International Development
- Thread starter jatz14
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The AFL is sending a very talented group of young players for a camp in Florida in the U.S. Is there something magic in the air in Florida?? that is not available elsewhere.
Apparently AFL scouts from 10 Clubs will travel as well, looking for prospects in the group- Not a bad gig if you can get it.
There are no lack of funds available for this type of project at AFL House, and is typical of their narrow minded thinking.
We can guarantee there will be no contact with local Aussie Rules Clubs if past history is a guide, and yes we know it happens each year and nothing changes. We welcome any news to the contrary.
It is quite extraordinary really, and the AFL must be the only major sports code anywhere who has a token approach to their International game, and the NFL has a regular match in London.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-01-13/2018-draft-pool-stars-to-make-a-splash-in-us
Apparently AFL scouts from 10 Clubs will travel as well, looking for prospects in the group- Not a bad gig if you can get it.
There are no lack of funds available for this type of project at AFL House, and is typical of their narrow minded thinking.
We can guarantee there will be no contact with local Aussie Rules Clubs if past history is a guide, and yes we know it happens each year and nothing changes. We welcome any news to the contrary.
It is quite extraordinary really, and the AFL must be the only major sports code anywhere who has a token approach to their International game, and the NFL has a regular match in London.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-01-13/2018-draft-pool-stars-to-make-a-splash-in-us
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
So what do you call investment in the RSA, PNG, NZ, the pacific and China. ?
The NFL managed to get a league up and going in Deutchland but I think it has crumbled now.
Apart from that tell me where the NFL, CFL or GAA invest in grassroots.
Whoopy do. The AFL had regular matches in London too remember. What did that achieve?
Britain has really gone ahead because the Aussies were outvoted and they started playing 9-a-side football
in parallel with the "traditional football".
Britain went nowhere with the regular AFL matches in London.
People know what kind of investment is required and exhibition matches are low on the list.
The actual trip to the USA and its purpose - To expose the young talent to good facilities is a junket only enjoyed by a few who will likely ignore the local Aussie Rules clubs as per likely AFL House instructions.
The AFL only spends a token amount (Crumbs off the table) overseas relative to its national budget, anybody who thinks not has their head in the sand or up their b--.
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
Is a combine. We all know what that involves. Why wait until now to kick up a fuss ?
Most people know that combines benefit the AFL and produce little otherwise.
Again, tell us something we don't know.
In the meantime answer the question in the post -
"So what do you call investment in the RSA, PNG, NZ, the pacific and China. ?
The NFL managed to get a league up and going in Deutchland but I think it has crumbled now.
Apart from that tell me where the NFL, CFL or GAA invest in grassroots."
I will bet you do not know the exact total value of the investment in the said countries
Now go away and find those token figures above invested by AFL House from their National Budget, and while you are there go and get the exact country by country breakdown on the total overseas participation figures.
Your uninformed ignorant comments about the NFL activities in London have been well and truly highlighted by an EXPANSION in that series this year.
https://www.nfl.com/london-games
This 2016 article explains why the NFL matches in London have been expanded-
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...16-uk-international-series-schedule-announced
The AFL did conduct a series of Exhibition matches in London way back and one of them was broadcast by the BBC who after pressure from the AFL agreed to do it.
But as always AFL House could not see the long term benefits or any other kind of benefits Internationally and pulled the pin.
They did not have the stomach for it but the NFL DID - They plugged away for 7 years and read above.
Now go away and find those token figures above invested by AFL House from their National Budget, and while you are there go and get the exact country by country breakdown on the total overseas participation figures.
Your uninformed ignorant comments about the NFL activities in London have been well and truly highlighted by an EXPANSION in that series this year.
https://www.nfl.com/london-games
This 2016 article explains why the NFL matches in London have been expanded-
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...16-uk-international-series-schedule-announced
The AFL did conduct a series of Exhibition matches in London way back and one of them was broadcast by the BBC who after pressure from the AFL agreed to do it.
But as always AFL House could not see the long term benefits or any other kind of benefits Internationally and pulled the pin.
They did not have the stomach for it but the NFL DID - They plugged away for 7 years and read above.
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
You couldn't be more childish if you tried.
The exhibition matches took place basically because they were underwritten by sponsorship.
They ended when the sponsorship ended and because they produced no tangible benefit and
in fact it is quite possible that the games had a negative impact because of the the way they undertaken and promoted.
Australian Football went ahead in Britain because of a change of a direction and a little help from the AFL.
