Play Nice 2019-2022 CBA Discussion

[jatz14]

Havnt been paying much attention to it, was there amendments to the agreement between the time it was knocked back (under 75%) and now passing? If so, what were the amendments?

There is to be an independent review of the league is the main one, plus key dates to be communicated to players with a minimum 4 month's notice.

Not a lot else changed.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[FRUMPY]

There is to be an independent review of the league is the main one, plus key dates to be communicated to players with a minimum 4 month's notice.

Not a lot else changed.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Yeah figures as much, the 20%+ jumped ship quickly haha. At least they can all move on

 

[CASEYS9420]

I always thought this would be the evolution of AFLW, played as a curtain-raiser to AFL matches. The AFL propping up a League thats bringing in no revenue, hosting its own games outright in venues at AFL cost was never going to last long. I don't think the decision is a bad one, it should have been done on day one. Play all AFLW games during the AFL season as curtain-raisers therefore both leagues will use the same venues and have access to the same facilities.

 

[DJMac]

Why are the AFL adamant that all AFLW games must be televised and then using that as a reason to restrict the number of rounds in the fixture. If all teams played each other once plus finals and the networks only televised the same number of games they do now then so be it.


If they started straight after the AFL season finished then they could fit the extra games in as well

I always thought this would be the evolution of AFLW, played as a curtain-raiser to AFL matches. The AFL propping up a League thats bringing in no revenue, hosting its own games outright in venues at AFL cost was never going to last long. I don't think the decision is a bad one, it should have been done on day one. Play all AFLW games during the AFL season as curtain-raisers therefore both leagues will use the same venues and have access to the same facilities.

Makes some sense commercially but they would risk losing the people that faithfully follow the AFLW. They would need to pay entry fee at AFL prices for starters.

At some grounds such as Optus the games are close to sellouts and this would mean that tickets would not be available to many that want to go to the AFLW game. As an example the AFLW western derby would probably attract a good crowd but there would be no tickets available.

It would make the TV coverage, ground hire etc easier though but I don’t think the networks are interested in broadcasting AFLW games during the AFL season.

 

[CASEYS9420]

Why are the AFL adamant that all AFLW games must be televised and then using that as a reason to restrict the number of rounds in the fixture. If all teams played each other once plus finals and the networks only televised the same number of games they do now then so be it.


If they started straight after the AFL season finished then they could fit the extra games in as well



Makes some sense commercially but they would risk losing the people that faithfully follow the AFLW. They would need to pay entry fee at AFL prices for starters.

At some grounds such as Optus the games are close to sellouts and this would mean that tickets would not be available to many that want to go to the AFLW game. As an example the AFLW western derby would probably attract a good crowd but there would be no tickets available.

It would make the TV coverage, ground hire etc easier though but I don’t think the networks are interested in broadcasting AFLW games during the AFL season.

The ticket prices are a huge problem because is anyone really going to sit through 4 hours of football? of what I've read so far for these 5 AFLW/AFL dual games next year it'll be a 2for1 package deal, so yes you'll be paying full AFL prices for an AFLW match if thats all you'll watch, but I dont think theres another way around it unfortunately, it's current format is unsustainable.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Why are the AFL adamant that all AFLW games must be televised and then using that as a reason to restrict the number of rounds in the fixture. If all teams played each other once plus finals and the networks only televised the same number of games they do now then so be it.

So is your club happy to put its hand up for all these non-televised games? (answer is: no)

Or are you so naive to think non-televised games would be handed out equally? (answer is: yes, sounds like you are very naive)

 

[DJMac]

So is your club happy to put its hand up for all these non-televised games? (answer is: no)

Or are you so naive to think non-televised games would be handed out equally? (answer is: yes, sounds like you are very naive)

Why do you immediately go for a personal attack because someone has a question or view that is different to yours?

I would think that non televised games if they were to happen would be shared around not all given to the one club.

All I was saying was if everyone wants more games but the networks won’t cover it why should that stop the games going ahead. The WAFL only has 1 game televised from each round.

 

[FRUMPY]

The ticket prices are a huge problem because is anyone really going to sit through 4 hours of football? of what I've read so far for these 5 AFLW/AFL dual games next year it'll be a 2for1 package deal, so yes you'll be paying full AFL prices for an AFLW match if thats all you'll watch, but I dont think theres another way around it unfortunately, it's current format is unsustainable.

Wait till the AFLW people start claiming 50% of the crowd are there for the AFLW game and should get 50% of the revenue

 

[CASEYS9420]

Wait till the AFLW people start claiming 50% of the crowd are there for the AFLW game and should get 50% of the revenue

I'd imagine they'll do crowd counts for both games. that'll stop that bs

 

[Teen Wolf]

Why do you immediately go for a personal attack because someone has a question or view that is different to yours?

Not an attack, just an observation.

I would think that non televised games if they were to happen would be shared around not all given to the one club.

FTA games aren't evenly distributed, wouldn't be any different for non-televised games. Well there'd be one difference: people would rage even more when their team isn't even on Foxtel.

All I was saying was if everyone wants more games but the networks won’t cover it why should that stop the games going ahead. The WAFL only has 1 game televised from each round.

