Prediction AFL needs to sell clubs to survive

[88mph]

He's not a fan but YAT. There are people in the know and they are the businesses and sponsors.
Just look at the sponsors of the Swans and GWS.
A lot of people in the U.S.A deny global warming yet insurance and the military have it already factored in.
YATs can cherry pick certain statistics but the investment has been made and the benefits are there for all to see.
The AFL is after an ever better result for obvious reasons but Ch7 even more so.
The AFL runs a national business and Ch7 would love to have more consistent programming right across Australia.

The AFL has made huge inroads in NSW and the investment is justified.

20 years ago AFL was nowhere in NSW, now you walk into a pub and it's on tv.

Kids are kicking AFL balls in the park.

It is working and will overtake NRL in 10 years.

 

[Colonial]

The AFL has made huge inroads in NSW and the investment is justified.

20 years ago AFL was nowhere in NSW, now you walk into a pub and it's on tv.

Kids are kicking AFL balls in the park.

It is working and will overtake NRL in 10 years.

I doubt that but we will carve out a rather large piece of the pie in Western Sydney.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rob]

So if we tweaked our model somewhat, we could allow private investment into the WAFL clubs to give these clubs a shot at making the AFL.

This would keep the WAFL alive too?

Would be pretty exciting to see Souths get the investment and a shot at the AFL.

That's not just a tweak, that's a full blown restructure. And a pretty ******* terrible one at that.

The AFL isn't like European soccer where leagues compete against each other for players, nor like the NFL where the various levels of the game have nothing to do with each other. The AFL has a long structure from the top right down to juniors, and it partly relies on everyone going in the same direction. Bring private owners in and you take part of the structure down a completely different road.

 

[Scotland]

So if we tweaked our model somewhat, we could allow private investment into the WAFL clubs to give these clubs a shot at making the AFL.

This would keep the WAFL alive too?

Would be pretty exciting to see Souths get the investment and a shot at the AFL.

That would require a lot of tweaking.

The WAFC administers football in WA, and owns the licences for WC and Freo. They wouldn't let a WAFL club join the AFL if it wasn't beneficial to them.

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

This American OP can get out of mah country.

Also in Australia it's kmph not mph

Just kph. Kilometres is one word.

 

[shintemaster]

I don't know why you would say that?
Ratings in general are a very agricultural measure. They are very easily manipulated across the board.
It's in the ratings company's interest to pander to the hand that feeds them.



And again I really don’t think you understand that footy fans watch the competitive contests first and above all else.
It's a national competition and the focus is national.

On ratings - 100% agree. A very crude measure.

On the second point - you may be right, but that's not what currently drives football TV revenue. They are not basing the prime games on "competitive contests", at least, not primarily. That's the reason why we have debacles like a half year of Carlton in Friday night footy a few years back while they were atrocious. Because despite what the average football fan might like to watch the TV networks would prefer to bank on the simple metrics of big clubs into their key markets.

To be honest, I think that's a long term mistake, constantly having the same clubs play each other more and the smaller ones the same is not growing the league and the resilience of the entire competition. But it's been easy and big money for them for the last decade and a half. My view is that AFL success should be measured on growing the minimums as well as the big games but, like most corporations, the immediate $ is generally much mightier than the one 10 years down the track.

 

[RedV3x]

TV networks would prefer to bank on the simple metrics of big clubs into their key markets.

Yes, from a network p.ov. form lags far behind established pulling power. Not exactly what the fans want.

 

[Aussie in exile]

On ratings - 100% agree. A very crude measure.

On the second point - you may be right, but that's not what currently drives football TV revenue. They are not basing the prime games on "competitive contests", at least, not primarily. That's the reason why we have debacles like a half year of Carlton in Friday night footy a few years back while they were atrocious. Because despite what the average football fan might like to watch the TV networks would prefer to bank on the simple metrics of big clubs into their key markets.

To be honest, I think that's a long term mistake, constantly having the same clubs play each other more and the smaller ones the same is not growing the league and the resilience of the entire competition. But it's been easy and big money for them for the last decade and a half. My view is that AFL success should be measured on growing the minimums as well as the big games but, like most corporations, the immediate $ is generally much mightier than the one 10 years down the track.

