Moved Thread AFL tips $25m into the Suns for 2017!!!

Remove this Banner Ad

Aug 14, 2011
44,794
16,852
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
I agree. But that's not how it works. Unfortunately we get administrators just keen on their own career climbing in the AFL rather than addressing the problem at hand. A problem that should not have gotten to this stage.

The AFL promoted Mr Auld from the Gold Coast & it was not travelling well - Mr Auld from Tas has been promoted by the AFL & Tas footy isnt going gangbusters.
Love to see the KPI results the Auld family achieved. Nothing personal Mrs Auld.
 
Aug 14, 2011
44,794
16,852
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Except a great deal of that supposed 'assistance' isn't really.

Money for signage and pourage rights that clubs like yours get directly, the AFL collects and distributes to the Vic clubs......

Then of course there is the big one...Vic clubs buy the AFL a billion dollar stadium through decades of being forced to play with shitty stadium deals, and when some of those clubs look like falling over due to the burden of this, the AFL gives them a small fraction of what they're getting....you guessed it...more 'assistance'.


Give the Vic clubs a fair deal, without the AFL taking a slice of everything, and you'll see a lot less 'assistance' being required.

But of course, if they did that, all those leaners outside of Vic would need to do their fair share.

The Etihad line has been discredited as bull****, you didnt miss The Wookies support of my post last time you ran it.
 
Of course you need to be analytical about where the money goes. Giving assistance to these clubs is an investment. An investment in new markets. The AFL should not be investing / giving assistance to clubs in mature markets. Especially comparatively overcrowded ones.

Hypothetically you are correct, but was said, the Vic clubs are denied the rights to catering, signage, have to compete with the AFL for premium seat packages ( esp. corporate ), and in the case of the Saints/WB/North, our break even point on game attendance was 30000, then add in the amount of Sunday arvo those clubs played and the impact that has on attendance figures. That doesn't even account for the fixture that is designed for maximum attendance/viewership.
Surely as a Freo supporter you would love to see you side play more prime time slots, we had 1 Fri night game in 2 years prior to 2017. damn hard to build active supporters, gain valuable sponsors and build your brand when you keep getting the ass end of the stick, assistance or an attempt correct to inbuilt imbalance.
I would say given a fairer stadium deal, and fairer fixture, my club would not need any special assistance, and would go as far as saying the assistance doesn't cover the ground lost in the inequities over the last decade.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Hypothetically you are correct, but was said, the Vic clubs are denied the rights to catering, signage, have to compete with the AFL for premium seat packages ( esp. corporate ), and in the case of the Saints/WB/North, our break even point on game attendance was 30000, then add in the amount of Sunday arvo those clubs played and the impact that has on attendance figures. That doesn't even account for the fixture that is designed for maximum attendance/viewership.
Surely as a Freo supporter you would love to see you side play more prime time slots, we had 1 Fri night game in 2 years prior to 2017. damn hard to build active supporters, gain valuable sponsors and build your brand when you keep getting the ass end of the stick, assistance or an attempt correct to inbuilt imbalance.
I would say given a fairer stadium deal, and fairer fixture, my club would not need any special assistance, and would go as far as saying the assistance doesn't cover the ground lost in the inequities over the last decade.

You wont win a fight against wa footy fans by saying your lot dont get enough friday night games

How many do you think subi has hosted in recent years?
 
You wont win a fight against wa footy fans by saying your lot dont get enough friday night games

How many do you think subi has hosted in recent years?
Hypothetically you are correct, but was said, the Vic clubs are denied the rights to catering, signage, have to compete with the AFL for premium seat packages ( esp. corporate ), and in the case of the Saints/WB/North, our break even point on game attendance was 30000, then add in the amount of Sunday arvo those clubs played and the impact that has on attendance figures. That doesn't even account for the fixture that is designed for maximum attendance/viewership.
Surely as a Freo supporter you would love to see you side play more prime time slots, we had 1 Fri night game in 2 years prior to 2017. damn hard to build active supporters, gain valuable sponsors and build your brand when you keep getting the ass end of the stick, assistance or an attempt correct to inbuilt imbalance.
I would say given a fairer stadium deal, and fairer fixture, my club would not need any special assistance, and would go as far as saying the assistance doesn't cover the ground lost in the inequities over the last decade.

just pointing out that as he should know, fixturing has a big impact on attendance figures, I'm fully aware that only the select few clubs get Friday night games, Carlton is prime example
 
just pointing out that as he should know, fixturing has a big impact on attendance figures, I'm fully aware that only the select few clubs get Friday night games, Carlton is prime example

Wrong example though for wa. How many twilight games do they get to appease east coast tv schedules for example
 
The answer is that TV pays the bills. You can't ignore that. Once the AFL became wedded to media $$$$, the fixture would always be the play thing of the TV moguls.

