Equalisation - the facts and the premiership merry-go-round

[Kwality]

Good post by the original poster. However ...

Maybe the problem is there are too many teams now?.....

The Hawthorn/Tasmania thing is really diabolically bad. They shouldn't be playing any games in Tasmania.

Tassie sponsor the Hawks, why shouldn't they play there - you want more games back in Melbourne, there is an oversupply NOW & you want more ... ... more half empty games in Melbourne? More whinges about blockbusters, time slots, FTA coverage ...

Too many teams OR too many teams in Melbourne - where were you when the AFL tried to get North to move?

As for compensation remember Mars only sponsored the Blues after a Tassie club was given the sars:
http://www.worldofwookie.com/aflbusiness/?page_id=549
The 2008 Bid

With the announcement of teams for Gold Coast and Western Sydney, Tasmania again launched a bid for the AFL with the full backing of the Tasmanian Government. The Tasmanian Bid had reportedly secured 20,000 potential members and a $4 million major sponsorship from Mars before Gold COast and Western Sydney had even got off the ground. Andrew Demetriou, AFL CEO, is reported to have told the Tasmanian premier “not now, not ever”,


I understand you feel the Blues are being held back, but I'd suggest your club has never adjusted to the national comp, stuck with policies that worked in old days - the AFL didn't over rate the Blues list, fire Ratten & hire Malthouse or recruit Daisy.

I'm a big supporter of a team in Tas, one only, a Melbourne club stripped of its licence & its list relocated with Tas management. If the Suns & GWS have taught our game, it is kids can rarely compete with men & now Essendon are proving there is little talent outside AFL lists (yet we still have people wanting more teams).

Fix your own house Harmesy, stop blaming others.

 

[telsor]

Tassie sponsor the Hawks, why shouldn't they play there - you want more games back in Melbourne, there is an oversupply NOW & you want more ... ... more half empty games in Melbourne? More whinges about blockbusters, time slots, FTA coverage ...

Too many teams OR too many teams in Melbourne - where were you when the AFL tried to get North to move?

Well, if half empty games is the only problem, then why not play in smaller stadia...and play the smallest games in the smallest grounds. Problem solved.

Instead we have the away clubs dictating that we have to play in bigger grounds, and the AFL forcing us to play in certain places for their benefit.

It seems you believe that A Tas team playing in a ground with a max capacity of 20K is fine, but a Vic team paying in front of a bigger crowd is cause for the club to be closed down just because the stadium can take more...

Tell me, what % empty does the stadium need to be for the doors to be closed?

Richmond only averaged about 52% capacity at their home games last year...Should they be shut down?

 

[Kwality]

Well, if half empty games is the only problem, then why not play in smaller stadia...and play the smallest games in the smallest grounds. Problem solved.

Instead we have the away clubs dictating that we have to play in bigger grounds, and the AFL forcing us to play in certain places for their benefit.

It seems you believe that A Tas team playing in a ground with a max capacity of 20K is fine, but a Vic team paying in front of a bigger crowd is cause for the club to be closed down just because the stadium can take more...

Tell me, what % empty does the stadium need to be for the doors to be closed?

Richmond only averaged about 52% capacity at their home games last year...Should they be shut down?

A team playing in a venue is a tad different to 9 teams sharing 2 venues, compre? A crowd offered 15+ opportunities to watch their side versus another crowd offered 11 chances to see their team play - you love your %s (a form of paralysis from analysis), draw your own conclusions. We are stuck with stadiums we have, so capacity is a reality not some theoretical number you first think of.

Its good to see you are trying to find a way around supply & demand for all markets & the levers that drive oversupply & excess in demand. Its real & each market is different.

Will you ever admit to understanding its a national comp or are you rooted so firmly in yesteryear (decade?) you cant see whats good for our game going forward, just whats best for suburban Melbourne? (Richmond 52% ... ...)

