So the AFL's taking 'trickle down economics' to a whole new level!

[The_Wookie]

Yes the AFL have been very clever in making sure they have control. Cool.

We know it'll never happen. Cool.

But don't even try to say that the current model would be sustainable if it was just Victorian clubs.

Fortunately I didnt try to say that.

Vics need the interstate clubs just as much as the other way around. Don't be so ******* arrogant and stupid.

Read what i wrote again. I never actually said anything of the sort. I said without WA - meaning every goddamn other state would still be involved, because their clubs are either victorian, or beholden to the AFL at board level.

Dont be so eager to find fault that your inventing an argument that wasnt there.

 

[BTs Nana]

Fortunately I didnt try to say that.



Read what i wrote again. I never actually said anything of the sort. I said without WA - meaning every goddamn other state would still be involved, because their clubs are either victorian, or beholden to the AFL at board level.

Dont be so eager to find fault that your inventing an argument that wasnt there.

The entire post smacks of it. State leagues won't survive on their own - VFL included. My point is the AFL NEEDS interstate clubs and it's about time they started using that to get equality.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The whole thing is about money, for a breakaway to occur a Rupert Murdoch or the likes of him have to bankroll the breakaway for a time period.
So just for giggles let’s say this millionaire said to the Eagles, Dockers, Crows, Port, Swans and Brisbane that he wants to do this.
He says he will invite 6 Victorian clubs to join him whether they be AFL clubs or VFL clubs, he adds a million dollars on top of any Salary cap the AFL have in place. No matter what the AFL put in place he just keeps upping the ante. He obviously would have no problem getting TV rights as it can’t work without them.
Grounds again would be no issue as there is plenty of them.
Players would be an issue in the short term but it would not take long for players to come out of contract and be available.
He promises to return the game to Australian Rules Football and leave AFL football with the AFL.
So let’s say this all happened, the AFL would of course try to maintain its status purely as a Victorian League and with its huge following it would possibly be still ok, but at some point a few of the clubs are going to ask the question do I stay in the bubble fighting for players just from Victoria or join the national comp and ensure our future.
Breakaway leagues are for most part about getting compromise down the track, there is no way Victorian clubs would just sit there thinking the world would come back to them, in fact it would be the big clubs that would be tempted first.
So while I agree that football certainly relies and needs Victoria more than any other area in the short term it could build something towards compromise that once back together is truly national.
Victorians are not going to change clubs they support but you can bet they would watch the breakaway league just as we would still watch the VFL.
People need to get over this club strength rubbish, money is everything and if you throw enough money at something then it has a better than even chance of doing well. And if you ask any player if they want to earn 600k per season or a million per season then where do you reckon they will be playing.
And that would be the only way it could happen, just throw a lot more money on top of anything the AFL put on the table.
All hypothetical, all for a giggle but don’t kid yourself if you think it is not possible.

 

[The_Wookie]

The whole thing is about money, for a breakaway to occur a Rupert Murdoch or the likes of him have to bankroll the breakaway for a time period.
So just for giggles let’s say this millionaire said to the Eagles, Dockers, Crows, Port, Swans and Brisbane that he wants to do this.

He'd end up with two clubs. The other four cant for some time.

He says he will invite 6 Victorian clubs to join him whether they be AFL clubs or VFL clubs, he adds a million dollars on top of any Salary cap the AFL have in place. No matter what the AFL put in place he just keeps upping the ante. He obviously would have no problem getting TV rights as it can’t work without them.

theoretically possible, but would get very expensive, very rapidly. its not like the AFl is short of cash.

Grounds again would be no issue as there is plenty of them.

This is true. Theres no exclusivity agreements Im aware of at any of the major grounds.

Players would be an issue in the short term but it would not take long for players to come out of contract and be available.

Also a valid point.

He promises to return the game to Australian Rules Football and leave AFL football with the AFL.

About as likely to happen as I am to grow wings and fly to saturn.

So let’s say this all happened, the AFL would of course try to maintain its status purely as a Victorian League and with its huge following it would possibly be still ok, but at some point a few of the clubs are going to ask the question do I stay in the bubble fighting for players just from Victoria or join the national comp and ensure our future.

Its not 1986 any more, the AFL - and its clubs derive a hell of a lot of revenue from Victoria. TV rights wouldnt be as much affected as people seem to think. The AFL derives almost no attendance, signage, advertising or membership revenue from outside Victoria. TV rights revenue for Victoria would be greater than half of the current leagues, when viewing numbers, and advertising spend/market share are taken into account. And half the talent for the AFL now comes from the Victorian only TAC Cup.

Breakaway leagues are for most part about getting compromise down the track, there is no way Victorian clubs would just sit there thinking the world would come back to them, in fact it would be the big clubs that would be tempted first.

