic location.

Consideration 2 - I can’t agree. There isn’t much correlation between vic/nonvic and contribution to the AFL coffers. We give heaps while GC take heaps. Same with pies and saints.

The main point here is that it’s league-earned money distributed to vic clubs for a vic club benefit. That’s a fact.

The AFL makes far more of the MCG deal, Docklands and AFL members than they give to Vic clubs...fact.

Kudos to you for trying to spin it as fair or reasonable - I can understand why you are taking this approach considering you support a club that benefits from the decision. Confirmation bias is tough to recognise when it impacts you.

Like non Vic fan failing to recognise that they have an advantage during H&A which flows into finals?

 

[Suma Magic]

I recall the proceeds from the sale of Waverley went to all afl clubs.

Don’t forget the vic govt is central to this deal. It’s not in their brief to support WA or it’s clubs and they just got a new stadium over there. Eagles and dockers will benefit from that, no? That’s my point

The AFL sold an asset and distributed profits to all clubs - surely that’s how things should work?

The AFL is the body here with equity considerations. They need to represent the interest of all 18 clubs.

State govts look after their citizens.

No one is arguing that the vic govt should support West Australian clubs or citizens. Or if anyone is using this argument, it’s either misguided or a poorly constructed straw man.

 

[Suma Magic]

The AFL makes far more of the MCG deal, Docklands and AFL members than they give to Vic clubs...fact.



Like non Vic fan failing to recognise that they have an advantage during H&A which flows into finals?

Everyone plays home and away - it’s swings and roundabouts. Same as it would be if all finals were hosted by home teams. Anyway, this is a separate issue that is in no way being used as a reason by anyone to explain the rationale behind this decision.

Bottom line is that the rights to hosting to the grand final were sold by the afl (representing 18 clubs) in exchange for benefits to Victorian clubs (money for stadiums) and disadvantaged to non-vic clubs (playing interstate for all grand finals).

 

[Carringbush2010]

Can you do my taxes? Your ability to spin numbers is outstanding.

Spin? What you think I went onto powerpoint and made that up? OK I'll link it then ..................but wait you'll still try and deny with some scrape the bottom of the barrel argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_list_of_states_and_territories_of_Australia

Cmon mate, accept it and move on.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Spin? What you think I went onto powerpoint and made that up? OK I'll link it then ..................but wait you'll still try and deny with some scrape the bottom of the barrel argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_list_of_states_and_territories_of_Australia

Cmon mate, accept it and move on.

The explanation elsewhere in this thread, and no
I wont do either.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Why have they also left out NT & ACT apart from only wanting to use the name states. Don’t these places exist

Yeah they exist, and they are in the snip I posted

 

[Roovolution]

The VFL run by that moron Gill is a joke.

 

[Roovolution]

and no we don't have to take the overseas ideas of shuffling round the grand final like they do in the US.
we can always do as we want to and keep it to one place and maybe that is unique to a few countries but it
also says that we don't pander to individual clubs either.

So no Sydney don't have first right to a home Grand Final... Nor WA or Free.. Or even those imbeciles Adelaide, etc... lol.

these things are so easy...

Excuse me? Well done champ bloody good comment.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Gil is a genius south Australian. Boy done good in the big smoke