 

[telsor]

A team playing in a venue is a tad different to 9 teams sharing 2 venues, compre? A crowd offered 15+ opportunities to watch their side versus another crowd offered 11 chances to see their team play - you love your %s (a form of paralysis from analysis), draw your own conclusions.

Yeah, ~5 fewer derbies...sure to boost the crowds...I assume you'll still be insisting on non-Vic clubs all getting their games at the MCG though...

Will you ever admit to understanding its a national comp or are you rooted so firmly in yesteryear (decade?) you cant see whats good for our game going forward, just whats best for suburban Melbourne? (Richmond 52% ... ...)

Richmond's 52% was the highest average attendance of any team in the comp....Others might have had grounds 'more full', but an average of just under 50K (even though it's 'only' ~52%) is still pretty good.

Oh, and the worst 'average' for a Vic clubs home games is still clearly higher than the capacity at either Tas ground....If you take WBs 11 games and move them to Tas (as a new team presumably) and ever Tas game is at absolute capacity, then over 30,000 fewer people will have been to the football. How is that 'good for the game'? (BTW, would be more than 30K, but one game was in Cairns)

I do find it curious that someone who is all about the talent pool is OK with losing tens of thousands of fans, and having their sons and daughters move off to other sports. But their only Victorians, so they can be sacrificed for the 'national game'

 

[telsor]

Just a further bit of checking...

Richmond at the MCG Avg 50,800, or ~51%
Richmond at Docklands avg 40,681 or ~80% (one game)

I'd rather the extra 10,000 people rather than being 30% closer to 'full'.

Kwality, given you think 'half full' is bad, can you explain why I'm wrong in that preference?

 

[Kwality]

Just a further bit of checking...

Richmond at the MCG Avg 50,800, or ~51%
Richmond at Docklands avg 40,681 or ~80% (one game)

I'd rather the extra 10,000 people rather than being 30% closer to 'full'.

Kwality, given you think 'half full' is bad, can you explain why I'm wrong in that preference?

You sure you understand what a % is telling you? Are Tigers fans accessing away games? We all know many Vic clubs & fans battle to understand how the home & away market has changed since the national comp came to downtown Melbourne, a club needs to be able to pull a crowd on its own. You clearly haven't factored it in ... not relevant?

Financially, is 90+% better or 52% - supply & demand is reality, & the scoreboard is dollars. Throw in the marketing: 52% & discount or 90+% & the opportunity to charge a premium - think Geelong & don't get hung up ...

 

[telsor]

You sure you understand what a % is telling you? Are Tigers fans accessing away games? We all know many Vic clubs & fans battle to understand how the home & away market has changed since the national comp came to downtown Melbourne, a club needs to be able to pull a crowd on its own. You clearly haven't factored it in ... not relevant?

Financially, is 90+% better or 52% - supply & demand is reality, & the scoreboard is dollars. Throw in the marketing: 52% & discount or 90+% & the opportunity to charge a premium - think Geelong & don't get hung up ...

So the solution you want isn't fewer clubs, it's smaller grounds and/or better ground deals.

If Richmond sold out every game, we still couldn't charge WA prices, because we have to both have a large number of seats available as GA and are competing with the AFL for members.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

What is 'fair' then?

Equal is everyone having the same fixture.

Fair is everyone being subject to the same rules when the fixture is created - so no bias or favouritism can impact because everyone knows the rules and is bound by them.

 

[Scotland]

Equal is everyone having the same fixture.

Fair is everyone being subject to the same rules when the fixture is created - so no bias or favouritism can impact because everyone knows the rules and is bound by them.

There are two Western Derbies each year.

Is that fair? Is that unfair? Is a randomly allocated 'you play every team once then 5 teams again' draw fairer?

The draw is a farce but every person I've seen arguing to make it 'fair' has just ended up arguing to make it better for their team.

 

[Kwality]

So the solution you want isn't fewer clubs, it's smaller grounds and/or better ground deals.

