Prediction Do you believe the AFL will ever be the same again? [Round 2]

[Senor M]

(Yes, I know Richmond get bigger crowds than North)

To be fair 15 of the other 17 AFL Clubs got bigger Home crowds than North in 2019.

 

[HTT]

Ahhh, the Richmond supporter belief that big crowds are the ne plus ultra.

(Yes, I know Richmond get bigger crowds than North)

Wut
Crowds are a source of revenue are they not? I’m not sure what my club has to do with that.

 

[SportsCentre]

When the AFL returns, no doubt the viewership will be solid, I don't think it will be a given that huge crowd numbers will spontaneously return though.
Much of the general public are hurting financially, job losses, incomes slashed etc, it may take a while for Mr and Mrs Family of 5 to return to spending their limited funds on attending AFL games religiously.

 

[The Warlord]

If you are correct what shape will the AFL be, just more limits on spending e.g playing for half the salary cap, one administration of all clubs, where will it be if the reduced pie is divided 18 ways?

If I knew that I wouldn't posting here, I'd be at AFL House.

Said before though that the AFL (not the VFL, but the AFL) has had two key strategic outlooks, sometimes one more dominant than the other, sometimes both running at the same time:

* Rationalisation
*Expansion

I suspect the next five years will see the AFL in a very strategic space of "protect and nurture".

They can't afford to rationalise, they need as much product to sell as possible to squeeze the last remaining dollars out of TV rights. So the idea that clubs will be cut is for - quite frankly - simpletons.

The kind of simpleton who believes that a national budget is the same as a household budget. A person of low to non-existent critical ability.

But nor can they afford more debt fuelled expansion. The days of chucking money hand over fist into Queensland and Western Sydney are over.

Those expansion clubs will be nurtured and the smaller Melbourne clubs protected.

I suspect the AFL's strategic aim from all this will be to gain CONTROL (and refer back to that link from the Demetriou intv, it is all about control) of some clubs.

St Kilda and Melbourne the most likely in my view due to their debt/pokie/lack of success issues.

 

[The Warlord]

Wut
Crowds are a source of revenue are they not? I’m not sure what my club has to do with that.

They are but you posted that once crowds return all will be fine.

Crowds are a source of revenue yes, but not what you think.

There's also the issue that crowds may not return for a long while, as in 2021 may not have crowds either if the second wave hits, or that even when they do, people may be reluctant to squash themselves alongside 80,000 other folks just for something they've grown accustomed to watching on TV.

 

[The Warlord]

When the AFL returns, no doubt the viewership will be solid, I don't think it will be a given that huge crowd numbers will spontaneously return though.
Much of the general public are hurting financially, job losses, incomes slashed etc, it may take a while for Mr and Mrs Family of 5 to return to spending their limited funds on attending AFL games religiously.

Completely agree. And also, the safety aspect - people will be more reluctant to go. And the cultural aspect - people may fall out of the habit of going.

 

[Run n Spread]

There's soooooo much wrong this that I'm actually not sure where to start.

But the idea of a 30-40k Melbourne stadium is good.

I did say it was left field. I'm more thinking what is the advantage of a massively expensive stadium that only generates 17k extra capacity. (If you took my idea)If the AFL goes down it goes to NAB anyway. May as well get in first.
A case could be made it was a bad decision to build in the first place

 

[Run n Spread]

Completely agree. And also, the safety aspect - people will be more reluctant to go. And the cultural aspect - people may fall out of the habit of going.

Disagree flock back. In fact with 93 active cases in Vic and 2 new I'm sticking with my prediction in the other thread. June 4 return no need for hubs crowds after winter flu season
Disclaimer club in the s**t is GWS. They have struggled crowd wise and we're building nice momentum only last year. Which has stopped.Gold Coast is interesting.With people returning and new beginnings they can forget their failed last few years and really promote and market hard. They we're building a nice niche 13-14.Need to start winning thou which looks ages away tbh

 

[The Warlord]

I did say it was left field. I'm more thinking what is the advantage of a massively expensive stadium that only generates 17k extra capacity. (If you took my idea)If the AFL goes down it goes to NAB anyway. May as well get in first.
A case could be made it was a bad decision to build in the first place

17k means very little. Collingwood supporters and Richmond supporters and their touching belief that because they get big crowds, big crowds are everything.

