Footy show

[GOBBY1]

Did you all see the footy show about the AFL and punishments for clubs if they dont follow the TV rights
What a joke.
Still there was no mention of what the fans think or want.
Its time we had a supporters group to issue our complaints to the AFL
Its time all supporters stand up and be counted.
We all need to boycott a round of footy and show the AFL that we are all united and that we are important to the game.
They must start listening before the game is ruined
Mr Jackson Im starting to think is a rugby man, and he is trying to ruin aussie rules. He is well on the way.
Think of all the changes that have happenend in the last five years.
How bad are we all going to let it get before we stand up.

 

[Joel]

I saw John Elliot on "The Game" an he was being interviewed from home and he said he couldn't make it into the "The Game" because he was babysitting or something. But then he came onto the Footy Show about an hour later. I thought that msut have been a real slap in the face for channel 7. And I thought it was pretty funny. The biggest issue at the moment here is TV rights etc. I and I'm starting to think John Elliot is right in what he is doing.

 

[Bluey]

Did you notice they are talking about cutting back on AFL TV broadcasts to avoid 'over-exposure' of the game?

They want better ratings for the games they show, that is all. If they only have to film two or three games a week for broadcast they will get a better return per game. Footy is now big business and the fans do not count as the AFL and channel 7 know that, like any religion, they have a monopoly on the product.

Now, Channel 7 paid $20mil for first and last refusal on the broadcast rights at the end of next year. I can see someone like Telstra coming in with a fat chequbook and buying the rights. I can also see the fans after a year or two of that corporate bloodsucker Telstra sucking the fans dry of every penny they have so they can get a return on the inflated price they paid for the rights. We'll probably be thinking about the good old days of Channel 7!

Local footy anyone?

PS: GOBBY did you get my e-mail? Drop me a line at info@afltips.com

 

[GOBBY1]

John Elliott is right on several issues
What he is trying to do is same the lesser supported teams in Melbourne
See if the AFL start Broadcasting games then fans stay home and watch them.
Who then survives well the rich clubs do like Carlton Essendon Collingwood
I dont like John much but on this issue he is helping all clubs
It seems to be away of getting rid of Vic clubs this broadcasting thing, only the rich clubs will survive

 

[Dave]

Gobby,
how is he helping all the clubs if what's he's doing means only the rich ones will survive?

Persoanlly I think both he and the MCC are wrong. The broadcast rights belong to the organisation putting on the show, not the venue. Is Stadium Australia telling the IOC who will telecast the olympics?

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Goobby1 - no ! you are only partly right with respect to John Elliots real agenda

Sure he has a point regarding broadcasting live against a gate but that is not what he is REALLY on about here.

He is trying to break the monopoly position enjoyed by the AFL. He wants to stop the AFL from negotiating the broadcast rights as a collective arrangement whereby the AFL acts on behalf of all clubs.

Big John thinks (quite rightly) that the AFLs position is monopolistic and against Australian Trade Practices Law. John wants Carlton (and indeed every individual club) to have the power to negotiate by themselves directly with media providers for rights to broadcast in a variety of new formats, most importantly pay TV and Internet Web-casting.

There is nothing wrong with this except that, as the AFL have quite rightly pointed out, some clubs are richer than others and the poorer clubs would get squeezed out in any 'free market'

Look I know it is bizarre to say the least to have the AFL coming out and saying they are trying to protect the poorer clubs but it is true, in a totally free market it is always going to be the weaker guys who cannot compete and fall by the wayside, its an iron law of capitalism that Big John knows only too well.

Look at Premier League Soccer in the UK - the market is totally unregulated (no salary cap, no draft, no income equalisation, all clubs do their own thing with broadcasters, etc) and what happens ? The big clubs dominate and nobody else gets a look in. Thats great for a ManU fan or a an Arsenal fan but the others just don't get a look in and the gap between the big rich clubs and the rest just gets wider and wider.

Do we really want this to happen with our game ?

 

[Bluey]

But have a look at the size of the market in English soccer - the smallest clubs have more members than the AFL's largest clubs.