If Richmond sold out every game, we still couldn't charge WA prices, because we have to both have a large number of seats available as GA and are competing with the AFL for members.

Why is it a solution? Supply & demand is a reality for any product as is price.

Its good of you to try & address how that effects your footy club in the Melbourne market, perhaps you might factor in away games played in that marketplace.

Think Geelong, its just down the road from Melbourne.

 

[Kwality]

Equal is everyone having the same fixture.

Fair is everyone being subject to the same rules when the fixture is created - so no bias or favouritism can impact because everyone knows the rules and is bound by them.

Less money year on year ?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

There are two Western Derbies each year.

Is that fair? Is that unfair? Is a randomly allocated 'you play every team once then 5 teams again' draw fairer?

The draw is a farce but every person I've seen arguing to make it 'fair' has just ended up arguing to make it better for their team.

Random allocation is fair.

Rolling draw is fair.

Draw based on prior years ladder (with no room for manipulation) is fair.

What we have now with some times playing return games every year and others never hosting certain teams is not fair.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Less money year on year ?

Won't happen, especially if the people running the AFL are at least somewhat competent.

 

[telsor]

Why is it a solution? Supply & demand is a reality for any product as is price.

Comptition is also a factor in the price....Vic clubs compete with the AFL & MCC, so CANNOT raise prices significantly, we also have limits to how many seats we can sell (Richmond has tried, and sometimes failed, to secure more reserved seats because the MCC prefers to sell them directly and get a cut).

I also question the merit in locking generations out from ever seeing games live just so the club(s) can screw a lot more money out of those fans lucky enough to get tickets (AKA the WA model). Personally, I think it's better for the game if kids can see high level games.

Its good of you to try & address how that effects your footy club in the Melbourne market, perhaps you might factor in away games played in that marketplace.

Factor in away games how?

For example we'd like to factor in away games in where we play (given that we HAVE TO play home games at other grounds), but the AFL forces clubs to play non Vic clubs at the biggest ground in the country anyway while playing higher drawing matches at docklands.

Or are you talking about the effect on crowds on playing other Vic clubs? Something you want to REDUCE by having fewer such clubs (as well as reducing the total number of fans going to games).

Think Geelong, its just down the road from Melbourne.

The ground capacity of which will be all of 36K.

Again, it's the seats at the grounds, not the number of clubs that is the 'supply' side of the problem. (and their stadium deal has nothing to do with filling the ground).

Even if the number of clubs was the problem, then killing off clubs wont magically cause their supporters to move over to other clubs. Many would be lost to the game entirely, and a lot of those who are left would have significantly diminished interest (AKA. not go to as many games).

 

[Scotland]

Random allocation is fair.

Rolling draw is fair.

Draw based on prior years ladder (with no room for manipulation) is fair.

What we have now with some times playing return games every year and others never hosting certain teams is not fair.

I'm all for a random or rolling draw but I don't expect it to dry all that many tears or be a panacea for teams who think the fixture is against them.

 

[Kwality]

Comptition is also a factor in the price....Vic clubs compete with the AFL & MCC, so CANNOT raise prices significantly, we also have limits to how many seats we can sell (Richmond has tried, and sometimes failed, to secure more reserved seats because the MCC prefers to sell them directly and get a cut).

I also question the merit in locking generations out from ever seeing games live just so the club(s) can screw a lot more money out of those fans lucky enough to get tickets (AKA the WA model). Personally, I think it's better for the game if kids can see high level games.



Factor in away games how?

For example we'd like to factor in away games in where we play (given that we HAVE TO play home games at other grounds), but the AFL forces clubs to play non Vic clubs at the biggest ground in the country anyway while playing higher drawing matches at docklands.

Or are you talking about the effect on crowds on playing other Vic clubs? Something you want to REDUCE by having fewer such clubs (as well as reducing the total number of fans going to games).