But even if the AFL did sell it - to who, to do what? Build apartments? There's a massive glut already and one that's getting worse every day.

 

[Kwality]

So the idea that clubs will be cut is for - quite frankly - simpletons.

If any part of the package brings in less than it costs, cutting it will be considered.

The value of the product (AFL footy) to the media in a depressed advertising market will dictate how many clubs survive.

The numbers crunched within the limits of the NAB/ANZ covenant will STOP the AFL avoiding the hard decisions imho, & there are a number of timelines on that e.g the clubs running up interest on loans from Nov 1.

Interesting days ahead, ..... I dont take anything from the suggestion 18 clubs will survive.

 

[The Warlord]

If any part of the package brings in less than it costs, cutting it will be considered.

The value of the product (AFL footy) to the media in a depressed advertising market will dictate how many clubs survive.

The numbers crunched within the limits of the NAB/ANZ covenant will STOP the AFL avoiding the hard decisions imho, & there are a number of timelines on that e.g the clubs running up interest on loans from Nov 1.

Interesting days ahead, ..... I dont take anything from the suggestion 18 clubs will survive.

Ahh my friend, but the AFL could land a $3bn cash windfall and you'd say "Well, best way to use this is to cut some Victorian clubs and distribute it to the clubs that can maximise it blah blah blah)

When you're a WA hammer, everything looks like a Small Vic club nail.

I have no idea how the economic side will play out in the medium term, but for the next five years min there'll be no talk of clubs going anywhere.

That's very different from a club failing btw.

As I said above, I can very much see the AFL in the position where it TAKES OVER a club, most likely St Kilda.

 

[Kwality]

I did say it was left field. I'm more thinking what is the advantage of a massively expensive stadium that only generates 17k extra capacity. (If you took my idea)If the AFL goes down it goes to NAB anyway. May as well get in first.
A case could be made it was a bad decision to build in the first place

Dont you simply lock off the top deck ( any area really) at Docklands?
Building a new facility, cant see it.

 

[Kwality]

Ahh my friend, but the AFL could land a $3bn cash windfall and you'd say "Well, best way to use this is to cut some Victorian clubs and distribute it to the clubs that can maximise it blah blah blah)

When you're a WA hammer, everything looks like a Small Vic club nail.

I have no idea how the economic side will play out in the medium term, but for the next five years min there'll be no talk of clubs going anywhere.

That's very different from a club failing btw.

As I said above, I can very much see the AFL in the position where it TAKES OVER a club, most likely St Kilda.

You've got me wrong, sure I dont add it to the same result as you but I'm for the discussion, e.g double headers at either the G or Docklands. Unless changes are made, the $600 mil line of credit will be needed, and then .....

There is no question that there will be options over Docklands when the dust settles.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the AFL takes over a club, similar to an administrator at Virgin, a Commissioner at a failed Council (lots of those here in Vic) ... does it play in AFL or VFL? Is that costed into the $600 mil numbers, cant see a lender buying that.
Saw Subi drop back to the 2nd tier, its not easy to cop, but most of us want to see the game at the highest.

 

[The Warlord]

You've got me wrong, sure I dont add it to the same result as you but I'm for the discussion, e.g double headers at either the G or Docklands. Unless changes are made, the $600 mil line of credit will be needed, and then .....

There is no question that there will be options over Docklands when the dust settles.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the AFL takes over a club, similar to an administrator at Virgin, a Commissioner at a failed Council (lots of those here in Vic) ... does it play in AFL or VFL? Is that costed into the $600 mil numbers, cant see a lender buying that.
Saw Subi drop back to the 2nd tier, its not easy to cop, but most of us want to see the game at the highest.