Not to mention the WA teams get comprehensive FTA coverage ( acknowledge the delay on some games ) whereas say the smaller Vic clubs will be lucky to get more than 4/5 games on FTA all season. There is a mass of influences on all the clubs, I always find it funny these arguments about who should get what, when and how. Sydney took well over a decade to really make it as a viable operation., Yet in year 5? we want to wound up CG in a harder market than Sydney presented.
 
Aug 14, 2011
44,794
16,852
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Wrong example though for wa. How many twilight games do they get to appease east coast tv schedules for example

I was a bit surprised you suggested Fri night, WA gets a couple & with the early start to the game, its a mongrel for many to get there.

Early games on the east coast are real early in WA.
 
I was a bit surprised you suggested Fri night, WA gets a couple & with the early start to the game, its a mongrel for many to get there.

Early games on the east coast are real early in WA.

should clarify - Perth dont get 7-8pm starts on a friday night

6pm is good for tv (in the east) but its horrid to get home get the kids and get back to perth in WA

I personally agree with it, but it doesnt mean WA supporters are missing out on one of the more popular timeslots to attend footy, solely because of east coast tv
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,914
36,082
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Hypothetically you are correct, but was said, the Vic clubs are denied the rights to signage,

No they arent. Its distributed to them as part of their AFL distribution. The AFL annual report is clear on this.

have to compete with the AFL for premium seat packages ( esp. corporate ), and in the case of the Saints/WB/North, our break even point on game attendance was 30000, then add in the amount of Sunday arvo those clubs played and the impact that has on attendance figures. That doesn't even account for the fixture that is designed for maximum attendance/viewership.

And what neither side mentions is that this breakeven is solely based on gate takings on the day. it doesnt factor in reserved seating and memberships, and doesnt factor in the signage and pourage rights received later through the AFL.

That they get screwed over fixture wise is true - mostly in so far as friday night, sunday afternoon and fta coverage is concerned.
 

deltablues

Cancelled
Jul 16, 2013
1,891
1,950
Rapid City, South Dakota
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Sturt, Green Bay Packers
This would be the ideal situation.

Have the league organised purely as a competition, no other agendas, just the highest level of competition they can manage, and make money.

Large part of that money (as an example figure, let's say 25% of revenue) gets handed over to another group that is all about development, growing the game and producing players for all levels of the game.

The two organisations are at arms length, but nominally both under the same umbrella body that has a few actual responsibilities themselves (laws of the game would be one thing they'd have, maybe a few tribunal/enforcement things like drugs and integrity bodies).

Having an actual or ostensible fiduciary obligation re the good of the game on the one hand, and seeking to maximize profits by bending over to cash cows such as TV media on the other, is what the lawyers call a conflict of interest.

The AFL is hopelessly conflicted. Tas is an example.

To the cynical and hypocritical bloviating AFL hucksters Tasmania is just collateral damage - a footy heartland sacrificed on the Ponzi-scheme altar of robbing Peter to pay Paul [or now, possibly, Pauline]. Grow the game, baby.

And Paul in the rugby league heart of Q can't believe his good luck in being a $30M AFL trust fund baby.

Conflict of interest? No way, says the AFL. Hey, listen, we gotta hit our TV revenue KPIs for our bonuses. Oops, no, wait...
 
Last edited:

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,255
AFL Club
Collingwood
Having an actual or ostensible fiduciary obligation re the good of the game on the one hand, and seeking to maximize profits by bending over to cash cows such as TV media on the other, is what the lawyers call a conflict of interest.

The AFL is hopelessly conflicted. Tas (for example) is an example.

To the cynical and hypocritical bloviating AFL hucksters Tasmania is just collateral damage - a footy heartland sacrificed on the Ponzi-scheme altar of robbing Peter to pay Paul [or now, possibly, Pauline]. Grow the game, baby.

And Paul in the rugby league heart of Q can't believe his good luck in being a $30M AFL trust fund baby.

Conflict of interest? No way, says the AFL. Hey, listen, we gotta hit our TV revenue KPIs for our bonuses. Oops, no, wait...

This is one of the more confusing / confused posts I've aver read on these here parts
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mar 17, 2009
21,629
17,293
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Having an actual or ostensible fiduciary obligation re the good of the game on the one hand, and seeking to maximize profits by bending over to cash cows such as TV media on the other, is what the lawyers call a conflict of interest.

The AFL is hopelessly conflicted. Tas is an example.