The ground capacity of which will be all of 36K.

Again, it's the seats at the grounds, not the number of clubs that is the 'supply' side of the problem. (and their stadium deal has nothing to do with filling the ground).

Even if the number of clubs was the problem, then killing off clubs wont magically cause their supporters to move over to other clubs. Many would be lost to the game entirely, and a lot of those who are left would have significantly diminished interest (AKA. not go to as many games).

There are a couple of markets in the AFL - yes/no. The development states would be one (1), SA, WA & Melbourne have quite different dynamics, as has Geelong. & Tassie.
WA fans are limited to 11 or 12 games per year without interstate travel.
Richmond have x home games & y away games at either the MCG or Etihad, very accessible, don't remember a ticketed game involving the Tiges, excluding finals if indeed you want a meaningful comparison.
Good example of supply & demand, its where our game is, where the clubs are. Of course you could extrapolate a meaningless % comparing the Eagles & the Tiges, its just the raw numbers that do the talking.

Yep, stadium size in a market is a factor, so are the number of teams in that market. Some markets need ongoing subsidies aka equalisation, development areas are self explanatory, mature heartland markets that are oversupplied with games (Melbourne) that don't put enough bums on seats & mature heartland markets that are have an excess of demand undersupplied with games.

You only have to look at where Geelong are going to overcome your phobia of anywhere without a 3 postcode.

 

[telsor]

There are a couple of markets in the AFL - yes/no. The development states would be one (1), SA, WA & Melbourne have quite different dynamics, as has Geelong. & Tassie.

Yes, states are different...

WA fans are limited to 11 or 12 games per year without interstate travel.
Richmond have x home games & y away games at either the MCG or Etihad, very accessible, don't remember a ticketed game involving the Tiges, excluding finals if indeed you want a meaningful comparison.

Yes, Richmond gets ~16 games in Melbourne...So what? If you average Richmond's home crowds over all 16 games, we still got more (per game) than WCE did. Surely the extra away games in the home market add to the demand (and isn't that what you claim to want?).

Good example of supply & demand, its where our game is, where the clubs are. Of course you could extrapolate a meaningless % comparing the Eagles & the Tiges, its just the raw numbers that do the talking.

I'll note that you're the one who started with comments 'half full stadiums'...you only decided it was meaningless when I furnished you with the facts and you discovered they didn't suit your argument. (most would change their argument, but you seem to think declaring the facts no longer relevant works...)

But hey, raw numbers work too...
WCE average crowds are ~36K, Richmond's are about 50K

Yep, stadium size in a market is a factor, so are the number of teams in that market. Some markets need ongoing subsidies aka equalisation, development areas are self explanatory, mature heartland markets that are oversupplied with games (Melbourne) that don't put enough bums on seats & mature heartland markets that are have an excess of demand undersupplied with games.

Some markets need to compete with the AFL season tickets while at the same time buying the league a stadium...
The subsidies paid to Vic clubs are a small fraction of what the AFL takes from them.

You only have to look at where Geelong are going to overcome your phobia of anywhere without a 3 postcode.

Strange phobia...I want more of what I'm supposedly scared of? Remember, I want MORE WA/SA/Tas teams! As opposed to your 'I'll agree with almost anything so long as it means Vic clubs die' approach...Who has the phobia?

Anyway, what do you want me to see about Geelong? That managing your own, smaller, ground can be financially rewarding?
That's never been a question, but it's completely irrelevant because Vic clubs are forced to play where the AFL tells us to, for the benefit of the AFL.

Supply and demand don't matter all that much when you're dealing with largely fixed costs, a limited ability to raise prices and no flexibility to change either of those.


Tell you what, when the new Perth stadium is built, why not hand over ~15K premium seats to the AFL for it's own member reserve, for which they'll charge less than you do for similar seats, and throw in access to both teams games and finals...Then tell me about how the market works.

 

[Kwality]

Yes, states are different...