Now, you still have not have answered by basic question which is again
"So what do you call investment in the RSA, PNG, NZ, the pacific and China. ?
The NFL managed to get a league up and going in Deutchland but I think it has crumbled now.
Apart from that tell me where the NFL, CFL or GAA invest in grassroots."
You childish attempts at deflection are that, childish. Unlike you. I'm not expecting you to put figures up
just the places where there has been significant development.
You don't have to be an Einstein to work out that the AFL have expended $millions in the RSA, China and NZ.
The Pacific, PNG, Europe, North America and Western Isles would be $100,000s.
You can argue that the AFL could spend more, spend better and spread the spend more
but you cannot say it is "token" and you cannot say other codes do more without actually showing where.
Well the AFLNZ annual report has $227K and $249K in AFL grants in 2016 and 2015 respectively
http://aflnz.co.nz/about/
I don't know about the other countries though I would suspect similar, or at least ball park, amounts in PNG and the pacific (or Fiji at least).
My understanding is that the likes of AFL's european, and US and Canadian bodies get between $50K and $100K per year from the AFL....I'm not sure about Asia but I would think there would some outlay but obviously some of the clubs are investing in asia too (Port, Bombers and Tigers etc)
So all in all I would suspect the AFL's international funding would comfortably exceed $1M
Perhaps this is insufficient? I think though the AFL is precisely right in heavily concentrating its development funding in NSW and QLD, in the women's game and targeting the fifth of the population that have migrated to Australia in the last 20 years.
The pay off to Australian dominance is massive and reachable. Like for like TV ratings comparison between the AFL and NRL (ie Friday nights and finals), the AFL has moved significantly ahead...a big reason for this is that the audiences in Sydney and Brisbane are far higher than the NRL ratings to the south west of the Barassi line. The participation growth has been huge as well in line with the AFL's big investment in those states. When the next TV rights negotiations come around the AFL's footprint there will be deeper again than the most recently negotiated.
There is certainly not a massive and reachable payoff for international development. Realistically the Australian football could carve out slightly bigger niches over time than what it has now. From this it might be able to extract TV revenues measurable in the tens of millions in total from outside of Australia. The only domestic sporting league on the planet that gets more revenue from outside of its country than within is the EPL. No other sporting league comes close to achieving this - not the NBA not the La Liga that both have massive international followings.
Now you might say that the AFL should be investing internationally for non-commercial purposes (i.e. as custodians of the game) and that's fair enough. But as soon as you are putting money in that you don't expect to get back than that will certainly temper how much of it you will be putting in. You also need to be very careful about what activities funding is being used for and that you are not just replacing activity of volunteers.
Sorry but "not having the stomach for it" is just cheap rhetoric. The NFL has 10 to 15 times the revenues of the AFL (inc clubs), and has its grass roots and elite pathways paid for by America's education system. It also, unlike the AFL, has dominance across the majority of the country and does not have a competing football competition like the AFL has in the NRL.
The only reason the NFL are in London is for commercial reasons
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
That's just the grants. When AFL stages games in NZ that's in the $millions.
That's a little low but in the $100,000s. Asia grassroots is still probably somebody in AFL House.
You really have missed the big ones.
The RSA must have cost $millions with level of investment and staging of games plus underwriting youth teams.
China has cost $millions mainly with the staging of games and building a ground (supposedly $1 million by itself)
PAFC is investing $millions in China but it is being underwritten.
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
That conflicts with your previous statement. There is a successful model that can and is being be used elsewhere as in NZ.
There are many schools programs running and in Canada there is a waiting list for schools to play Australian Football.
Funding these presently volunteer programs would produce tremendous leverage.
That is the basic premise. What is the biggest bang for buck. What will produce the biggest leverage.
Exhibition games tend to be expensive and their effect passing and the Fosters competition promoted violent images rather than skill.
The exhibition game in Vancouver still holds the record at around 32k and Toronto regularly held 20k+.
The London and USA games never reached great heights.
The Wellington game held 25k and ended with 12.5k which is fantastic for a city of only 400K.
The two recent China games never reached great heights but the new investment is very balanced.
Unfortunately will will never have the same exposure on cable TV that initially propelled AFL into North America.
The internet and maybe AFLX offer new opportunities in media exposure.
Currently development officers and school proframs offer the greatest leverage.
NFL has the college system. The AFL has the general school system and community football which is much more widespread.