Depends on how the season went. A return to tradition Victorian footy might be just what the doctor ordered, even fixture, return games against all clubs, traditional rivlaries renewed.

All hypothetical, all for a giggle but don’t kid yourself if you think it is not possible.

Its entirely possible.Just realllllly unlikely.

And I wouldnt want to test my theory on Victorian footy stability either!

 

[greatwhiteshark]

He'd end up with two clubs. The other four cant for some time.



theoretically possible, but would get very expensive, very rapidly. its not like the AFl is short of cash.



This is true. Theres no exclusivity agreements Im aware of at any of the major grounds.



Also a valid point.



About as likely to happen as I am to grow wings and fly to saturn.



Its not 1986 any more, the AFL - and its clubs derive a hell of a lot of revenue from Victoria. TV rights wouldnt be as much affected as people seem to think. The AFL derives almost no attendance, signage, advertising or membership revenue from outside Victoria. TV rights revenue for Victoria would be greater than half of the current leagues, when viewing numbers, and advertising spend/market share are taken into account. And half the talent for the AFL now comes from the Victorian only TAC Cup.



Depends on how the season went. A return to tradition Victorian footy might be just what the doctor ordered, even fixture, return games against all clubs, traditional rivlaries renewed.



Its entirely possible.Just realllllly unlikely.

And I wouldnt want to test my theory on Victorian footy stability either!

I agree I wouldn t want to test against the Victorian stability as it has always been strong, I was just pointing out with money anything is possible. And also agree it will never happen.
As I have said before it is the supporters that complain, if the interstate clubs really had major issues that they wanted addressed then together they could do that in talks with the AFL.
There are things that I would do better or different if I was in charge but as I am just a supporter and the clubs seem happy enough then it is what it is.
There is still a very large Victorian bias in the competition but unless the clubs themselves stand up to it then there is nothing we can do. Unfortunately that is a bias view from out West by myself.

 

[JeffDunne]

No they dont. Richmond is owned by its Membership.

They own the name and the trademarks.

What is a football club without those?

Not only that but the conditions in the AFL licence ensure clubs operate under tight restrictions.

The "owners" of clubs own & control virtually nothing. Most don't even have a say in who runs the club (as you pointed out in a subsequent post).

Make no mistake the AFL effectively owns everything - either directly or indirectly. They have become the antithesis of what the commission was supposed to be.

 

[TigerKnights]

Whoa!

Now we know that the AFL staged the Essendon saga and their subsequent rebirth, and we know how much Richmond's revival meant to their bottom line - so much so that they scheduled an away final in front of their home fans at their home ground.

But for those who don't believe that the AFL stages and choreographs almost everything - surely it's now becoming obvious beyond dispute?

The game itself is on the nose, most agree. But that either gets forgotten about if the crowd is big, or refuted by the AFL through crowd stats.

So now we see the AFL also throwing their support behind the other 'big clubs' in the scheduling of Carlton and Collingwood's 2018 fixtures.

Some may not have an issue with these extreme 'trickle down economics', but we can't forget that although the bottom line of the AFL and most clubs will improve as a result - it does come at the expense of the smaller clubs.


Is this good for the game? Economics over competition?


Discuss....

The short answer is no. Greed now strangles the game. If players/managers/clubs/media/AFL could accept a reduction in $$$ in the short term the game can recalibrate.

17 game season. Players win with less games (fans win, no mid season byes), fewer games means match day payments can increase improving the wages of the bottom tier players who rely on this (AFLPA keep telling us these are the folks they are driving free agency for, but as it is not a contract %, less for them so pigs arse methinks).

It should mean more games become "events" NFL style, (Hello NTH/WB/STK/GWS/GCFC/BNE you get a blockbuster, you get a blockbuster, you get a blockbuster, but less so for the big 4 and WA/SA teams but it's not about $$$ during the recalibration right now that will come) fewer games will also create cheaper memberships (or at least hold), which should encourage greater take up, which should mean fuller houses, which should create an atmosphere which the media will pay very very good money for and the AFL can grow from there. (better stadium deals maybe?)

They rave about how close this season was. Imagine knocking of 5 games? Give the AFL/Media their 4 team (7-10) wild card weekend (they all love more finals) and everyone gives bit to get a bit. And the overall outcome will be better for all.

In TV rights terms for the current deal it would be revised down by $60+M over 6 years. $10+M year. For me an improved equal and fairer game is worth it.

The AFL is not a big 4 bank and needs to remember it is a custodian of the game. Crowd stats are their go to stat. But what is the bench mark? As a % of population do more people go to the footy then (pick a year) then they do now? I went to all RFC games in VIC am 1 or 17 of those patrons in 2017? And which is the true correct calculation of my attendance?