That would be a relevant point if we were discussing TV coverage for WAWFL games. Higher aspirations for the national leagues. Can't be what you can't see. "All men's AFL games are televised, Mr. McLachlan; why aren't all the women's?"

Beyond all that, there's other reasons why they're not ready to abruptly double the season in length. Perhaps the tougher question is "why expand to 14 teams if you can't deliver 13 H&A rounds?" Soon it won't matter anyway, the AFL is committed to growing the league to its full potential and they're undeniably getting closer every year.

 

[DJMac]

Not an attack, just an observation.


FTA games aren't evenly distributed, wouldn't be any different for non-televised games. Well there'd be one difference: people would rage even more when their team isn't even on Foxtel.


That would be a relevant point if we were discussing TV coverage for WAWFL games. Higher aspirations for the national leagues. Can't be what you can't see. "All men's AFL games are televised, Mr. McLachlan; why aren't all the women's?"

Beyond all that, there's other reasons why they're not ready to abruptly double the season in length. Perhaps the tougher question is "why expand to 14 teams if you can't deliver 13 H&A rounds?" Soon it won't matter anyway, the AFL is committed to growing the league to its full potential and they're undeniably getting closer every year.

Because the broadcasters don’t want to. They are entitled to show what they want to. If the demand is there then they will do so but obviously it’s not yet.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Because the broadcasters don’t want to. They are entitled to show what they want to. If the demand is there then they will do so but obviously it’s not yet.

And the AFL isn't fixturing non-televised games because they don't want to.

There, we solved this brain-teaser together. High-five!

 

[jatz14]

Wait till the AFLW people start claiming 50% of the crowd are there for the AFLW game and should get 50% of the revenue

Wait till the nuffies start claiming that AFLW is claiming 50% of the crowd and 50% of the revenue, despite neither thing actually occuring.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jatz14]

I always thought this would be the evolution of AFLW, played as a curtain-raiser to AFL matches. The AFL propping up a League thats bringing in no revenue, hosting its own games outright in venues at AFL cost was never going to last long. I don't think the decision is a bad one, it should have been done on day one. Play all AFLW games during the AFL season as curtain-raisers therefore both leagues will use the same venues and have access to the same facilities.

Curtain raiser games will be a rarity. They don't really solve any issues for the AFLW, and may hinder revenue more than promote it. I doubt they ever occur with a regular season AFL match.

Extending the time you operate the venue still costs a lot. Fans of the team have to weigh up if they can spare the time for 2 matches, or just watch 1.

When the AFL charges for AFLW ground entry, which may be 5 or more years away, then either you empty the ground between matches, or make the AFLW game free.

It will never, ever, be the evolution of AFLW, just a side note, and potentially a short lived one.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jatz14]

Why do you immediately go for a personal attack because someone has a question or view that is different to yours?

I would think that non televised games if they were to happen would be shared around not all given to the one club.

All I was saying was if everyone wants more games but the networks won’t cover it why should that stop the games going ahead. The WAFL only has 1 game televised from each round.

The AFLs ambitions for AFLW go considerably beyond aspiring to be WAFL.

Visibility is life in pro sport, and obscurity is irrelevance.

Here is a tip for you, when the AFLW starts charging for entry, AFLW attendances will still be streets ahead of the WAFLs attendance., That's why they do not want games being played with no TV coverage. The WAFL plays games with no coverage, and look what happened to it.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So is your club happy to put its hand up for all these non-televised games? (answer is: no)

Or are you so naive to think non-televised games would be handed out equally? (answer is: yes, sounds like you are very naive)

No need to be so attack-worthy. It's just a discussion point that it's not the be-all and end-all that all matches get televised, or that there's a tipping point where if three quarters of the matches are televises it all but achieves the same thing as every match getting televised.

WBBL doesn't have every match being televised. In fairness, it's easier to live-stream cricket with a 2 or 3 camera static setup than it is the AFL.

 

[Teen Wolf]

No need to be so attack-worthy. It's just a discussion point that it's not the be-all and end-all that all matches get televised, or that there's a tipping point where if three quarters of the matches are televises it all but achieves the same thing as every match getting televised.

WBBL doesn't have every match being televised. In fairness, it's easier to live-stream cricket with a 2 or 3 camera static setup than it is the AFL.

The WBBL does a lot of dumb things, some of them were detailed in a post on this board just yesterday. Don't go looking for it if you can't handle the n-word (I called some people naive there, too, because questioning somebody's knowledge of a topic isn't actually a personal attack unless it's accompanied with a "you stupid idiot etc"--which I would never do!).

 

[FRUMPY]

Wait till the nuffies start claiming that AFLW is claiming 50% of the crowd and 50% of the revenue, despite neither thing actually occuring.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

 

[wayToGo_]

Wait till the nuffies start claiming that AFLW is claiming 50% of the crowd and 50% of the revenue, despite neither thing actually occuring.

I would have responded to this earlier but I've been very busy responding to every tweet I could find regarding AFLW saying I don't care about women's footy.

#doineedasarcasmemoji