Yep, its a lesser % overall as memberships have grown - I acknowledged the financial arrangements need to be rejigged given the business model of the State League days does not cut it today.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Opinion VICBias - Genuine Discussion
- Thread starter Hank Heavenly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yep, its a lesser % overall as memberships have grown - I acknowledged the financial arrangements need to be rejigged given the business model of the State League days does not cut it today.
I understand what you are putting forward here but I don't understand the benefit. Collingwood and Richmond would give up crowd capacity at the MCG for what? Geelong isn't Melbourne so they benefit from all their games being in Geelong, but lose by giving up the money that their big games bring in. Not sure what the benefit for Sydney and GWS sharing a stadium would be. This proposal really only benefits sides in Brisbane, Gold Coast, Adelaide and Perth, while leaving the financial implications that North, Bulldogs and St Kilda have playing at Docklands and possibly introduce some more by having them play at the MCG which doesn't suit the size of their membership base.
I may be about to state some mistruths because the AFL Membership page currently doesn't have membership details listed. Everything you state is true but my belief is that AFL membership only gets you into Docklands and the MCG thus the same clubs benefiting from increased games with club membership are also the same clubs competing with AFL membership (i.e. Melbourne-based clubs). While Collingwood and Richmond have benefited offering 17 game memberships (I assume) it hasn't worked for the likes of St Kilda.
My assumption about the significant travel you state relates to China. I agree this is a very unusual financial arrangement. How Port Adelaide convinced the AFL to arrange for this game to be an away game is beyond me but I'd hazard a guess GWS gained something financially (albeit possibly losing in recovery and conditioning due to the earlier bye) while St Kilda didn't have to make the trip and the whole concept might be consigned to the dustbin.
Above you state that home and away should be consigned to stadiums in the clubs home city then here appears to be alluding to moving games out of Melbourne into other markets. The other markets that all clubs move to are different states and territories (Bulldogs excluded). GWS play games in the ACT, North and Hawthorn in Tassie, Melbourne in the NT. Should all Melbourne clubs be made to play four games outside Victoria? If so, should all clubs be made to play four games in neutral stadiums (for example, Fremantle 4 games in Darwin, Adelaide 4 games in Aukland etc)?
I'm sure there is an appetite for more games in Adelaide and Perth - I know from living there. My feeling is though they want games for the teams that are from there. Adelaide doesn't want a Richmond vs St Kilda game for example. If the proposal is to give Adelaide more games in their home state (and thus home stadium) for a financial benefit they will only be getting the sides that need financial help and not the drawcards they most likely covert. In saying that; Crows supporters will fill the stadium regardless of who is playing. This then gives the inequitable advantage of home crowds (see my post previously regarding no crowds in Germany at the moment). While you do equalise the financial gain Adelaide has in this situation by paying the travelling team the travelling team ends up losing with less ability to offer sponsorship, a harder run towards success due to less games in their home state (thus less games in front of partisan crowds) and thus long term financial losses due to loss in membership, sponsorship and players by not being successful.
It would be a slippery slope to go down for whichever president sold games to Perth or Adelaide.
edit: I missed the bit about Docklands. I'm not sure what you mean by double headers. With regards to the Docklands tenants their issues were supposed to be fixed with the AFL buying the stadium. If they have or not would be something one of their supporters would be able to answer better. Right now, I'd say the Bulldogs are pretty happy since they play the bulk of their home games there, as do St Kilda (who are heavily in debt). Longterm it seems like it will play out well for those sides. It'll be interesting to see what North do if the Hobart deal is scrapped. With the noise from them I'd hazard a guess they won't be selling games again. They are apparently debt-free so the benefits of staying in Melbourne and playing 10-11 games at Docklands would be worth more than looking for another interstate 'home'
Look forward to it. Not bad options to put forward, even if I don't agree with them.
Last edited:
- Jan 14, 2016
- 2,781
- 7,115
- AFL Club
- West Coast
This shlts me to no end - particularly as I picture the words coming out of Derm's moonfaced grinning mouth.
peterbuch74
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 10, 2007
- 5,711
- 10,729
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Denver Broncos, Liverpool
I understand what you mean... however I have friends in both Brisbane and Adelaide who call any team not from QLD or SA interstate teams... I know a Swans fan in Newcastle who calls us Vic teams, and all other states Interstate teams... what do you guys refer to other state teams as? Just curious.
The term interstate is used in all states, don't know about Tassie as i haven't been there.