Some markets need to compete with the AFL season tickets while at the same time buying the league a stadium...

Anyway, what do you want me to see about Geelong? That managing your own, smaller, ground can be financially rewarding?
That's never been a question, but it's completely irrelevant because Vic clubs are forced to play where the AFL tells us to, for the benefit of the AFL.

Supply and demand don't matter all that much when you're dealing with largely fixed costs, a limited ability to raise prices and no flexibility to change either of those.


Tell you what, when the new Perth stadium is built, why not hand over ~15K premium seats to the AFL for it's own member reserve, for which they'll charge less than you do for similar seats, and throw in access to both teams games and finals...Then tell me about how the market works.

You are in denial, you do understand what supply & demand is telling us, SO you want WA to have market conditions that exist in Melbourne ?? Ah, the muddle headed wombat !!

Supply and demand don't matter all that much when you're dealing with largely fixed costs, a limited ability to raise prices and no flexibility to change either of those.

In the context of equalisation, both clubs in WA are contributors, in Melbourne some clubs give, some take .... telsor, you've outlined the problem ...

& you want more teams (? correct ?) after what the Gold Coast experience has demonstrated, then the GWS experience & now we have the Bombers 2016 loaded with the talent you want playing AFL footy - perhaps you think the Tiges might regain their former glory by lowering the standard, a little more genius from the muddle headed wombat. More teams to lower the standard, we've got more than can break even now, & you want more of a standard lower than the worst performers we've got, so long as they aren't in Melbourne ?

 

[madmug]

You are in denial, you do understand what supply & demand is telling us, SO you want WA to have market conditions that exist in Melbourne ?? Ah, the muddle headed wombat !!

Supply and demand don't matter all that much when you're dealing with largely fixed costs, a limited ability to raise prices and no flexibility to change either of those.

In the context of equalisation, both clubs in WA are contributors, in Melbourne some clubs give, some take .... telsor, you've outlined the problem ...

& you want more teams (? correct ?) after what the Gold Coast experience has demonstrated, then the GWS experience & now we have the Bombers 2016 loaded with the talent you want playing AFL footy - perhaps you think the Tiges might regain their former glory by lowering the standard, a little more genius from the muddle headed wombat. More teams to lower the standard, we've got more than can break even now, & you want more of a standard lower than the worst performers we've got, so long as they aren't in Melbourne ?

Now you can see that he is only concerned with the health of the clubs withing a short radius of the Melbourne GPO.

Its bloody obvious to anyone with 1/2 a brain, or any 1/2 sensible Wombat, that the Melbourne market is oversupplied with clubs. Shifting some to flyin flyout status is fine in the short term as a means to promote the game, but is pretty poor in the long term as the recipient community pays for the entertainment & the local game gets SFA for it & fails to develop. The FIFO carpet baggers are only interested in the money.

 

[telsor]

You are in denial, you do understand what supply & demand is telling us, SO you want WA to have market conditions that exist in Melbourne ?? Ah, the muddle headed wombat !!

No, I want a mix.

I want Vic clubs to not have to compete against the AFL/MCC and to get a similar stadium deal.
I want WA fans to be able to actually see a live game.

Supply and demand don't matter all that much when you're dealing with largely fixed costs, a limited ability to raise prices and no flexibility to change either of those.

In the context of equalisation, both clubs in WA are contributors, in Melbourne some clubs give, some take .... telsor, you've outlined the problem ...

Contributors...To what? They make money and give it to WAFC...They don't give all that much to the AFL.
Meanwhile Vic clubs lose members (revenue) to the AFL while they buy them a stadium.

Equalisation 'taxes' are small change. Even the small Vic clubs contribute there too (remember the $2 per head tax on general admission...Something WA clubs would pay bugger all on because they don't really have GA).

