All AFLW Games Streamed Live (advert) Only $5 in February.

[Chief]

You can watch every AFLW game streamed live on Kayo Sports.

And you can get Kayo in February for a fiver. That's $5 for Basic subs in February.

BigFooty gets a bung for every member we refer, so use our link when you sign up and support the galaxy's favourite independent footy web site!

$5 offer ends Feb 4th.

 

[Chief]

Also, you can still get the 14 day free trial:

http://bit.ly/BFKayoFree

Both of these offers are for new users only and you will roll over into the Basic plan ($25 per month) at the end unless you cancel before expiry.

 

[dylan93]

Surprised they're not showing them all live on FTA or on the website for free.

They're trying to get too big too quickly IMO. Should stick to free entry, FTA and 8 teams for a few more years before monetising and expanding.

Let the ladies hone their craft first.

 

[ponsdale]

Surprised they're not showing them all live on FTA or on the website for free.

All games are streaming free on the AFL Womens website.

https://womens.afl/match-centre/2019/62/melb-v-fre

 

[dylan93]

All games are streaming free on the AFL Womens website.

https://womens.afl/match-centre/2019/62/melb-v-fre

Awesome to hear! Just makes sense doesn't it? haha

 

[Cannon82]

Awesome to hear! Just makes sense doesn't it? haha

Not really. Generally something should be done if a competition is run at an exorbitant loss every year.

 

[Salc0]

Not really. Generally something should be done if a competition is run at an exorbitant loss every year.

Got a source for that one? Probably not, won't stop you though

 

[Cannon82]

Got a source for that one? Probably not, won't stop you though

Feel free to have a gander here, porky chops. Only club specifying how much they specifically spent on AFLW was us at $700k. Football department spending significantly jumped up at the Dees, Pies and Dogs from 16 to 17, which were the only reports I looked at because it's fairly obvious that this albatross wouldn't stand on its own feet if the infrastructure, sponsorship and administration wasn't provided free of charge by or tied in with the AFL and the clubs. When you're not asking for money for people to enter at the ground or for TV rights, bit hard for it to be a profitable venture, yes?

 

[Toump Ass]

AFL attendances have increased pretty dramatically since AFLw was introduced, and I'd wager the women's comp has been part of the reason. And fwiw a local footy coach told me recently that auskick registrations are sky-rocketing on the back of girls taking an interest over the last couple of years.

Hard to measure how much money AFLw is bringing in exactly but it appears to be growing the game, and if that's the case it's already a success.

 

[Cannon82]

AFL attendances have increased pretty dramatically since AFLw was introduced, and I'd wager the women's comp has been part of the reason. And fwiw a local footy coach told me recently that auskick registrations are sky-rocketing on the back of girls taking an interest over the last couple of years.

Hard to measure how much money AFLw is bringing in exactly but it appears to be growing the game, and if that's the case it's already a success.

Might be the case, might not. Average AFL attendances by year. More likely the jump in crowds in the last few years is attributable to teams with the largest supporter bases like Richmond, Collingwood, Essendon, West Coast, etc being stronger while teams with relatively small support or limited grounds like the Bulldogs, Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast, etc struggle. If Carlton suddenly came good in the next couple of years while GWS tailed off I'd expect the crowds to jump another 300 to 400,000.

Signing up for Auskick is all well and good, but that shouldn't be about revenue raising. You pay for facilities, administration, insurances and coaching for Junior sports - there might be a nominal figure going to the AFL, but it shouldn't be much at all. Milo cricket has huge participation numbers across the country for years but it hasn't translated to any huge attendances or improved standard in cricket. Just means the drop out attrition rate is higher as the kids age out.

As for AFLW growing the game, one of the problems with AFLW is that attendances drop off significantly when the AFL pre-season games start. If it's mostly the same people watching AFL and AFLW, then it's hardly growing the game.

 

[Toump Ass]

Might be the case, might not. Average AFL attendances by year. More likely the jump in crowds in the last few years is attributable to teams with the largest supporter bases like Richmond, Collingwood, Essendon, West Coast, etc being stronger while teams with relatively small support or limited grounds like the Bulldogs, Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast, etc struggle. If Carlton suddenly came good in the next couple of years while GWS tailed off I'd expect the crowds to jump another 300 to 400,000.

Signing up for Auskick is all well and good, but that shouldn't be about revenue raising. You pay for facilities, administration, insurances and coaching for Junior sports - there might be a nominal figure going to the AFL, but it shouldn't be much at all. Milo cricket has huge participation numbers across the country for years but it hasn't translated to any huge attendances or improved standard in cricket. Just means the drop out attrition rate is higher as the kids age out.