 

[Pessimistic]

Bluey, I have to take you up there.

Premier league clubs only have large memberships because you need to be member to get in the ground. Apart from a handful of clubs most english clubs would kill for the kind of support we get here. And remember that support here has been constant over many years. In the seventies and eighties the attendances in england were woeful in most cases.

Because Wembly stadium is never used for H&A Games (too inaccesssible)the largest crowds are 'capped' at about 50,000. It's never been tested but I doubt that the two largest teams in one city could consistently get crowds like AFL does here. Only Mexico, Brazil, Spain, Italy have that, with vast populations in their cities.
Perhaps Glasgow is the best comparison, a two-team town for most of the history, the other teams coming a distant last, and three stadiums holding in excess of 50,000. (Melbourne has that until Waveley is demolished)

One point about the Premier league. Look at the crowds. Its almost completely adult males. The only ones who can consistently go every week and pay $50 per game for the seson ticket. Where are the future fans coming from if theres no women and children?

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Yeah Bluey I know that the huge differences in scale between the two markets make comparison difficult, but can you see what I mean by a small handful of super clubs absolutely dominating the competition at the expense of everyone else ?

- This is Elliots real agenda, he wants Carlton to dominate the AFL in much the same way as ManU dominate the Premier League.

Sure, if you are, say, a Derby County member then of course your club is not going to be sent broke just because ManU are 10 times richer than your club, but what hope do you have of ever seeing your club win a Premiership, or even being able to buy a good player every now and then ? - zilch I would suggest

 

[Simon]

The Premier League clubs in England don't do their own television deals. The Premier League has a deal with BBC and Sky.

 

[Bomber]

Elliots thinking is that why should successful clubs be held back with the rest of the field, when financially they can move further ahead - is it right to penalise an organisation for being succesful?
I see and in a lot of areas agree with his points.
If Carlton or Essendon or whoever have the power to make a financially better position for themselves, why cant they? He used the word communism - the afl is holding back clubs for being succesful.
At the same time, poorer clubs are given their own percentage of the rights, and are baby fed and nurtured by the afl and at the moment are surviving. For example, Carlton may be able to strike a 10m dollar TV deal, while at the same time Footscray may only be able to gain a 2m deal - but at present, the afl holds Carlton back by only giving their percentage of 3m odd, and footscray is given an extra million and everyone is equal.
Its a hard one, but even tho I hate carlscum, and i actually agree with them here.

 

[Shinboners]

Bomber. You guys need us "small" clubs more than you realise. There are two issues here. Firstly, let's say you let 4 Victorian clubs go to the wall (for arguments sake....North Melbourne, Footscray, St. Kilda, and Hawthorn). No mergers, no takeovers, they just die and the rest of you feed on the leftovers.

There will be two effects. Firstly, you will end up with your 12 team competition over 22 rounds. But what you will find is that you'll have 6 games interstate every year, 6 games at home vs interstate sides, leaving just 10 "traditional" games against the old Victorian sides. You can't tell me that you get the same buzz out of Essendon vs Port Adelaide as you would from Essendon vs North Melbourne. Also, would Essendon vs Port get the same crowd as Essendon vs North? I don't think so.

The second effect is this. Out of the 4 dead Victorian clubs, there would probably be 100,000 members between them. Say that 1 in 10 fans are members, that means you've just disinfranchised 1,000,000 football fans. Some may switch to other clubs, but I feel that many will be like me and give up the game alltogether.

In one sense, the Carltons and Essendons should be rewarded for their success (although I should point out that with their fan bases, the big clubs don't have to work as hard for the dollars as the small clubs), but on the other hand, you have a greater responsibility for the sport and the competition. As I've posted before, the clubs should generate the money they need to operate and any excess should be used for the greater good of the sport and its fans.

The ironical end could be this. In the NBL, they once had 4 Victorian teams. They now have 2. Clubs that once thought they were rich suddenly became poor as the competition developed. Essendon may be big now, but in a few years, could they become dwarfed by the Eagles, Power, Crows, and Swans in a smaller competition?