Explain how I have captured the meaning of it? Go on.....
On moto g(7) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app
PerthblueGold
Debutant
- Sep 30, 2018
- 139
- 239
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I am surprised you want me to explain the obvious Victorian bias in your statement...``The Grand Final is played at the MCG. It's not a new phenomenon and guess what it ain't changing for awhile`` maybe you can explain to me how that statement is not in the best interests of Victorian clubs?
- Oct 3, 2009
- 2,280
- 3,460
- AFL Club
- Richmond
This is not true, you only think this because you barrack for WC so every time you get a home final it is against a travelling interstate side. Other teams play home finals regularly with either no HGA or at the other teams HG.
- Oct 3, 2009
- 2,280
- 3,460
- AFL Club
- Richmond
So what about when Geelong finished on top of the ladder last year and played the Pies at the G?The only final location not based on merit.
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,203
- 42,000
- AFL Club
- GWS
At least it was in their home state. But in saying that they should of got it at their home ground, like the years before.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Oct 3, 2009
- 2,280
- 3,460
- AFL Club
- Richmond
So you agree that the GF is not the only game where location is based on merit.
marvel tenants also have to play away home finals sometimes too
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,203
- 42,000
- AFL Club
- GWS
I wouldn’t say that, They still get home state/city, they just don’t get it completely.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Obviously I didnt explain myself enough.
I would not play games that pay their own way out of Melbourne for the reasons you outline. I'd use the Hawks as an example, they dont play their big drawing games out of Melbourne & fixturing accomodates that. Similarly all the games already being moved away for money, e.g the Dogs game(s) in Ballarat.
I am targetting the loss making games not the well supported games. Not only playing in WA & SA at a profit, but the use of games at either Docklands of the G, either 2 games on one afternoon or ganes that seat members of both clubs - what crowd would a Saints v North as a part of members entitlement draw - a big crowd is a players delight & some clubs miss out.
As I said my views are an attempt to address the issues that I see are holding the game back & the outdated home & away template is front & centre.
Address your other comments as we go
.
I'm not across the real detail at the G & Docklands, but it reflects my background in WA in the WANFL days when my folks were WANFL (as it was then) at Subi Oval, it was better value than joining Subi. I joined Subi.
When the national comp got going the WAFL Members club was disbanded & the AFL clubs benefitted.
Joining the AFL in preference to the club does nothing to help the clubs despite the pittance that the AFL pass on to the clubs to bump up membership numbers & ensure those members dpnt feel gulity about rejecting any of their club membership options.
The losers are the Melbourne clubs.
Cricket club members more generally are footy fans in my experience & choose not to join their club.
In terms of the number of games membership a club can offer, my point is its not sacred - most clubs offer 11 game packages & that remains true in what I'm suggesting. This is important in viewing my attempt for an alternative to home & away.
Other than once v Freo, Geelong never played finals at KP
Righto, just to dumb this down for myself Richmond, Collingwood, Geelong, Essendon, Carlton wouldn't play outside Victoria (I assume you've lumped Geelong into 'Melbourne' even though they don't come from Melbourne) because they currently don't play outside Melbourne. From a supporter of Richmond's perspective I love this idea but from a competition perspective I really hate it. The clubs that can least afford it wouldn't get the home games they need with partisan crowds. I addressed this in my previous post but am happy to go over it again.
This is similar to what Nick Riewoldt raised tonight regarding the big teams getting all the marquee timeslots then the money generated is pooled and shared out rather than kept by the club that earnt it. Apparently it happens in the NFL. Again, I don't like it as it just seems like competition communism. The big have no reason to stay big and the small have no reason to grow.
If you are targeting loss making games then pretty much every game of GWS and GCS could be moved. I understand you are targeting Melbourne clubs only but more or less the loss making games are already moved (i.e. in 2019 Hawks hosted Carlton (maybe not a loss maker), Brisbane, Fremantle and Port in Tasmania. In 2020 North had Fremantle, Brisbane, Gold Coast and Melbourne in Hobart. Short of going through all the games the smaller-audience games are already moved not only out of Melbourne but also out of Victoria where they do make a profit and are more or less at a neutral venue rather than at an opponents home ground where they lose the partisan crowd support.
Since 1997 North Melbourne vs St Kilda has averaged 22632 attendance. Besides vs Melbourne and all the interstate sides this is their lowest drawing game. When St Kilda host it's an average of 30524 with the same teams (i.e Melbourne and the interstate sides) drawing lower crowds. These aren't horrible numbers and generally suit Docklands currently where both teams host each other (noting Docklands wasn't opened until 2000). If the low drawing games are moved then you can pretty much guarantee the interstate sides will never play in Melbourne against these sides.