As for AFLW growing the game, one of the problems with AFLW is that attendances drop off significantly when the AFL pre-season games start. If it's mostly the same people watching AFL and AFLW, then it's hardly growing the game.

Definitely the success of Richmond & Collingwood etc. has lead to an increase in attendances, but from what I've seen from my own family & friends there's been a fair bit of interest generated by women's footy that's translated to AFL attendances.

It's a long-term project anyway, let's just hope the AFL don't * it all up with pointless rule changes and gimmicks.

 

[Salc0]

Feel free to have a gander here, porky chops. Only club specifying how much they specifically spent on AFLW was us at $700k. Football department spending significantly jumped up at the Dees, Pies and Dogs from 16 to 17, which were the only reports I looked at because it's fairly obvious that this albatross wouldn't stand on its own feet if the infrastructure, sponsorship and administration wasn't provided free of charge by or tied in with the AFL and the clubs. When you're not asking for money for people to enter at the ground or for TV rights, bit hard for it to be a profitable venture, yes?

Thanks for the link. But I can't help that feel you had the conclusion first before looking at the information. Sorry, but it is just your incessant nagging on the topic that suggests bias.

Having a look at the information you linked, the increase in costs for each team is listed below (note: brisbane and gold coast did not have an apparent 'football department' row and were calculated as estimated football related costs):



If broken down into averages for the clubs with aflw teams and those without:



So the specified amount of about $700,000 from Melbourne looks about right as the difference between clubs with aflw teams and those without aflw teams, or just above a 1% increase in football department costs. Oh no, the horror!

However, the above is only for costs, not any associated income. So even considering a very small amount of revenue from memberships, rights, merchandise, and most likely of all sponsorship, that cost would be a bit smaller. I couldn't see anything that differentiated the income from women's football, but given the exclusive rights fox has to all games (again with a subset going to channel 7) you would imagine there was some negotiations there with the afl.

I won't reiterate a lot of the points made in the general Melbourne aflw thread that have already been made to you regarding the impact of sponsorship and how teams aren't likely doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. But just raise the point again for you to refer to.

As an aside, the marketing department of each club costs at least $1,000,000 each year, sometimes much more, and brings in less tangible benefits than the aflw teams. I would assume that given your concern for the additional costs of aflw on clubs you have been on a crusade against the marketing departments of afl clubs for a while. I mean, if nothing else the aflw games being televised are advertising for afl as a game and the clubs themselves. Personally, I believe there are a lot of other additional benefits.

 

[Cannon82]

Thanks for the link. But I can't help that feel you had the conclusion first before looking at the information. Sorry, but it is just your incessant nagging on the topic that suggests bias.

Having a look at the information you linked, the increase in costs for each team is listed below (note: brisbane and gold coast did not have an apparent 'football department' row and were calculated as estimated football related costs):

View attachment 615339

If broken down into averages for the clubs with aflw teams and those without:

View attachment 615342

So the specified amount of about $700,000 from Melbourne looks about right as the difference between clubs with aflw teams and those without aflw teams, or just above a 1% increase in football department costs. Oh no, the horror!

However, the above is only for costs, not any associated income. So even considering a very small amount of revenue from memberships, rights, merchandise, and most likely of all sponsorship, that cost would be a bit smaller. I couldn't see anything that differentiated the income from women's football, but given the exclusive rights fox has to all games (again with a subset going to channel 7) you would imagine there was some negotiations there with the afl.

I won't reiterate a lot of the points made in the general Melbourne aflw thread that have already been made to you regarding the impact of sponsorship and how teams aren't likely doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. But just raise the point again for you to refer to.

As an aside, the marketing department of each club costs at least $1,000,000 each year, sometimes much more, and brings in less tangible benefits than the aflw teams. I would assume that given your concern for the additional costs of aflw on clubs you have been on a crusade against the marketing departments of afl clubs for a while. I mean, if nothing else the aflw games being televised are advertising for afl as a game and the clubs themselves. Personally, I believe there are a lot of other additional benefits.