I'm saying a club, most likely St Kilda, becomes insolvent. Or is at the point where it is insolvent without yet more AFL funding over and above what it got pre pandemic and gets during the pandemic.

They won't be allowed to fold and drop off and there be only 17 teams.

But the AFL would take it over. Pay guarantee its debts. Put its people in place. That would be supported by the Commission and the clubs imo.

It would be a 100 per cent AFL owned entity

 

[The Warlord]

Will there be 18 teams playing games in the same place with the same name for the forseeable future?

Yes.

There'll be no Hobart Kangaroos etc.

Will the structure/control/financial control of those clubs be the same?

Quite possibly not.

 

[Kwality]

I'm saying a club, most likely St Kilda, becomes insolvent. Or is at the point where it is insolvent without yet more AFL funding over and above what it got pre pandemic and gets during the pandemic.

They won't be allowed to fold and drop off and there be only 17 teams.

But the AFL would take it over. Pay guarantee its debts. Put its people in place.

It would be a 100 per cent AFL owned entity

The insolvency is the end game imho, & at this point the Saints will be test case later this year as I read it.
Adding to the intrigue are the Bassat boys, Paul is on the AFL Commission, Andrew is/was chairman at the Saints.
If it cant cover its costs it wont be playing AFL footy, courtesy Covid 19.

 

[The Warlord]

The insolvency is the end game imho, & at this point the Saints will be test case later this year as I read it.
Adding to the intrigue are the Bassat boys, Paul is on the AFL Commission, Andrew is/was chairman at the Saints.
If it cant cover its costs it wont be playing AFL footy, courtesy Covid 19.

Depends on how you define can't cover its costs. But essentially yes.

I reckon one club out its own asking for extra help over and above the crisis terms already agreed by the AFL, especially a small Vic club, could get a very interesting reaction from the others.

 

[Rich01]

Will there be 18 teams playing games in the same place with the same name for the forseeable future?

Yes.

Depends how you define foreseeable future I spose.

Now is the best time to reset the competition if it ensures that it’s financially viable in the short, medium and long term.

Revenues going to be impacted significantly in the short and medium term, so the AFL are going to have to make some hard decisions on whether clubs that are generating a loss for them should be supported. Less money going round isn’t going to help the situation of 18 clubs unfortunately and some at AFL HQ may see this as an opportunity to solve more than just financial problems the league faces. It will be a decision they need to come to, not us the fans.

But there is no doubt that it will become an emotional topic for some.

 

[Run n Spread]

17k means very little. Collingwood supporters and Richmond supporters and their touching belief that because they get big crowds, big crowds are everything.

But even if the AFL did sell it - to who, to do what? Build apartments? There's a massive glut already and one that's getting worse every day.

Nothing to do with the club I support. Was arguing the opposite say dogs getting 25k full house is worth more to them than 45k at Etihad.
Anyway my argument was all about doomsday. The AFL would love crowds back asap but are hamstrung by social distancing.
This will be very interesting to watch. I think deep down the Vic gov knows by June it will be safe. And let's face it will have the AFL and every other lobbiest in their face to get crowds into businesses ASAP. Yet are backed into a corner by world events and their rhetoric and actions. So imo will relax things enough to keep the heavy hitters happy but us plebs at bay.
The gov need to take advice from the AFL who are experts at stage managing their way out of pr disasters of their own creation

 

[telsor]

Things change.


The lack of a 'Jack Watts' option clearly demonstrates that.

 

[The Warlord]

Things change.


The lack of a 'Jack Watts' option clearly demonstrates that.

A new era is upon us.

 

[Kwality]

The gov need to take advice from the AFL who are experts at stage managing their way out of pr disasters of their own creation

......marvellous turn of phrase !!
100%.

 

[telsor]

A new era is upon us.

It's sad how traditions get ignored.

 

[Billy ray]

It's sad how traditions get ignored.

Tradition is just peer pressure from dead people

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Interesting poll results so far, nobody yet going with the 'maybe, unsure' option.

Whereas in the first version of this poll a month ago, it was a relatively popular option.