To the cynical and hypocritical bloviating AFL hucksters Tasmania is just collateral damage - a footy heartland sacrificed on the Ponzi-scheme altar of robbing Peter to pay Paul [or now, possibly, Pauline]. Grow the game, baby.

And Paul in the rugby league heart of Q can't believe his good luck in being a $30M AFL trust fund baby.

Conflict of interest? No way, says the AFL. Hey, listen, we gotta hit our TV revenue KPIs for our bonuses. Oops, no, wait...

'Bloviating' Word of the month. :)

And a good synonym for the AFL itself. ;)
 

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,255
AFL Club
Collingwood
It's one thing having comprehension difficulties, but I admire your bravery in displaying them in public for all to see.

Well, I'm open minded enough to accept it might be my comprehension difficulties.

Far more likely though you've mashed together a number of concepts and ideas without fully grasping any of them
 

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,255
AFL Club
Collingwood
You didn't really explain it well, it just came across as that you don't agree with what the AFL are doing. You didn't really show any conflict of interest.

I think he means that the AFL being responsible for both "the good of the game" and the commercial success of the professional game is a conflict of interest (presumably in a legal sense given the lawyers reference)
 
Last edited:
Nov 8, 2000
33,275
21,744
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
I think he means that the AFL being responsible for both "the good of the game" and the commercial success of the professional game is a conflict on interest (presumably in a legal sense given the lawyers reference)

So where's the conflict? It's not like they have an objective to make profits for any reason other than it can be pumped back into the game.
 

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,255
AFL Club
Collingwood
So where's the conflict? It's not like they have an objective to make profits for any reason other than it can be pumped back into the game.

That's right, I agree with you

i think it is fair to argue, at the margins, that the AFL gets the balance wrong some times

There are also credible (though very debatable) arguments to separate at either the executive or governance level the running (administration or governance) of the league and the game

Don't have much time however for rants that conflate Burnie pulling out of the Tasmanian state league with the AFL's distribution of revenues between the 18 AFL clubs.
 
Nov 8, 2000
33,275
21,744
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
That's right, I agree with you

i think it is fair to argue, at the margins, that the AFL gets the balance wrong some times

There are also credible (though very debatable) arguments to separate at either the executive or governance level the running (administration or governance) of the league and the game

For sure, but if you separate the only major revenue generating asset (i.e the league) from game development, then the only possible result will be less money for grass roots.
You can't complain about the AFL being in charge of everything and then suggest they should be putting more of the money generated by the league into what you want.
 

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,255
AFL Club
Collingwood
For sure, but if you separate the only major revenue generating asset (i.e the league) from game development, then the only possible result will be less money for grass roots.
You can't complain about the AFL being in charge of everything and then suggest they should be putting more of the money generated by the league into what you want.

Playing devils advocate here but I suspect it would involve (if a governance split) a prescribed proportion of game revenues going to game development

Again though, I agree with you. The idea that investment in the long term commercial health of the game is at the expense of the long term "good of the game" (presumably the community health) is almost certainly confused. The two are fundamentally interlinked.
 
Nov 8, 2000
33,275
21,744
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Playing devils advocate here but I suspect it would involve (if a governance split) a prescribed proportion of game revenues going to game development

Again though, I agree with you. The idea that investment in the long term commercial health of the game is at the expense of the long term "good of the game" (presumably the community health) is almost certainly confused. The two are fundamentally interlinked.

IMO if you don't have them linked up then both are put at risk at times of need. For instance, a revenue sharing deal is fine when the going is good, but if (say) the TV rights comes in 20% less than expected and the clubs need funds, the requirement to send X% off to another department puts the clubs at risk. As most of us are probably aware, nothing would be worse for grass roots footy than a bunch of clubs becoming extinct.

There are plenty of things the AFL does that I don't agree with, but the governance of the league is almost unquestionably one of it's key strengths. It's the envy of just about every other sporting code.
 

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,255
AFL Club
Collingwood
IMO if you don't have them linked up then both are put at risk at times of need. For instance, a revenue sharing deal is fine when the going is good, but if (say) the TV rights comes in 20% less than expected and the clubs need funds, the requirement to send X% off to another department puts the clubs at risk. As most of us are probably aware, nothing would be worse for grass roots footy than a bunch of clubs becoming extinct.

There are plenty of things the AFL does that I don't agree with, but the governance of the league is almost unquestionably one of it's key strengths. It's the envy of just about every other sporting code.

Again, I agree with you. The costs/risks of moving to an alternative model probably outweigh any potential benefits. I would think if you were to go down that path then an executive split (i.e same commission two different administrative bodies) might be the way to go as it retains the unified governance that could be flexible to shifts in circumstance...but all in all I am all for the retention of the current model
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back