Indeed the old H&A model is broken ... currently its a financial measure only.
Many are happy for the GF farce but play an extra game in a market that is crying out for it, no way .
2019 Financial Results
- Thread starter The_Wookie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Indeed the old H&A model is broken ... currently its a financial measure only.
Many are happy for the GF farce but play an extra game in a market that is crying out for it, no way .
Tiger Soze
3121
- Nov 17, 2019
- 212
- 462
- AFL Club
- Richmond
The AFL is a business, maximizing game attendance and media viewership is the name of the game.
Extremely hard to claim anything is broken when the game has been going from strength to strength on nearly every metric for the last few years.
Extremely hard to claim anything is broken when the game has been going from strength to strength on nearly every metric for the last few years.
- Sep 21, 2004
- 37,079
- 25,898
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Norwood & Liverpool.
That can be an extremely dangerous view. In politics, its caused more than a few civil wars. Its related to 'the tyranny of the majority' argument. If most viewers are in Victoria, and most Victorian viewers are in Melbourne, then the answer to every debate is 'Melbourne'. Where should the GF be held, Melbourne, TV deals and time-slots should favour which market, Melbourne. When everybody knows prior to the debate happening that the answer is Melbourne, because it makes the metrics look good, then there is no point having the debate. But if people are pissed off, and know debate is pointless, what happens?
Its a bit like a government where Sydney and Melbourne are booming, and therefore the nations 'metrics' are fabulous, but everybody outside those cities are suffering. The government isnt interested in changing anything but, because the metrics are great. The long term outcome of this scenario isnt good, for the country, or the government, regardless of what the metrics say.
It works because those payments had nothing to do with stadium deals in the first place.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
Wrong dude
The reason Richmond get additional funding is solely because of our shitty mcg deal (because the MCC has refused to negotiate a new deal after out last one expired)
Both the AFL and the MCC are happy for clubs to generally not have direct deals with both marvel and the mcg, as it gives them better flexibility in scheduling, and the AFL more monetary control of the clubs
Tiger Soze
3121
- Nov 17, 2019
- 212
- 462
- AFL Club
- Richmond
You have to come on to BF to even know there is a minority not happy with how our competition is current going. I find it incredible that any WCE supporter could be anything but happy, playing in the best competition in the land, playing home games at a new stadium, new club training facilities, high and growing membership and the biggest bank balance in the comp. Most importantly a premiership as recent as 2018.
The Dogs and the Saints in 2018 both had their variable distributions reduced by 500k in conjunction with improved stadium deals. The AFL was able to implement improved club deals based on the very large benefits from its agreement with the state government: https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/the-biggest-events-and-a-better-deal-for-fans-and-clubs/.
Their is a relationship between differing commercial arrangements at stadia and AFL funding though it is only one of the things considered; the others include different supporter base sizes and histories, the financial impact of the fixture and the extent to which clubs have access to non-football revenue generating businesses.
Their is a relationship between differing commercial arrangements at stadia and AFL funding though it is only one of the things considered; the others include different supporter base sizes and histories, the financial impact of the fixture and the extent to which clubs have access to non-football revenue generating businesses.
Look at the marketplace you can always do better.
Not suggesting major surgery, revisit the FIXture.
I'd have sworn there were posters claiming only some clubs were paying off Docklands, not the AFL.
The stuff up over the MCG & Docklands management cherry picking tenants & leaving the AFL to pick up to what was left is still alive & well today.
Games are allocated in line with the deal the AFL cobbled together after the stadium management had got what they wanted.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
the afl want to be the negotiating party. do you think they like the Pies deal with the MCC?
AFL love having their foot on the financial neck of clubs, and effectively owning clubs stadium deals gives them massive leverage over them
and this isnt about coin or support. if a club with the members and financing of richmond cant even get the mcc to open discussions on a new deal, good luck to the smaller clubs (and I dont mean this in a uber richmond sense, * we cant even get them to talk to us so it shows where we rate)
We are on the same page on this issue.
I was reacting more generally to the suggestion that the responsible thing to do in all situations is what is best for the 'metrics'. The important metrics tend not to change, therefore those that argue for something that runs counter to this, always lose the argument. Those that find themselves in a system where they always get the pointy end, because they are always on the wrong side of the metrics, lose any incentive to support that system.
This relates to the vague separatist mentality in WA. Every national argument tends to get back to, 'more people live on the Eastern seaboard'. But more people will always live on the Eastern seaboard. Melbourne and Sydney will probably always be bigger than Perth. If every argument Perth or WA makes for anything gets trumped by, there is more people in Melbourne, then this is going to get a reaction.
The Eagles are sitting pretty, they have no reason to complain. Distance provides obstacles that are under appreciated, but not insurmountable. The AFL just needs to be mindful that while Melbourne is central to, and key to the success of the AFL, it cannot take the view that every decision must therefore revolve around, whats best for keeping the Melbourne based fan happy, because eventually that might involve pissing fans everywhere else off really badly.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #366
You make it sound like they werent. In order to get finals away from the MCG, the deal was very complex and involved many parties.
- The Victorian Government
- The MCC
- The MCG Trust
- The AFL
- Collingwood Football Club
- Yarra Park Reserve Trust (the owners of the car parks and parkland around the MCG)
- Melbourne City Council (the operators of the car parks and parkland around the MCG)
Essentially loss of finals revenue was made up by giving the MCC rights to car parking revenue previously held by the City of Melbourne as well as guaranteed Collingwood fixtures at the ground AND a five year contract extension.
Prior to buying docklands it was about the over-riding stadium deal which controlled the number of matches that MUST be played at a venue as well as the fact that the AFL is the sole arbiter of where matches are played. The MCC simply decided that there was no point discussing stuff with the clubs if it had to be approved by the league anyway.
Richmond have nothing to bargain with at the MCG anyway, they moved there in 1960 for crying out loud, and its not like they can fit their membership and supporter base anywhere else.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
the last is spot on, and underlines why the collingwood deal was able to happen. we were realistically never going anywhere, collingwood was. now with the afl controlling marvel, where can they extract that same leverage next time around? fwiw ive heard a few in the mcc and afl are eager to scale back the cfc provisions when that deal is up for renewal
To be fair North didn’t really dominant a decade (in either the 70s or 90s) like Richmond (60s to 80), Carlton 67-95) or Hawthorn (71-91 and 08-15)
In the 70s they were second to Carlton and Hawthorn (and on level pegging with Richmond) and in the 90s, Adelaide and West Coast also won multiple flags in what was probably the most even decade for generations.
I guess the only comparable would be Essendon (83-00) but they had the whole north / west region and a huge base to start from.
The major issue for North, like Fitzroy, was that they were essentially landlocked by Carlton and Essendon (in much the same way the lions were landlocked by Carlton, Collingwood and Richmond)
To be fair that, that was a defacto final (round 22, 1 v 2) and was what would have been a GF preview.
Thats like saying Richmond v Brisbane (77,000 last year) or Hawthorn v Sydney (72,000 in 2014) would sell out ANZAC Day on the back of a single outstanding attendance
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
That carey era was special though. Only player other than. Ablett senior I went to a non RFC game just to see them
- Sep 21, 2004
- 37,079
- 25,898
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Norwood & Liverpool.
Easier in a two team market in a footy mad state.
I'm not a big fan of soft caps, I reckon clubs that are financially strong should be able to spend that to advantage themselves without penalty. Otherwise what's the point of Eagles being so financially strong when it all gets taxed or evened out in an equalisation handout anyway.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #375
Tigers would never seek to play interstate mate. Post whatever emojis you want, some clubs are backed into a corner here.