 

[Pessimistic]

But the English league has some 90-odd clubs to go at, and protects every las one if it can.

How long would Carlton Collingwood Essendon Sydney WestCoast and Adelaide be attractive to fans. Not long I think

We should be expanding not contracting

Plus the 'bigger' clubs tend to take their fans for granted (eg expecting Carlton v Collingwood to play at Optus) whereas the 'smaller' clubs innovate more. Survival of the fittest isn't always the best. Look at the banks as an example

 

[Shinboners]

Pess

Sorry to tell you that you are wrong, but the English leagues do stuff all to protect their clubs.

The Premier League splitting away from the old Football League (that is, divisions one to three) was all about television rights. When it was just the Football League Divisions 1 to 4, the lower leagues got a much larger share of the money than what happens now. But now, the Premier League clubs get something like 90% of the TV money and a handful of lower league clubs have gone bankrupt with several on the verge of going under because they don't get as much money as they did under the old system.

 

[Grendel]

Shinboner, you have hit it on the head. Im sure that many of us feel the same way that if they didn't have their team, (e.g., you
the Kangas, me the Hawks) then we would more than likely just give up on the footy altogether.

I know that so far this season i think ive enjoyed standing on the outer and watching the Box Hill Hawks form a sense of 'deja vu'.
It has taken me back to the seventies with that old home ground feel.

Elliot being the genius that he is (done so much for fosters, wonder what happened to the takeover of BHP?) cant see the forest
for the trees.

Who is going to watch $10,000,000 worth of Carlton games on the Net? Let alone on tv. How many of us will be switching to the friday/saturday/sunday night movie if we dont give a toss about the AFL because WE DONT HAVE A TEAM IN THAT COMPETION.

Where have the (for arguments sake) 300,000 supporters of Fitzroy and South Melbourne
gone?
A mate of mine was the president of the Fitzroy cheer squad in our younger days. He takes his kids to the basketball now and loathes the league for taking away HIS TEAM! He has four kids now who dont have any interest in the footy , mainly because the family has no interest in it. Twenty years ago imagine a group of young boys without a team? It just didnt happen.

It is still an Australian game. The internet and Television rights are still going to mainly come from within this market. Kill interest from that market and you are slowly cutting your own throat. Shinboner your point about the crowds wanting to go and see such marquee attractions as Ess vs Power or Coll vs Freo really will make for bumper crowds
and ratings. Bomber you say you agree with Elliot on this one, are you in such a hurry to never go and see your mighty Dons
humble the scum from out west again? Or those mongrel hawks who cost you those flags in the eighties? Ess vs Freo twice a year and only once at home at a stadium that you might not be able to get into. Sounds appealing? I hope you see what I mean.

For most of us in Victoria I think I can say with some certainty that we would rather attend a game against another Victorian side than an interstate one. Am I wrong here? And how long before the remaining teams
(if four from VIctoria do go to the wall) start to struggle?
What happens to Carlton for example when they start in the very near future too i believe) to lose Bradley/Ratten/Silvangi/Brown/Sexton/Makay. If they do then where will their
replacements come from? Dont think they are not looking right now at the likes of Croad/Grant/Everitt/Spriggs and others from other clubs to replace their aging list. This is more a power play from Carlton than anything else. If clubs go to the wall then the players from those clubs will need new homes wont they? And Carlton with its $10 Mill bonus and unrestrained salary cap will think itself very clever im sure.

How would the other so called big clubs like to see Collingwood and Carlton suddenly pick up a Crawford or a Harvey.
What happens with the interstate sides? They will be laughing. Port and Adelaide calling back the likes of Holland and Ottens. Freo and the Coasters picking up a Neitz or Archer. Makes me sick to my gut just thinking about it.

