Gate sharing in melbourne ?

[Pessimistic]

Discussions about finding more money for disadvantaged teams seems to advocate charging fans more, but no more value is being given to fans.

I note that the blockbuster cubs in melbourne already share the takings from gmaes such as the anzac day game because even blockbuster games vary in crowd size

If its good enough for that, then why cant the gates be shared for any game between two melbourne teams ?

My point is idf the fixture is more shared, the nominated away team can have a reserved seat area too,hence people might pay more, but get value back


It wouldnt work for games played in wa or sa because its largely members attending anyway, i think that was the reason why fate sharing was scrapped.


Im not saying make every game gate sharing by dictate, but the afl could facilitate two clubs to get together and enter a gate sharing arrangement

 

[HFF]

I note that the blockbuster cubs in melbourne already share the takings from gmaes such as the anzac day game because even blockbuster games vary in crowd size

If its good enough for that, then why cant the gates be shared for any game between two melbourne teams ?

Im not saying make every game gate sharing by dictate, but the afl could facilitate two clubs to get together and enter a gate sharing arrangement

This will not work as none of the big clubs will get together in this sort of arrangement with any of the smaller clubs because the smaller clubs won't have any of the drawing power to get people through the gate.

The big clubs could do it but they don't have to anyway because they most likely play each other twice a year as one home game each and therefore they get big numbers to both those games and make the same amount of money.

 

[MarkT2]

I note that the blockbuster cubs in melbourne already share the takings from gmaes such as the anzac day game because even blockbuster games vary in crowd size

If its good enough for that, then why cant the gates be shared for any game between two melbourne teams ?

I think it is only Collingwood & Essendon who have a gate sharing deal with each other.
Clubs with a lower following won't want to share the gate with a club like Collingwood because they make their money on Collingwood fans attending and paying as away spectators. Sharing the gate would give Collingwood a greater return.

My point is idf the fixture is more shared, the nominated away team can have a reserved seat area too,hence people might pay more, but get value back

I am not sure people will pay more in any case but a reserved seat area wouldn't change anything in itself. Using Collingwood as the example again, if Collingwood are away to North why would Collingwood fans pay more for a reserved seat when it wouldn't be necessary? If anything more North fans might be "forced" to reserve a seat if they are playing Collingwood away and anticpate a large crowd (big Collingwood member turn up) which only helps Collingwood. The real question is whether the AFL can increase overall returns by reserving a greater area but I hate the idea of that.

Im not saying make every game gate sharing by dictate, but the afl could facilitate two clubs to get together and enter a gate sharing arrangement

Not sure the AFL need to facilitate anything. Clubs can do it. Collingwood and Richmond had a deal but Richmond renegged and kept a home gate which caused Collingwood to end the deal. The advantage to Richmond only really existed when the deal caused 2 games a year by virtue of a mutual draw request being granted. As soon as Richmond lost that they sooked up.

The home game v Collingwood etc is the cash cow so sharing it with the away club doesn't help the home team unless more paying punters will attend the Colingwood etc home game and he way membership numbers are going that is becomeing less and less likely.

A more even draw is the best option. Gate sharing only encourages (requires?) more draw deals to make the gate deals work.

 

[Underarm]

I thought Carlton/Richmond and Richmond/Essendon do it, mainly because of the occasion that brings in extra people that wouldn't go to the return game.

It wouldn't work, how would you split it? Should we give half our gate takings at Richmond/saints game despite the massive difference in patronage?

 

[Jade]

This will not work as none of the big clubs will get together in this sort of arrangement with any of the smaller clubs because the smaller clubs won't have any of the drawing power to get people through the gate.

Bingo.

Where is the benefit to the bigger club to enter into such an arrangement?

 

[Pessimistic]

Pseudo home rights to away games

Reserved areas corporate entertainment etc

Note that somehow collingwood have already arranged this for themselves

I was also thinking say kangas v bulldogs might get a larger ptronage if the away fans got more value


I note how posters have quickly defined this as a big club v small club issue, what about the teams which cyclically are big drawing then low drawing depending on success ?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Bingo.

Where is the benefit to the bigger club to enter into such an arrangement?