Not correct. There is only an NFL team in 3 out of every 5 states. AFL has at least two teams in every state except Tasmania but plays in Tasmania and other territories. In the USA there are many competing sports. Just walk into any American sports bar and there's a myriad of sports. There's not the same clear cut seasons as in Australia. NFL competes against MLS, NBA, NHL and sometimes MLB. That's only the ball sports.
- Moderator
- #111
Wow dude, you are so fundamentally bolshy...I was largely agreeing with you on this occassion!
I was just trying to conservatively establish that the AFL does provide a reasonable amount of money to international development
I agree that one off exhibition games a high cost
You don't get the point re the NFL. You can't draw a line anywhere through the US where American football is not the dominant sport on either side of it. Apart from aggregate attendances and TV ratings of the elite competition where it is very distant second, Australian football is the at best the third but possibly the fourth football code north of the barassi line more generally. The NBA championship playoffs are the only games that rate as high as regular season NFL matches in the US. The NFL does not need to invest in elite pathways like the AFL does.
OK so then a figure of estimated 1 million per year for exclusively funding overseas development has been quoted. I personally think it is higher than that and a figure of 2/ 3 million was being thrown around.
However due to the secrecy clauses self invoked by AFL House the actual figures will never likely be known along with the country by country participation numbers. That attitude at AFL House is indefensible - What possible reason could they have for hiding them.
It aint likely to get better folks because AFLW will soak up extra funding now for an undetermined period.
I rest my case - Token - Still stands relative to the AFL National Budget.
China is a different situation because the AFL and Port are combining to get the game into that country. This idea of getting AFL Clubs to grow the game offshore was originally introduced by Andrew Demitriou when he was CEO.
One of the AFL Clubs will take up the challenge to get into India.
Noticed the other day that AFL St Kilda have rep on their board who is also on the NZ Cricket Board - They have not given up on their NZ involvement and are waiting for the redevelopment in Auckland, which Gil is also waiting for.
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
You seem to backtracking big-time now. Do you still call that "token" ?
I'm still waiting for the answer to "Apart from that tell me where the NFL, CFL or GAA invest in grassroots."
Yes I do still call it token in comparison to the AFL National Budget. End of.
Still waiting for the figures from AFL House from you on funding and participation. The contact name is Mr Dillon.
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
But is it token as an international budget ?
WTF for ?
Why do you keep dodging the question "Apart from that tell me where the NFL, CFL or GAA invest in grassroots."
They are investing everywhere in grassroots. They definitely are investing.
- Thread starter
- #118
To the NFL, grassroots is a 24 year old star college football player ready made to start a pro career. They invest in you at that point, prior to that they do not care.
- Moderator
- #119
http://www.nflfoundation.org/applications/programs/view/grassroots
Essentially similar to the programs the AFL runs at state and local level through its facilities improvement program.
I don’t know if this has been asked or answered, I was wondering how much was being spent in school footy internationally. Because in my logical mind, if you wish to grow the game, the main demographic should be aimed at schools. With the long term goal to establish international talent coming through the schools that have been invested in.
- Moderator
- #121
Id be delighted for you to provide any figures in the AFL annual reports that indicate funding levels internationally. let alone a comparison.
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
So where is the NFL, CFL or GAA investing in grassroots overseas. Obviously not everywhere !
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
"The NAB AFL Academy is in America for a 10-day high performance camp in Florida and Los Angeles. "
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-01-20/academy-tour-diary-vic-metro-stars-update
One has to wonder exactly what the benefit of this exercise is.
There has been no mention of any interaction with local teams etc.
This seems to a point of criticism of these "combines" in that they don't involve the local community.
If you have talented ambassadors from Australia at hand they should be used.
In a study not so long ago, visitation was one of the top requests on a possible "wish list".
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-01-20/academy-tour-diary-vic-metro-stars-update
One has to wonder exactly what the benefit of this exercise is.
There has been no mention of any interaction with local teams etc.
This seems to a point of criticism of these "combines" in that they don't involve the local community.
If you have talented ambassadors from Australia at hand they should be used.
In a study not so long ago, visitation was one of the top requests on a possible "wish list".
Glad to see your catching up. This has been happening for years.
Well it's not a combine but I agree with your point, which is the point that TWLS was making the other day. I have no problem with these academy tours at all but my understanding is they have previously played games against local grass roots teams (I think I heard they played a pan european side a few years ago). It seems a no brainer and relatively low cost they could pull together say the US national team for a game