 

[TigerKnights]

They own the name and the trademarks.

What is a football club without those?

Not only that but the conditions in the AFL licence ensure clubs operate under tight restrictions.

The "owners" of clubs own & control virtually nothing. Most don't even have a say in who runs the club (as you pointed out in a subsequent post).

Make no mistake the AFL effectively owns everything - either directly or indirectly. They have become the antithesis of what the commission was supposed to be.

I think it is the license (and associated restrictions) to participate in the AFL where their strength comes from. Without being categoric they do not not own, (certainly any of the old VFL teams) names or monikers. Which why the clubs were able to leave the VFA for the VFL as whole entity back in the day. Each club has their own constitution. Historically the ability of the RFC members to call an EGM with relative ease is the primary reason RFC boards sacked coaches on whim (us or them approach). And yes the AFL executive has overtaken the commission as the commissioners are more and more appointees of the executive to me. Don't mix your business with pleasure. Commission needs to revisit this maxim.

 

[Bulldogs Legend]

No just clubs like the Bulldogs, or whatever you were once called?

Mate we saved ourselves by rattling tins nothing to do with interstate clubs unless of course you were on the streets of Footscray helping us!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TigerKnights]

Since we live in a digital world with smart business software it is easy for the AFL to extract the KPI's to see where the most money is made and where the money is lost, they know what match up's generate the most at which grounds with each time slot.

Each year they have goals for

An Ideal fixture
An Ideal top 8
An Ideal finals series match up's at certain grounds (EG, First Finals week Geelong Home game vs Richmond at the MCG.)
They would also look at which big clubs need a boost an so on.

Oh yeah and gambling advertising.

In no order in particular I suspect for gate revenue and eyeballs the AFL would like the top 8 to be WCE/Fre/Adl/Port/Ess/Car/Coll/Ric top 8 every other year.
They get the finals across the major states and potential for either a Derby/Showdown/Big 4 GF. This not slight on those not mentioned just my opinion on the AFL bean counters finals wish list.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Interesting topic really, and regardless of people's opinions - I think most agree that there's no easy fix.

Some teams such as the interstate teams for example, get an advantage in making the finals due to the home ground advantage.

But then come Finals time, the MCG tenants get a massive advantage by getting home ground advantage.

'Minnow' clubs get cash handouts as an advantage.

'Big' clubs get huge advantage through fixturing.

Etc. Etc. Etc.


So everyone gets advantages, and everyone gets disadvantages don't they?


But.....

How do the AFL determine whether these actually balance up? What's the algorithm?


In horse racing for example, the handicap system is public knowledge, and really, has stood the test of time. Clearly in some races, one horse has to be 5 lengths better than the others to win. But everyone knows that, and generally accepts it is as fair as it can be.

I mean, it's obviously not fair. A better horse can be beaten by a s**t one because it's been dragged back to the pack by lugging big weights. It's outrageous really.

But it's good for the Sport.

The point is though, there's a specific matrix that is used to even it up.

I wonder if the AFL would be better off in trying something similar? Just a thought.

 

[JeffDunne]

How do the AFL determine whether these actually balance up? What's the algorithm?

Revenue.

The "good for football" teams are also the "good for maximising revenue" teams.

The natural outcome of that is they will never lose out when there's conflicting interests.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Revenue.

The "good for football" teams are also the "good for maximising revenue" teams.

The natural outcome of that is they will never lose out when there's conflicting interests.

And this is where people get their conspiracy theories mixed up.

Getting the rich clubs to make more money with better fixturing etc is great, but if it kills off the small or new teams it won’t work - you’ll just end up with a league of fewer teams and that screws the pooch on the tv deals.

So the afl supports and promotes the big clubs to make the overall pool bigger - and props up the small clubs to make sure the gap between rich and poor doesn’t get too big.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So the afl supports and promotes the big clubs to make the overall pool bigger - and props up the small clubs to make sure the gap between rich and poor doesn’t get too big.

And that's really the point of the OP - have the AFL perhaps gone too far and opened up the gap?

 

[Bokonon_]

And this is where people get their conspiracy theories mixed up.

Getting the rich clubs to make more money with better fixturing etc is great, but if it kills off the small or new teams it won’t work - you’ll just end up with a league of fewer teams and that screws the pooch on the tv deals.

So the afl supports and promotes the big clubs to make the overall pool bigger - and props up the small clubs to make sure the gap between rich and poor doesn’t get too big.

Fair enough
The bean counters must have been trying to hide a smile when a club that turn out 90k+ fans to a final won the flag though.
Not whining we get home finals at Spotless when we're entitled and travel when we're not. Arguably we were advantaged by playing the 2016 QF at ANZ. Who knows could be reversed next year though and we might be disadvantaged.
Interesting if the AFL will let us play finals in Canberra, we might ask this year depending how we go.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

And that's really the point of the OP - have the AFL perhaps gone too far and opened up the gap?

