7News: Major Review into the AFL, independent of the AFL & the 18 Clubs, will start early 2021.

[Carringbush2010]

There were plenty in WA that didnt want it to happen. For most fans it was a time of uncertainty. There is always opposition to change.
Leaders lead, in this case Pridham.

'Plenty of fans in WA didn't like it', yet wa fans jumped on the wc bandwagon like it was the new hot chick in town and here we are, so I dispute that.

IF WA fans were opposed in number, wc or freo wouldn't have survived. No fans no survive.

IF and when the market warrants merging / culling / relocating then you'll get your wish. Until then 'the good of the game' argument doesn't fly, certainly not for the fans of the clubs you want to fold - they don't think 'it's good for the game'. They'll tell you to GAGF! And they have bragging rights coz they're still here!

 

[Kwality]

'Plenty of fans in WA didn't like it', yet wa fans jumped on the wc bandwagon like it was the new hot chick in town and here we are, so I dispute that.

IF WA fans were opposed in number, wc or freo wouldn't have survived. No fans no survive.

IF and when the market warrants merging / culling / relocating then you'll get your wish. Until then 'the good of the game' argument doesn't fly, certainly not for the fans of the clubs you want to fold - they don't think 'it's good for the game'. They'll tell you to GAGF! And they have bragging rights coz they're still here!

Probably look at Eagles crowds & WAFL crowds might be insightful.

 

[mcfazza28]

In the early days of the Eagles, half of the best 22 can from South and East Fremantle.

Fremantle in the early had a half the team from Claremont with a few Subiaco players.

Im talking about off field. There were 5 players max from each club. These were the players left after the Victorian clubs capitalised and took players early.

The Fremantle Subiaco and Claremont players were Gerard Neesham weren’t they?

 

[Rich01]

No Victorian team pays money to fund Victorian Football but West Coast and Fremantle does.

Wait.

West Coast and Fremantle directly fund the VFL?

 

[eastfreo75]

Wait.

West Coast and Fremantle directly fund the VFL?

my bad, they partially fund WA football which the AFL should be doing.

 

[LoungeLizard]

my bad, they partially fund WA football which the AFL should be doing.

The AFL are not the governing body of WA football, even if they tried the would be told to gagf.

 

[Kwality]

The AFL are not the governing body of WA football, even if they tried the would be told to gagf.

The AFL are funding the U19s.

 

[Rich01]

my bad, they partially fund WA football which the AFL should be doing.

No problem.

My issue is that my club Fremantle gets less funding than any of the Victorian clubs does over the last ten years plus we have to pay royalties to the WAFC.

Where did you get this data from?

 

[eastfreo75]

Im talking about off field. There were 5 players max from each club. These were the players left after the Victorian clubs capitalised and took players early.

The Fremantle Subiaco and Claremont players were Gerard Neesham weren’t they?

The Eagles first you are right. But the following drafts and Trades brought in Harding, Wilson, Worsfold, Sumich, Jakovich, Peter Matera, Watters, and Irving.

Interesting enough in 1992 the Eagles first flag included 9 South/East Fremantle, 10 Claremont/Subiaco and one Garlic muncher who flies like Eagle and walked like a duck (hope you understand the reference).

 

[eastfreo75]

No problem.



Where did you get this data from?

I will try to find for you.

I think it was report from Fox Football.

Every year that I can remember Fremantle is the bottom 4 of AFL funding.

 

[The_Wookie]

my bad, they partially fund WA football which the AFL should be doing.

The AFL directly gives the WAFC $4m a year for some magical reason.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

2019 AFL Crowds and Match Attendances

2019 AFL match attendances. Includes current and historical data and statistics by team.

www.footywire.com

In 2019, they had only an average crowd of 20,000. Only the Suns and Giants had less.

Excluding Tassie games? Port only averaged around 20k 7 or 8 years ago, what will happen once they start losing games again?

 

[The_Wookie]

I will try to find for you.

I think it was report from Fox Football.

Every year that I can remember Fremantle is the bottom 4 of AFL funding.

Its more or less true, both the WA sides and for a time even the SA sides up to 6 or 7 years ago, received less from the AFL than most other clubs. But that said, profitable clubs, non Docklands based clubs and non victorian clubs are always going to be bottom half due to the central funding arrangements that the AFL, Victorian Clubs and Docklands clubs get from Docklands and the MCG. (signage, pourage, afl memberships etc)

 

[eastfreo75]

The AFL directly gives the WAFC $4m a year for some magical reason.

For development of WA football.

$4m is peanuts compared what Victoria Football gets from the AFL.

Its more or less true, both the WA sides and for a time even the SA sides up to 6 or 7 years ago, received less from the AFL than most other clubs. But that said, profitable clubs, non Docklands based clubs and non victorian clubs are always going to be bottom half due to the central funding arrangements that the AFL, Victorian Clubs and Docklands clubs get from Docklands and the MCG. (signage, spourage, afl memberships etc)

In 2019

Fremantle made $27m from Membership, Corporate and marketing, and ticket sales.

Blues made $25m for the same but made $3.5 profit from the social club and pokies.