Actually the benefit could be massively in the big clubs favour. Just as a hypothetical example:

- North vs Essendon - Large GA crowd thanks to the EFC fans attending, so large gate receipts to be shared
- Essendon vs North - minimal GA crowd as much of Etihad is designated reserved seating for EFC members, so smaller cash gate to share

As such, even though the EFC home game will get the larger crowd, the fact that it has a much larger membership component (who don't contribute to the gate) means that the Kangas don't get much of a benefit in the long run.

 

[Pessimistic]

Which is why it should be on a case by case basis

 

[Two Eyes]

I thought Carlton/Richmond and Richmond/Essendon do it, mainly because of the occasion that brings in extra people that wouldn't go to the return game.

It wouldn't work, how would you split it? Should we give half our gate takings at Richmond/saints game despite the massive difference in patronage?

Collingwood and Richmond used to split the gate right up to the day when Richmond reneged and kept the money.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Home team takes 60% of the gate revenue from their home games.

Remaining 40% is pooled for equal distribution league-wide.

 

[Pessimistic]

My point is there is an opportunity to add value for fns rather than just tax them as is being proposed

 

[Scodog10]

My point is there is an opportunity to add value for fns rather than just tax them as is being proposed

The point is reasonable enough, however there are some hurdles that would need to be overcome. Because they're almost entirely on the part of the stronger clubs it makes it difficult to get off the ground.

 

[Scotland]

I'm not a philosophical supporter of gate sharing, but I see merit for it in the bastardised AFL environment.

Let's say you have Collingwood at one end of the scale and North at the other. Collingwood have 100,000 fans who attend games during the year, North 50,000 - for example. Collingwood have 50,000 (real) members, North 25,000 - again, for example.

Collingwood host North, 50,000 seats accounted for by Pies members, 10,000 North fans/neutrals show up.
North host Collingwood, 25,000 seats accounted for by North members, 25,000 Pies fans/neutrals show up.
75,000 Pies fans (inc. neutrals) pay to attend the two matches through membership or gate ticket.
35,000 North fans (inc. neutrals) pay to attend the two matches through membership or gate ticket.
Pies benefit from 10,000 walk-ups, North benefit from 25,000.
You share the gate from the two games and the Pies benefit more than they otherwise would.

Of course in AFL World teams don't all play each other twice, so you're talking about Collingwood hosting Essendon and North hosting Gold Coast, and you're talking about Collingwood playing on Friday night at the MCG and North at 1pm Sunday afternoon at Etihad Stadium, so there are no shortage of cats among the pigeons. You're also talking about FTA vs Pay TV, but that's not really a factor in gate attendances.

I think gate sharing fits the Victorian footy fan mentality of go when you want and pay at the gate. Yeah more people want to go and watch Collingwood than North, but if you're a walk-up you're paying the MCG/Etihad to enter their venue and AFL to watch their product - you're not buying tickets from a particular club involved in the match.

I'm not sure whether gate sharing would affect attendence levels or drive more people to become club members etc. but I do know that it's only a band-aid solution to part of the problem. The reality is, 18 clubs/22 games will never be truly workable or fair, and a Friday/Saturday/Sunday round with mixed FTA/Pay TV slots will also never be truly workable or fair.

 

[MarkT2]

Good post Sctland. Just 1 point.
The schedule can definately be fair. It just requires the AFL and therefore the clubs to accept the risk of less total revenue to share. Broadcast rights, caterring rights and ground rentals all hinge on attendances and audiances and in particular the TV deal revenue depends on prime time numbers in the big markets.

 

[Groupie_]

Pretty sure we share the gates vs Carlton and Essendon every year.

Vs Collingwood too I think.

 

[Scotland]

Good post Sctland. Just 1 point.
The schedule can definately be fair. It just requires the AFL and therefore the clubs to accept the risk of less total revenue to share. Broadcast rights, caterring rights and ground rentals all hinge on attendances and audiances and in particular the TV deal revenue depends on prime time numbers in the big markets.

I think it can be fairer, but not truly fair.

I definitely agree that the fixture and broadcast deal as it is now is done to maximise attendances and revenue, and if you start moving Collingwood vs Carlton to Sunday 1pm on Foxtel and putting North vs Gold Coast Friday night at the MCG etc. you're going to reduce the total pool available.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest if Collingwood make $1m less and North make $500k for example, provided any ASD payments to account for a dud draw are withdrawn.