The TV companies obviously prefer teams that rate big on TV as that = more money they can charge advertisers. = more money for the TV company. Advertisers are really not interested in game that only draw small TV audiences.

 

[RedV3x]

The TV companies obviously prefer teams that rate big on TV as that = more money they can charge advertisers. = more money for the TV company. Advertisers are really not interested in game that only draw small TV audiences.

Wow, who would have thought that. Thank you for that enlightenment.

"teams that rate big on TV" depend upon a few factors.
Teams that have a large following but not necessarily confined to their own city.
The Swans have a widespread following because they are a two city team and they had exclusive television on Sundays in the VFL.
North Melbourne seem to have supporter everywhere maybe because they moved so much (and still moving).
The "form" teams. Fans like to see how their team is going w.r.t. a benchmark team.
There are teams with large supporter bases that obviously draw more viewers but they also draw more viewers
because the networks broadcast their games thinking they'll get more viewers.
That's a cacth-22 situation for teams with smaller supporter bases.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Wow, who would have thought that. Thank you for that enlightenment.

"teams that rate big on TV" depend upon a few factors.
Teams that have a large following but not necessarily confined to their own city.
The Swans have a widespread following because they are a two city team and they had exclusive television on Sundays in the VFL.
North Melbourne seem to have supporter everywhere maybe because they moved so much (and still moving).
The "form" teams. Fans like to see how their team is going w.r.t. a benchmark team.
There are teams with large supporter bases that obviously draw more viewers but they also draw more viewers
because the networks broadcast their games thinking they'll get more viewers.
That's a cacth-22 situation for teams with smaller supporter bases.

Remind me again how well GWS and the Suns rate on TV in Sydney and Brisbane? LOL

 

[RedV3x]

Remind me again how well GWS and the Suns rate on TV in Sydney and Brisbane?

Remind me again how well GWS and the Suns rate on TV in Australia?
Remind me again how valuable GWS and the Suns are to the AFL as they bring in a 9th game per week.
Remind me again how valuable GWS and the Suns are to the AFL as they bring merchandise, sponsorship, promotion and players.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Remind me again how well GWS and the Suns rate on TV in Australia?
Remind me again how valuable GWS and the Suns are to the AFL as they bring in a 9th game per week.
Remind me again how valuable GWS and the Suns are to the AFL as they bring merchandise, sponsorship, promotion and players.

It's bad English to answer a question with a question.
Now you answer my question and i will answer yours?
Deal?

 

[Aramis]

The AFL can't sell clubs they don't own. The ownership structure is odd, the clubs own the AFL more than the AFL own clubs. The AFL could sell the licenses they control (or issue new ones) but even if private ownership for a club was given the green light you would still need to operate within the AFL framework.

In theory you'd buy GC or GWS cheaply and then pump money into them, win flags and make millions. In practice, none of that would happen. The AFL wouldn't sell them cheaply given the investment that has already been made, and you can't go full Man City with the salary cap and draft rules in place anyway. If you could somehow buy Richmond or Collingwood or WC and somehow navigate your way to dictatorial ownership - then what? You'd make money each year (arguably as much as you ever will unless you gut the footy dept) but it would cost you a shitload to get the club and license in the first place and the AFL don't own them anyway so wouldn't make anything from the sale.

AFL clubs don't suit private ownership because the league is so centrally controlled. It's not like the UK where you can buy a team that's languishing in the 2nd or 3rd division, throw money at it and win your way up to the Premier League and start pocketing GBP100m+ per year in TV rights money just for finishing higher than 18th.

Your post touches upon another higher-level issue... the completely inefficient and dated structure of the AFL and its clubs.

That's what needs to change.

 

[Kwality]

That would require a lot of tweaking.

The WAFC administers football in WA, and owns the licences for WC and Freo. They wouldn't let a WAFL club join the AFL if it wasn't beneficial to them.

Why would WA even consider changing the model, tweaking sure but private ownership of a 3rd side in WA?

 

[Scotland]

Your post touches upon another higher-level issue... the completely inefficient and dated structure of the AFL and its clubs.

That's what needs to change.

How does it need to change and to benefit whom?