In 2019 there were 25 times MCG/Docklands was used on the same day between rounds 1-22. Since it really isn't feasible to play 2 games at the one ground on the same day for a variety of reasons I assume these are the double headers you are talking about.
As I said my views are an attempt to address the issues that I see are holding the game back & the outdated home & away template is front & centre.
Address your other comments as we go
I'm not sure H&A is outdated. Home crowds have a huge effect on results. The Bundesliga at the moment is proving just that. With no crowds the game results are as follows:
(Home - Draw - Away)
Week 1: 1-3-5
Week 2: 2-2-5
Midweek games: 0-3-1
Week 3: 3-0-5 (updated until last night)
It is going to be interesting if this phenomenon is repeated in the AFL. We've had no data on this before so for a major sports league to have these results is surprising. Most people would assume that having familiarity of the ground dimensions would at least be an advantage. Note that the Germans do vary the size of their pitches but also all play in their home stadium with a heavily partisan crowd rather than a less-partisan crowd like Melbourne games in the AFL. This means it is even more important to play in front of a partisan (i.e. home) crowd as often as possible.
I'm not the right person to comment here - I'm not an AFL member. I would say all clubs offer an 11 game membership for home games. The difference is some clubs also offer away games in their packages. I think this was addressed previously when we both said the clubs that offer the 16-17 game memberships are also the ones competing with the AFL memberships and their benefits.
Similar to you, I don't know the benefits of WANFL/WAFL membership but to me it would seem that the Perth clubs are only competing with Burswood Stadium members (if that exists) like the Adelaide clubs compete with Adelaide Oval membership. The caveat on this is the Melbourne clubs not only have AFL membership but also MCC and Docklands memberships to compete with.
Of course if there was any movement of games out of Melbourne members would most likely be compensated with entry to away games like the Hawks do for Tassie games. This is a loss to the club though as they have to purchase those tickets. They aren't freebies given to the Hawks because they sold games to Tasmania.
I'm suggesting it is, test the logistics but with a capacity of 100k there is plenty of flex for 2 games that draw 30k crowds, you dont allocate 2 people to one seat.
Do it ar Docklands & fill the place, yes some will miss out.
Senor M
SFAEW World Heavyweight Champion
This is an inaccurate presentation of the benefit of an club-support AFL Member IMO. Let's look at it from an alternative perspective:
- The Club gets approx. $185 (TBC) from the AFL for each Club-support AFL member they have.
- That $185 revenue is provided at a significantly lower 'cost' than a typical 11-game home member. As an AFL member I don't regularly fill a seat in the Public Reserve (almost always sit in the AFL Reserve, allowing a club to either sell that seat to another member or have GA that I'm not filling up. It's effectively $185 per AFL member without giving up any resources.
- I don't take a ticket out of the Club allocation tickets in the Grand Final ballot (go via. the AFL Reserve ballot), once again expanding how many Richmond supporters can fit into the finite resources that are seats.
Senor M
SFAEW World Heavyweight Champion
But 2 crowds of 25k aren't going to turn into 1 x 50k crowd if there's double headers. Many supporters (as I've discussed in another thread about the capacity at Marvel Stadium) would go to a game @ Marvel if they can sit on Level 1 or at the front of Level 3-- but if they are offered a seat in the past 10 rows of Marvel they just won't bother with buying the tickets and watch at home instead.
Use the Hawks example, see how money fixed the Tiges problems off field & on field success followed. The Docklands tenants currently claim they lose money playing there & the sure battle to make a real profit, forget the PR spin.
I'd like fair dinkum H & A too, but its not possible unless Covid 19 is even worse than we imagine (a depression).
Its a dud for the comp we have.
Yep, you get a better deal from the AFL, you dont pay it to your club & that is your choice. IF you chose to join your club not the AFL, ypur club wins.
Senor M
SFAEW World Heavyweight Champion
You clearly avoided what I was saying to go on another rant
If I signed up to the Richmond FC directly the club would get $220 but then I'd take up one of their approx 60k seats @ the MCG for each home game, but if I sign up with the AFL Membership the Richmond FC gets $185 ($35 less) but I don't take up a seat in the General Reserve because I'm now sitting in the AFL members reserve.
Similar threads
- Poll