If four teams go and one of them is Geelong , then does Victoria's second biggest city turn its back on the game? Where does the supposed revenue from TV rights go then? Same for much of regional Vic. Why would parents want their sons to grow up to be players in a competion that they have no interest in? I would love to see my sons one day running around in the brown and gold if they were good enough to make the grade. But if the hawks aren't their I reckon that the local soccer or tennis club might be getting whatever talent they have directed towards them.

The point Im trying to make is that if you alienate the paying public eventually you pay for it. It might not be one or two years down the track but ten twenty or thirty years time. . The game isnt the same, it wont stay the same, but for gods sake it aint so bad that we want to see it totally screwed up.

Wake up people, Elliot is on nobodies side but his own. If he could he would destroy another club like he tried to do to North
just to get a Carey. Remember that? Bet North fans do. Money and players are what he is after here, because soon Carlton
might only have one and it AINT players.

 

[colley31]

I tend to agree with David Smorgon here, Carlton are taking both the AFL and Channel 7 to court. Why doesn't Channel 7 just stop doing all interviews associate with Carlton, stop showing Carlton games and have a total ban on them. For memory, Carlton have a pretty low membership base when compared to the Essendons, Collingwood, Richmond & Hawks.

 

[Bomber]

I agree with what you guys have said here, but we cant go back. In a perfect world, I would love to go back to the old VFL and the best finals system ever, the five, and leave it there. Im not a big fan of watching interstate clubs either, even against Vic clubs - there is no doubt there is no buzz like a vic v vic game - but, these points are all moot as we now have a so-called national comp.

Fact is, where the afl is heading, there are too many clubs in Vic - period! Clubs ARE gonna go, I dont really want to see it, but its inevitable! I think the afl is doing a great job at destroying our game, but what can be done now about it?

Elliot is pushing for succesful clubs to be able to profit from this, and not be held back for being good at what they do. Its a shame, but unfortunatly our game is turning very American, in that the passion is going, and its turning into a business.

I still think the powers that be stuffed up back in the early 90's - the national footy comp should never have been an extension of the VFL - it was always going to spell the end of Vic footy as we knew it. They should have started a new comp from scratch, with clubs from all over the country, and maybe the financially well-off Melb clubs could have joined this league, as well as field a side in the VFL. Or, just make up 2 or 3 new Melb clubs, where the best from the VFL, SANFL, WAFL etc get drafted to clubs in the National Comp. Its probably not clear, but what Im trying to say is they should have kept it similar to soccer, where they have the European Cups, which in theory are bigger than the local leagues, but the local leagues are still there, and the passion is there. It wouldnt work exactly the same, as European cup teams also play in the league, but similar - where the local leagues survive, as does the bigger comp.

I think I loved the old VFL too much!!!

 

[Shinboners]

Bomber

I agree with you. We can't go back to the old VFL. It's impossible. But you mentioned one word that puzzles me when used in football...."profit". Apart from securing a stable future, what does Carlton need with a "profit"? They're not a company that pays dividends to shareholders. The club is an entity that is morally owned by their fans. Essendon is owned by you, by Arch, by the Dutchman. North is owned by me, by Colly31, by ccridley, by Gonzo. We make the clubs by our support. Likewise, the AFL is owned by all of us. The people that *legally* own the clubs and the AFL are only doing so in trust for us. Sadly, the bastards seem to have forgotten that. My point all along is that the money generated by the game BELONGS to the game. And the game is not simply Essendon, Carlton, and Collingwood. Morally (John Elliot wouldn't understand what that word means), Carlton have no right to send my club to oblivion.

As for the Vic-Vic games (sorry interstate fans), they are the games that give us the biggest buzz. Essendon fans....no matter how many times you get to wave the jackets against those nice family types over at West Coast, it just doesn't feel as good as beating Carlton or Collingwood. If more Victorian clubs go, you'll get less chances to get that buzz. And the next time Essendon wins a Grand Final, if it's against an interstate team, where exactly are you going to exercise your gloating rights?

 

[Jaffa]

I'll tell you why the Vic clubs need to make a profit. It's so they can improve their facilities to a standard enjoyed by the interstate clubs.