You keep talking about the national comp, but the WA clubs are provide bugger all to that. You say you want NSW/QLD/Tas teams, but whinge whenever a cent leaves WA, leaving the only one who pay are Victorians (currently SA barely breaks even after all)....Yet you claim we're the ones against it.

What if, just for a change, the financially strong 'contributors' from WA actually paid their share of the tens of millions that go into the northern states rather than talking crap about those who do? Instead they're taking money from the AFL (~$2M paid by the AFL to WAFC last year wasn't it? do WA's 'equalisation taxes' even add up to that, or is this just another example of WA football leeching off Vic?)

& you want more teams (? correct ?) after what the Gold Coast experience has demonstrated, then the GWS experience & now we have the Bombers 2016 loaded with the talent you want playing AFL footy - perhaps you think the Tiges might regain their former glory by lowering the standard, a little more genius from the muddle headed wombat. More teams to lower the standard, we've got more than can break even now, & you want more of a standard lower than the worst performers we've got, so long as they aren't in Melbourne ?

Actually, my vision involves maintaining the talent standard...adding teams roughly in line with the expansion of the talent pool (that is why Victorians are being taxes to invest in NSW & QLD after all), but yes, in order to get teams into places like Tasmania which are, as things stand, too small to support a team, some reduction in the financial standards will be required.


BTW...Twice you called me a 'muddle headed wombat'...You do realise that when you resort to name calling, it's a clear sign that you know your argument is weak, right?

 

[telsor]

Now you can see that he is only concerned with the health of the clubs withing a short radius of the Melbourne GPO.

Its bloody obvious to anyone with 1/2 a brain, or any 1/2 sensible Wombat, that the Melbourne market is oversupplied with clubs. Shifting some to flyin flyout status is fine in the short term as a means to promote the game, but is pretty poor in the long term as the recipient community pays for the entertainment & the local game gets SFA for it & fails to develop. The FIFO carpet baggers are only interested in the money.

10 clubs for 5.7M people = 'oversupply'
Not having 1 club for 500K = 'undersupply'

Sound logic there.


As for the 'FIFO carpet baggers'...Do you think Cairns and Darwin shouldn't get games?


BTW. Tas Government seems to think they make money from the games they buy...Odd how you consider that to be meaningless, yet cling to a report commisioned by those same people saying they could support a team as holy writ.

 

[Kwality]

10 clubs for 5.7M people = 'oversupply'
Not having 1 club for 500K = 'undersupply'

Sound logic there.


As for the 'FIFO carpet baggers'...Do you think Cairns and Darwin shouldn't get games?


BTW. Tas Government seems to think they make money from the games they buy...Odd how you consider that to be meaningless, yet cling to a report commisioned by those same people saying they could support a team as holy writ.

You suggest its population that's relevant to supply & demand, I know you are aware that's a very minor part of the equation ... another example of a muddle headed footy fan, not wombat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Muddle-Headed_Wombat - apologies for you taking offence).

 

[Kwality]

Even if the number of clubs was the problem, then killing off clubs wont magically cause their supporters to move over to other clubs. Many would be lost to the game entirely, and a lot of those who are left would have significantly diminished interest (AKA. not go to as many games).

Not a problem dropping a club into Perth though ??

 

[telsor]

You suggest its population that's relevant to supply & demand, I know you are aware that's a very minor part of the equation

Oh please, explain the rest of the equation to me...Every time I've used elements I consider relevant, you seem to disagree....

For example, what is demand if it's not population or attendance?

... another example of a muddle headed footy fan, not wombat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Muddle-Headed_Wombat - apologies for you taking offence).

It takes a lot more than that to offend me, but that doesn't mean it doesn't show a lot about your argumentative style, and lack of faith in the facts and logic behind your views that you keep reverting to playing the man.

 

[telsor]

Not a problem dropping a club into Perth though ??

I wouldn't say there would be no problems, but to use your own argument...supply and demand...Where there is a clear excess in demand (people unable to get in to watch games), some will move over to a new source of supply.