 

[MarkT2]

It won't happen but a random or rolling draw and equal match time distribution could be instituted but I would think it would need to be at the time iof the next brioadcast deal. The scheduling trick would be to ensure the etihad & MCG deals are adheared to which means Collingwood, for instance, would still play nearly all their Vic games at the MCG. Depends how you want to define fair but it is their home ground AND the venue other Vic clubs want to play them at.

If we are going to get hung up on fairness though we need to rotate the draft order as well. It isn't fair that the talent isn't equally distributed.

 

[lamaros]

Essendon do it with Richmond and Collingwood because they want to average revenue year to year, and thus balance out the fact that whoever gets the home game for ANZAC and Dreamtime would otherwise spike every second year if they weren't shared - seeing how these fixtures draw more people than the return games later in the season.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Pretty sure we share the gates vs Carlton and Essendon every year.

Vs Collingwood too I think.

Not collingwood.

We killed the deal because (1) we could no longer afford it (we killed it at the peak of our debt and footy dept mass culling), and (2) we had the "North Melbourne" example I used before. Our fans were still mostly paying at the gate to see games - memberships were pretty meh, and reserved seats were even worse. Collingwood on the other hand was already well on the path to locking in more and more of its attendances in memberships/reserved seating. This meant financially the deal was a bad one for us at the time, as we got little benefit from the Pies game because our the much higher membership attendance compared to ours.

Yet another sign of how much our club has had to be rebuilt in recent years.

 

[Groupie_]

Not collingwood.

We killed the deal because (1) we could no longer afford it (we killed it at the peak of our debt and footy dept mass culling), and (2) we had the "North Melbourne" example I used before. Our fans were still mostly paying at the gate to see games - memberships were pretty meh, and reserved seats were even worse. Collingwood on the other hand was already well on the path to locking in more and more of its attendances in memberships/reserved seating. This meant financially the deal was a bad one for us at the time, as we got little benefit from the Pies game because our the much higher membership attendance compared to ours.

Yet another sign of how much our club has had to be rebuilt in recent years.

Cheers for the info

 

[Scotland]

The scheduling trick would be to ensure the etihad & MCG deals are adheared to which means Collingwood, for instance, would still play nearly all their Vic games at the MCG. Depends how you want to define fair but it is their home ground AND the venue other Vic clubs want to play them at.

If we are going to get hung up on fairness though we need to rotate the draft order as well. It isn't fair that the talent isn't equally distributed.

I agree with your point RE: Collingwood in that if we had a 34 week season the Pies would want to play 17 home games at the G and 9 clubs would want to play their home games against them at the G, so 26/34 Pies games would theoretically be held there. My issue is not who benefits (or doesn;t) from the draw as such, but that the draw is so heavily compromised to ensure this is so.

The AFL's equalisation mantra is all over the shop. The salary cap (excl. Sydney) provides a ceiling and effectively punishes the rich who have money and successful who have strong squads which they can't hold together. The draft rewards the unsuccessful who get the best young players. The fixture & broadcast deal then punishes the poor and unsuccessful, and sometimes the rich and successful depending on geography.

 

[Kwality]

Home team takes 60% of the gate revenue from their home games.

Remaining 40% is pooled for equal distribution league-wide.

What is defined as gate revenue ?

Isnt this gate share a VFL thing from the 70s?

 

[Pessimistic]

Essendon do it with Richmond and Collingwood because they want to average revenue year to year, and thus balance out the fact that whoever gets the home game for ANZAC and Dreamtime would otherwise spike every second year if they weren't shared - seeing how these fixtures draw more people than the return games later in the season.

So they agree in principle to the issue

 

[kelman]

Pool and evenly distribute all gate returns or fixture based solely on the previous year's ladder (including blockbusters)

Make your choice.

 

[Godzke]

From memory, Essendon shares with Collingwood and Carlton. Although Carlton and Collingwood don't share with each other.

This talk of gate sharing with Richmond is news to me but I wouldn't be opposed to it if true. Same can't be said about minnows.

Collingwood and Essendon share the gate for the two matches they play every year, ensuring that each helps the other to promote Anzac Day and the far less lucrative return bout. Essendon also shares the gate with the Blues for their two games each year, but Collingwood and Carlton don't share.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-best-of-rivals-20110730-1i5ka.html#ixzz2OJWOWQxh​

I am correct