The Vic clubs are a long way behind in that area and who can blame them for feeling disadvantaged.

However, clubs going off trying to do their own media deals certainly isn't the answer.

 

[Joel]

North is owned by Carlscum isnt it?

 

[Bomber]

why do they need to make money?

go have a look at the facilities in Adelaide and Perth, then ask yourself that question!

 

[christo]

This topic should be renamed “VFL – remember the good ol’ days”.

The non-vic clubs have significantly increased the supporter and financial base of the league. The facilities of the bigger non-vic sides is on par with the bigger vic sides – there is no disadvantage there.

Making the competition national is the 1st step to selling the game to the rest of the world. We should try to sell it to the rest of the world because it is a bloody good game and, I believe, it is a whole heap better than the alternatives (soccer, grid iron, rugby – either type and etc).

Sure watching a vic vs vic game is more attractive to you than a vic vs nonvic game – so what. In the western states we would rather watch a cross town derby than our local team playing a vic side.

The sad fact is that some old teams (probably a vic team in the next 10 years) will drop out of the AFL. Maybe losing old team is the price to pay for introducing the game to a new supporter base.

 

[Pessimistic]

Let's call a spade a spade.
If a victorian team were to go under it would be Geelong, Geelong or Geelong. If the AFL again targets one of their favourites it would be the height of Hipocrisy.

Are you Bomber, Carlingwood fans happy to see geelong go ?

(I believe all clubs should remain as they are, and I think there is a case that because of the size of the victorian market, they can survive)

And don't compare our game with premier league, american spoerts etc. Supporters are just tolerant of the wages the stars get now, and they get peanuts compared to those other sports.

Footy is more a cultural activity than a sport. Compare it with Bullfighting in spain or Sumo in Japan. Both are huge in their own country and mere novelty value to a TV audience. Over reliance on a fickle TV audience is pure folly.

Here's another question to answer. The swans average 40,000 plus for their games in melbourne. With the proper management all rouund they could have survived here.

 

[Susie]

If a club is to go, it will be done purely on profit.Some clubs have huge yearly debts, but its the accumulated debts of some individual clubs that are the problem. Geelong won't go, because they have a debt management procedure in place, and are fast paying off thaeir debt. Also their debt is in captial works for the new stand.
That said.
North is in real strife. The made a profit of 100,000 last year.
In 1996 when they desperatley wanted to merge with Fitzroy, it was purely financial.They owed millions.This is their first year inprofit, but they haven't been able to reduce their debt.They are still millions in debt.This is why they are trying to increase their supporter base in New South Wales, also why the AFL is giving them 500,000 this year to market in Sydney.
I think the Bulldogs are safe. The move to Colonial and a reserved seat supporter base will save them.plus their membership base is increasing.
The Saints are a definate problem. Increasing debt, plus lowered membership base, also their members don't want to pay for reserved seats at Colonial.
Hawthorn is another club struggling. But they have a huge corporate support. But that wont continue unless they win matches. So depending on their year, they could be merge bait.
people critise the AFL, but they have been proping up North for years, financially. They were given money after the failed merger, to cover their costs. Hundreds of thousands of dollars.One day the well may just run dry.

 

[Pessimistic]

Put the focus back on geelong

The Bank of Melbourne 'onsold' the debt of $5.5m to Bendigo bank for $3m. They took the loss because they were afraid the club would go under. That's how precarious it is

The Irony is that all this was bubbling up at the same time that Hawthorn, Melbourne, Bulldogs, North etc were being pressured into mergers yet their situations were peachy compared to geelong

If, for example, the Hawks were in that kind of trouble, and the bank went to bail them out the AFL would have been pulling strings like mad to ensure no help was given. A bit like they acted behind the scenes to make sure no third party put up the money fow waverley.

The reason Geelong will survive (or not be forced to re-locate) is that they are on the AFL 'favoured' list and some other clubs in much better shape will have pressure applied to move to QLD because the AFL is pulling strings

Thats why many fans in melbourne are angry.

(I believe all clubs should remain as is)