Fremantle made about $30,000 more in merchandise.

Fremantle pays $1m royalty fees to the WAFC. Which the AFL underfunds compared to Victoria per capita.

Carlton gets $3m more in funding from the AFL than Fremantle.

Blues make a profit of $2.6m and Dockers make a loss of $300,000.

That's total bs from the AFL.

Then you add Saints getting $9m more, Dogs $5m more, Melbourne $5m more, and Roos $5.5m more.

Only Hawthorn and Collingwood got less than the Dockers. Even then, Collingwood got $25,000 less than Fremantle and the Hawks about $300k less.

 

[Hob07]

I will try to find for you.

I think it was report from Fox Football.

Every year that I can remember Fremantle is the bottom 4 of AFL funding.

These were figures provided by werdna78 on the AFL’s distributions since 2005, figures are in millions.
WB 172.1
St K 170.7
NM 161.1
Bris 159.3
Melb 154.4
Car 142.9
Pt A 141.1
Syd 140.7
Rich 139.9
Ess 138.2
Coll 138.1
Haw 133.0
Gee 131.3
Freo 122.7
Ade 122.3
WCE 121.8
For the life of me I can’t understand how Freos distributions are 15- 20 million behind the Victorian big 4 (Coll, Ess, Rich and Car), and only 1 million more than the nations biggest and richest club West Coast.

 

[eastfreo75]

These were figures provided by werdna78 on the AFL’s distributions since 2005, figures are in millions.
WB 172.1
St K 170.7
NM 161.1
Bris 159.3
Melb 154.4
Car 142.9
Pt A 141.1
Syd 140.7
Rich 139.9
Ess 138.2
Coll 138.1
Haw 133.0
Gee 131.3
Freo 122.7
Ade 122.3
WCE 121.8
For the life of me I can’t understand how Freos distributions are 15- 20 million behind the Victorian big 4 (Coll, Ess, Rich and Car), and only 1 million more than the nations biggest and richest club West Coast.

Thanks for that.

I don't have the stat for the 15 years, Fremantle royalties to WAFC might be around $15-20m in that time.

 

[The_Wookie]

For development of WA football.

$4m is peanuts compared what Victoria Football gets from the AFL.

Its the price you pay for being independent of the league. Never mind the fact that playing numbers in Victoria are much, much higher than those in WA. Its also about the same as what the TAC Cup was reported to cost in 2011. I havent seen figures for Victorian Football since 2011 and they havent been released since the AFL took it over.

In 2019

Fremantle made $27m from Membership, Corporate and marketing, and ticket sales.

Blues made $25m for the same but made $3.5 profit from the social club and pokies.

Fremantle made about $30,000 more in merchandise.

Fremantle pays $1m royalty fees to the WAFC. Which the AFL underfunds compared to Victoria per capita.

Carlton gets $3m more in funding from the AFL than Fremantle.

Blues make a profit of $2.6m and Dockers make a loss of $300,000.

That's total bs from the AFL.

Then you add Saints getting $9m more, Dogs $5m more, Melbourne $5m more, and Roos $5.5m more.

Only Hawthorn and Collingwood got less than the Dockers. Even then, Collingwood got $25,000 less than Fremantle and the Hawks about $300k less.

Saints, Dogs, Dees and Roos recieve assistance due to fixture and stadium arrangements beyond their control. And the Saints are getting a bit more due to their current financial state. This is pretty well known. In addition to this the AFL centrally distributes large amounts of funding from Docklands and the MCG to Victorian clubs who play at those venues.

When Fremantle starts to struggle they'll get the same consideration offered to Adelaide, Port Adelaide and Brisbane.

 

[The_Wookie]

For the life of me I can’t understand how Freos distributions are 15- 20 million behind the Victorian big 4 (Coll, Ess, Rich and Car), and only 1 million more than the nations biggest and richest club West Coast.

They arent entitled to stadium revenues in Victoria for a start.

 

[eastfreo75]

Its the price you pay for being independent of the league. Never mind the fact that playing numbers in Victoria are much, much higher than those in WA. Its also about the same as what the TAC Cup was reported to cost in 2011. I havent seen figures for Victorian Football since 2011 and they havent been released since the AFL took it over.



Saints, Dogs, Dees and Roos recieve assistance due to fixture and stadium arrangements beyond their control. And the Saints are getting a bit more due to their current financial state. This is pretty well known. In addition to this the AFL centrally distributes large amounts of funding from Docklands and the MCG to Victorian clubs who play at those venues.

When Fremantle starts to struggle they'll get the same consideration offered to Adelaide, Port Adelaide and Brisbane.

Fremantle are just a bad or even worse fixture than the smaller Victoria teams.

Fremantle last Thursday/Friday game was Round 14, 2016.

Since 2010, Dockers only played 15 games on Thursday/Friday in the home away.

Most of our games are Sunday afternoons.

If comes down to who is struggling, why do Richmond, Hawthorn, Geelong and Collingwood got between $9m to $17m more funding than Fremantle in a 15 years window?

 

[The_Wookie]

Fremantle are just a bad or even worse fixture than the smaller Victoria teams.