I don’t think so.

Seeing how the hawks have been chipped away at over the years with assistant coaches, Buddy Franklin (FA effect), mark Evans, and a tax on footy department spending - you can see a lot of equalization measures that have worked to bring us back to the pack. Also the handicapped fixture but more on that below.

It’s great for footy. It increases the chance of an unexpected winner.

GC and GWS both given every chance to get off to a good start. We’ve seen parallel efforts with different outcomes. North, Melbourne and St Kilda all propped up off field extensively during their hard times off field.

The fixture is design to handicap the best teams and boost the low teams. This is absolutely horrendous if integrity is the aim. It’s great if equalization is the aim. How can the afl DELIBERATELY and OVERTLY makes it harder for some teams. Can’t believe how we’ve all just accepted it but here we are.

The fixture has been developed with three layers of fairness (there is always more than one kind): commercial, double opponents, travel and breaks. Every club will do well in one, okay in another and poor in a third. Great fodder for BigFooty debate but really great for footy as they consider three main levers to make it the best game possible.

Maybe it’s because hawks have been on top for a while, but from where I sit there is more propping up of lower sides than boosting of leading clubs.

 

[TwiggleyFanClub]

Lol saw the title and thought it must be another Jamie Elliot thread ;-)

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Pineapple on a pizza is just wrong. Only fruit that is allowed on a pizza is tomato paste.

Tomato is vegetable, not fruit.

 

[Bokonon_]

Tomato is vegetable, not fruit.

 

[underthestars]

Tomato is vegetable, not fruit.

flat earther?

 

[Bulldogs Legend]

So you think a mere $8Million from WCE & Brisbane 'saved' all those VFL clubs?

Even with the finances at the time, you've got to be kidding yourself.

The league owned VFL park (remember, no commission then so the clubs could have forced a sale) , and the easy option of stopping paying transfer fees (which would have driven WAFL & SANFL broke), but even if they didn't do that, Richmond's Save our Skins campaign raised over a million in a month, showing what could/would have been done to save clubs who got close to going under. Then of course, there could also have been the government option where they chipped in to save the comp (as happened in WA when the WAFL actually went bust).

The licence fees were just a minor factor in Vic clubs surviving, one repeated, usually, by ignorant WA fans who want to pretend they actually matter and forget that their league was the one that did go broke.

Further to this it was the Dogs original campaign back in 1990 that saved my Club and I don't recall seeing any interstaters on the streets of Footscray with their tins.

 

[Bulldogs Legend]

Imagine the hit to the bottom line when they lose just under half their market. Reckon that TV agreement would be even close to as big?

Yeah all those huge ratings in Qld where it plays on 7mate or Sydney where repeats of Murder She Wrote outrate it really make a difference to the TV$.

 

[Bulldogs Legend]

Does home ground make ANY difference at all?
Victorians keep saying it doesn't.
I'd prefer it if they just said that it does but they shouldn't change it because of money.

i would prefer it if SA would admit they wouldnt stuggle to get to the finals without their home ground advantage

 

[Bulldogs Legend]

The accidental success of the bulldogs opened the AFLs eyes to the potential windfall for them should the right premier come along.

We know the NBA have long manufactured their results. It was only a matter of time until smaller leagues like the AFL took notice.

These days it is all about the economics. It's surprising it's taken this long to really show itself so consistently and commonly over the fence into the playing arena but that's the grapes.

While selling out hardcore fans for the corporates on grand final day and selling traditional ovals names in favour of plastic sponsors have long been an AFL staple, you now see umpiring decisions, MRP decisions, fixture decisions etc start to creep in more and more often than ever before.

I would love for the interstate clubs to bend the A(V)FL over just like they did to the VFA and pack it in and make their own league.

Surely they can do it based on the fact their clubs are already established. Buy a few extra pokies and sell your own TV rights.

Vics have such an inherent and disgustingly arrogant view over the rest of the country because they see themselves as superior. Someone needs to show them up. They will piss their pants and beg the rest of the country to come back.

Your football ignorance shines through by the idiocy of your accidental success statement around the Bulldogs.
Given your own side struggled away from your home ground whereas the Dogs beat West Coast in Perth and then GWS in Sydney in the space of four weeks you should be admiring them not making stupid statements.
Oh and for all the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists the current AFL chairman comes from WA and so did his predecessor Mike Fitzpatrick.

 

[PowerForGood]

i would prefer it if SA would admit they wouldnt stuggle to get to the finals without their home ground advantage

You vics are all saying that HGA doesnt matter though because away ground disadvantage is negligible..... make up your minds.