You are quite right, I was naturally set in my conclusion that the AFLW is a waste of money because I think the competition is a joke of such woeful standard that I'm sure all AFLW teams would struggle to beat a local U12 park team. I didn't try particularly hard to look for any realistic figures on how much clubs and the AFL are blowing on this turkey because I didn't think they'd be there, and even if they were, they wouldn't include the raft of other costs. You on the other hand seem to want to call me out for it yet you're defending this lemon to the hilt with this concept that it's not losing that much money (on the surface), therefore this charitable enterprise is entirely justified. By that logic, go ask Gina Reinhardt for a $10k loan - see how that argument pans out for you.

Now, let's take your ever so delightful use of the marketing department as a wonderful example. At Melbourne in 2017, they cost the club a whopping $2M. Ridiculously expensive, clearly massively overpaid, and no way that they're worth that kind of money. But wait! Sponsorship and corporate hospitality raked in $9.4M for the year! s**t, as useless and overpaid as they most likely are, at least it seems like the Marketing Department paid for themselves several times over.

Now, let's take the AFLW team and assume that $700k is the limit of spending and ignore all the other freebies and absorbed costs they received along the way. The average attendance at Melbourne's VFLW game is just under 4,300, which might mean a little if they paid to get in to the ground, but they don't. I haven't found the TV viewing figures for it but there's a not so subtle hint in the games being shifted from channel 7 to 7Mate this season. People aren't watching... at least not when Duck Dynasty or Outback Truckers is on. The TV rights for the games are free, and will probably stay that way because there's not a lot of interest in anyone paying to watch something palpably rubbish. If no one is watching, your "free advertising" for the AFL argument carries about as much weight as the Gospel bible-thumping TV shows running through the wee hours being an effective and meaningful advertisement for religion.

Now let's be generous and say that 50% of the average 4,300 people attending the Melbourne AFLW games (supporters of both sides plus neutrals) are going to buy Melbourne memberships. AFLW memberships are $99 a pop, so that'd be almost $213k raised, even though that's a ludicrously optimistic figure. Let's also pretend that another 10% of those viewers are so excited they're going to go out and buy premium MFC memberships @ $220 a pop for another $95k revenue... even though that'd actually be people paying to watch the AFL team, not the AFLW team, because somehow people watching women play sport make some odd mental leap and decide to splurge on the whole AFL package. That's a very, very dubious point that folk here seem happy to accept.

Anyway, back to the sums, where we'll round that revenue up to $350k because why not, and be generous in saying the AFLW team loses only twice as much as they bring in. Fantastic business model that, relying on the charity and indulgence of others. If there's any financial success in this league its probably tax write-offs for gifts / donations and government subsidies / grants.

Average attendance 2017: 6,828 per game
Average attendance 2018: 6,445 per game
Average attendance 2019: 7,161 per game (after one round), but if you ignore the Geelong aberration being their first game with a novelty home crowd, the other four games had an average attendance of 4,344 per game. Seems like the non-existent gloss is wearing off this product. Making it a longer, weaker and more expensive competition next year will of course turn this ship around and set them sailing towards the high seas of viability.

 

[Toump Ass]

Having an AFLW team might not make a positive financial impact now, but who is to say it won't in the future?

The "standard" is improving, and participation numbers are up, and while that apparently means little to cricket standards or attendances, girls playing auskick now actually have a (sort of) professional competition they can aspire to join, whereas previously they didn't. What effect that has is anyone's guess.

 

[Cannon82]

Having an AFLW team might not make a positive financial impact now, but who is to say it won't in the future?

The "standard" is improving, and participation numbers are up, and while that apparently means little to cricket standards or attendances, girls playing auskick now actually have a (sort of) professional competition they can aspire to join, whereas previously they didn't. What effect that has is anyone's guess.

Me. Tis a lemon.

Don't know whether the standard is improving or not, but it's not really relevant given that people who watch AFLW don't care about the standard of play or they wouldn't tune in. Cricket is a good example of grass roots popularity that only leads to higher drop out rates as kids age up - maybe AFL and AFLW will have more luck due to not taking up an entire day. Maybe.

 

[Toump Ass]

Yeah I personally think the standard is relevant because the better it gets, the more people will watch it and the more revenue it will generate.

The reason cricket drops of as kids age is because once their brains develop they realise it's a garbage sport and literally everyone who plays is a complete deadshit

 

[Cannon82]

Yeah I personally think the standard is relevant because the better it gets, the more people will watch it and the more revenue it will generate.

The reason cricket drops of as kids age is because once their brains develop they realise it's a garbage sport and literally everyone who plays is a complete deadshit

Nah. Semper eadem. This will be craptastic compared to other sporting alternatives in perpetuity.

Surely women's cricket is a breath of fresh air and a potential goldmine for investors?