The AFL is an unusual system compared to most other leagues. Half the teams are in one city and share two stadiums, that's unheard of elsewhere. We (and Freo) have the newest stadium and it's owned by the state govt who built it. We're not Tottenham or Arsenal building our own new stadiums to replace older, smaller ones. We are one of the financial powerhouses and building a $1b stadium is well beyond anything we can afford.

In terms of TV rights the deal is worth $420m a year, give or take. That doesn't all go the clubs, but if it did an equal share would be $23m a year and the salary cap alone is $12.5m. Clubs now turn over anywhere from $40m up to about $100m and AFL distributions are in the range of $10m to $25m as part of that. Operating profits are usually in the range of $5-10m in a good year.

 

[Scotland]

Why would WA even consider changing the model, tweaking sure but private ownership of a 3rd side in WA?

They wouldn't.

 

[RedV3x]

It's bad English to answer a question with a question.

That's really bad trolling if that's all you can come up with.
Get some new material.

 

[RedV3x]

dated structure of the AFL and its clubs.

Correct. Australia was the first country to have community-based football clubs.

the completely inefficient and ...That's what needs to change.

Why is it inefficient and why does it need to change?

 

[RedV3x]

The AFL is an unusual system compared to most other leagues.

Outside of Australia.

Half the teams are in one city and share two stadiums, that's unheard of elsewhere.

And most large capital cities hold multiple AFL clubs and multiple football codes.
The AFL most resembles the NFL structure and you don't hear people saying the NFL should change.

 

[Kwality]

Why is it inefficient and why does it need to change?

... the completely inefficient and dated structure of the AFL and its clubs.

Look at different structures have running the game, the SANFL, WAFC & AFL .
Look at the different structures of the clubs, the executive structures running clubland.

Many of the structures are dated, that doesnt mean they are inappropriate, nor is it a reason not to review it with an eye to the future.

Footy no longer lives within its means, see all clubs have non footy income & the AFL wants clubs to get out of pokies. Surely thats worthy of review looking for the lessons to learn
I remember Peter Jackson advising members of Essendon in the 00s that club was no longer self sufficent in Football operations, there are lessons there surely.

There is a necessity for review at club level, lets not limit it.

 

[RedV3x]

Footy no longer lives within its means,

A traditional problem. The AFL introduced equalization measures in the draft and salary cap. it probably needs a football department cap as well.

all clubs have non footy income

Which is highly desirable for any business to diversify for security.

the AFL wants clubs to get out of pokies.

Which is good from a moral p.o.v.

 

[Kwality]

That's not bad trolling, but its very bad English to answer a question with question.
You seem very addled.
Just answer the question i asked, or does the true answer to my question not suit your agenda?

Just move on ....

 

[gingernuts]

My son works for a guy who was a part owner of Dallas Mavs. and the texas rangers and my sons boss reckons it cant work with privatisation because of population and AFL aint global.end of

 

[JPetro83]

On a serious note, does that AFL want fewer teams though?

Expect with TV rights and everything else, they probably want as many teams as they can keep profitable and there is no way they will let the interstate franchises fold.

16 teams was more than enough! hindsight is great.. the AFL should have given the Kangaroos a godfather offer way back in the mid 2010s to move up North the Gold Coast. There is noway the Gold Coast Kangaroos would have been as bad as the Gold Coast Suns.. they would have adopted the South Melb/Syd way.. kept colours, history etc and most of all had a competitive squad from day 1. Then if the AFL wanted to expand the GWS and a Tssie team could have been team 17 & 18.. but now the AFL is on its knees i think the only way to survive and and be profitable is to cull teams.. as in merge or relocate.. get the comp down to 16 teams.

 

[RedV3x]

the AFL is on its knees

Whilst the AFL is definitely challenged it is generally agreed it is in the best position of the football codes.
Then AFL has secured underwriting and there is even talk of possible private ownership of GWS.
Whilst the AFL is definitely challenged it's not forced into taking drastic risks like the NRL.
Whilst the AFL is definitely challenged it doesn't look like loosing clubs like the NRL.
Whilst the AFL is definitely challenged it still has a competition unlike SANZAAR.
Whilst the AFL is definitely challenged it can greatly cut expenses and not forced to sell or merge teams.
Selling, merging or culling teams means a loss of revenue so that will not be countenanced by the AFL
unlike the NRL that because of their poor position might just have to sell, merge and cull teams and clubs.