Fremantle last Thursday/Friday game was Round 14, 2016.

Since 2010, Dockers only played 15 games on Thursday/Friday in the home away.

Most of our games are Sunday afternoons.

If comes down to who is struggling, why do Richmond, Hawthorn, Geelong and Collingwood got between $9m to $17m more funding than Fremantle in a 15 years window?

ffs

read my lips

CENTRALISED STADIUM REVENUES controlled by the AFL and distributed back to clubs - this is a Victoria only thing. Signage, pourage, Docklands match revenues, AFL membership income.

All of Fremantles games are on FTA TV - as opposed to most of these smaller clubs who might get half of their matches shown on FTA in their home state if they are lucky, and even then will be in the worst possible timeslots against non victorian opposition that most Victorians couldnt give a damn about, and Fremantle has had phenomenally beneficial stadium deals that most other clubs can only dream of - and arent possible for some clubs in Victoria.

 

[Papa G]

ffs

read my lips

CENTRALISED STADIUM REVENUES controlled by the AFL and distributed back to clubs - this is a Victoria only thing. Signage, pourage, Docklands match revenues, AFL membership income.

All of Fremantles games are on FTA TV - as opposed to most of these smaller clubs who might get half of their matches shown on FTA in their home state if they are lucky, and even then will be in the worst possible timeslots against non victorian opposition that most Victorians couldnt give a damn about, and Fremantle has had phenomenally beneficial stadium deals that most other clubs can only dream of - and arent possible for some clubs in Victoria.

So what you are saying, is the demand just isn't there, even in their home state for some of these teams?

 

[The_Wookie]

So what you are saying, is the demand just isn't there, even in their home state for some of these teams?

No what im saying is that due in part to the overarching nature of the AFL stadium deals in Melbourne, smaller clubs are unable to get their own deals. The AFL has actively refused to allow the Bulldogs to play in Geelong where they would make money for example, and the MCG has said it wont negotiate with any more teams. Then the fixture for these clubs is massively disadvantageous with most of their home games against unpopular non victorian teams at unpopular venues at unpopular times. Then throw in the fact that its been this way since the league went national due to fixture imbalance

 

[Papa G]

No what im saying is that due in part to the overarching nature of the AFL stadium deals in Melbourne, smaller clubs are unable to get their own deals. The AFL has actively refused to allow the Bulldogs to play in Geelong where they would make money for example. Then the fixture for these clubs is massively disadvantageous with most of their home games against unpopular non victorian teams at unpopular venues at unpopular times. Then throw in the fact that its been this way since the league went national due to fixture imbalance

These clubs play at a very good, centrally located ground. Half of their games are against other clubs, usually bigger, from their own state. This is such a cop out.

The demand for these clubs, in their own market, just isn't there.

 

[The_Wookie]

These clubs play at a very good, centrally located ground.

That doesnt mean they want to play there. They literally have no choice in the matter.

A stadium which they couldnt get a proper stadium deal at, and for which all their returns are literally managed and distributed back to them by the stadium owner.

Half of their games are against other clubs, usually bigger, from their own state. This is such a cop out.

Of their 11 home games, most of the the smaller Melbourne clubs will have to put up with one or two home games against bigger victorian clubs, the rest are games against other low drawing clubs or non victorian sides at Docklands.

Was it a cop out when your club had to be bailed out by the AFL via the SANFL before the Adelaide Oval move. Your license was almost literally worthless at that point.

The demand for these clubs, in their own market, just isn't there.

crowds of 25,000 plus, memberships of 40k+, and tv figures in Melbourne suggest otherwise. The notion that every club has to be big is utter BS.

 

[eastfreo75]

No what im saying is that due in part to the overarching nature of the AFL stadium deals in Melbourne, smaller clubs are unable to get their own deals. The AFL has actively refused to allow the Bulldogs to play in Geelong where they would make money for example, and the MCG has said it wont negotiate with any more teams. Then the fixture for these clubs is massively disadvantageous with most of their home games against unpopular non victorian teams at unpopular venues at unpopular times. Then throw in the fact that its been this way since the league went national due to fixture imbalance

There are swings and roundabouts. It's the total revenue and costs.

Both West Coast and Fremantle paid "rent" for Subiaco and Optus Oval. In fact, both stadiums were/are CENTRALISED. Then you add WAFC royalties.

While the AFL pays for flights and accommodation when travelling, interstate teams do have larger costs.

Most of the Victorian clubs have pokies which is not available to both WA clubs. In 2019, Carlton made a profit of $3.5m from their Social club/pokies.

North Melbourne gets $3m to play 4 games against lower pulling games mostly interstate teams and Hawthorn $4m for 4 games. Melbourne, and Footscray also sell games as well.

North Melbourne have the grand final breakfast which isn't available to any non Victorian team.

Richmond, Hawthorn, and Collingwood all get the benefit of playing in a 100,000 stadium which is the grand final is played.

AFL made it clear that the AFL funding was based equalisation, yet Richmond and Collingwood make massive profits. Both teams get more than the Dockers.

My point is that Fremantle should receive the same funding as the big Victorian clubs.