GWS AFL Basketcase

[IanW]

Mr Ripper,

"And, yes, thats what the NEAFL is, and my expectation is the AFL's next step in expansion will be for Newcastle to going NEAFL East, and Bendigo, Ballarat, Wagga Wagga and Wangaratta to be getting sides in the NEAFL South.

If you ever want the Roys back in the AFL, then you want the NEAFL South to happen, as that will mean a choice to going back to the VFA, or joining NEAFL as the Fitzroy Gorillas."

Important bit you didnt read bolded.

 

[Mobbs]

I think he means the bit where he said "my expectation" is the answer to your query, Mr Ripper. Can't tell for sure.

Would we be rebadging the competition if there is a southern division on its way? Or will we have a North Eastern Australian Football League - South?

 

[killer]

North - East - Southern AFL??

 

[Stocka]

Maybe we need a league that operates like a detention centre for any displaced teams.

 

[evo]

People seem to think that the current AFL is somehow different to previous iterations; but it most certainly isn't. It's still just as arrogant, secretive and self-serving.End of the day, Demetriou got the job because he matched the ideals, values and ethics of the AFL (which isn't a compliment), not because he was going to alter its agenda or be a softer touch than Oakley. The only reason we see hand-outs given to the clubs is because the AFL finally realised it was the traditional Victorian ones that kept it afloat. The WA and SA teams do great business in their own states but outside of that, in the biggest tv markets, they constitute ratings suicide (and tv does very much drive the AFL). That's the only reason for setting up GWS. It's got nothing to do with 'growing the game' and everything to do with increasing the AFL revenue by making inroads in the biggest tv marketplace.

Also, I think the notion that the competition is stronger than it was prior to the inclusion of interstate teams is one of the AFL's greatest myths. Some clubs might be healthier financially but, apart from Collingwood, not the ones that were struggling prior to the expanded competition. Traditionally unsuccessful clubs might have had some success in the finals but that's due to the draft, not an expanded competition. Skills might be better, but that's got nothing to do with an expanded competition. What has happened is that the WA and SA competitions have been decimated, just as country football in Victoria has suffered and the actual strength of the AFL game has been diminished by spreading the most elite players over more teams. Simply put, if you lost the interstate clubs the competition wouldn't miss a beat. The only thing you'd lose out on is money from tv rights which would, naturally, be reduced - but not by as much as people might think.

Best footy related post I've read in ages.

 

[IanW]

Best footy related post I've read in ages.

Evo,

You can believe that if you want.

Personally, I think it would have been much more likely that Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond would have launched a Super League War to form a national competion on their terms, and relegate Footscray, Fitzroy, North, St Kilda and the rest back to the VFA.

 

[evo]

Maybe IanW, I don't really know. Alternate histories are always a bit of tricky thing I suppose.

All I do know is that, for me, footy was a lot more enjoyable in the 70s and 80s than it is now. It had a genuine sense of tribalism. When you rode the tram to Princes Park, Vic Park or Arden St. you had a genuine sense you were entering into foreign territory. You didn't have to worry about booking tickets 2 weeks hence and you weren't in some nosebleed section like some schmuck at a No Direction concert at Rod Laver arena. You were standing at ground level, tinny in hand - you could actually hear the hit of a nice shirtfront. Now it is a bit like going the movies. It doesn't even seem real sometimes. It is cliche to say so, but footy has lost its soul; it is designed for 'soccer moms'.

Now that my son is a teenager and playing footy it is great to be back at the suburban grounds each weekend. I'm fast losing interest in the "national game". Maybe that will change if Richmond actually make the bloody finals one year.

 

[fairdinkum]

Re the present-day AFL and their motivations, I genuinely believe that my beloved NMFC is still in very real danger of being 'relocated'.

It was only AFL incompetence that saved us in 2007. JB never would have had the opportunity to lead the resurrection had the AFL been able to buy out just one more vote in our boardroom. And there would currently be a 'Gold Coast Kangaroos' running around in yellow, blue and white had the AFL accepted the club's proposal to play seven/eight 'home' games per year on the Gold Coast. We came within a whisker, just five years ago.

But don't think that just because they botched the killing of our club in 2007 that they haven't learnt or can't learn from their mistakes. A Melbourne Uni boys club they may be, but these are smart men we are talking about. Although their plans failed five years ago, their strategy was still an update on the model they had used to kill Fitzroy more than a decade earlier. They were clever enough this time to get certain sections of the media and, as a result, a great swathe of the football public believeing that 'the relocation' was in the NMFC's best interests. Their cleverest move was having people believe that it was a 'relocation' in the first place.

It wasn't a relocation at all. The AFL were simply trying to (quite literally) buy our license and take with it an established playing list and, hopefully, a few thousand supporters as well. This isn't mere conspiracy theory, a quick google search will provide you with articles from the time highlighting secret meetings between AFL honchos and major NMFC shareholders and board members. Had North 'relocated', the entire board was to be replaced by men handpicked by the AFL. The ownership structure was to be dismantled and the AFL was to be the sole owner of the club. The proposed redevelopment of Arden St was to be canned. They would have had our players and a few thousand supporters however the club was not going to be a continuation of the NMFC but, in reality, a brand new entity. Unlike in the mid-nineties, they were clever enough this time to put together a believable cover story for their kill, and get public approval before the final deed. Unfortunately for them, they were too clever by half, and stuffed it up this time around.

Jeff Kennett may well go down as a man who helped save North Melbourne (even though that was likely not even a small consideration in his actions). A cursory look at the HFC's fixture this season indicates just how pissed off the AFL were with Kennett's brilliant ploy to scuttle their own plans in Tasmania. Why are the AFL so pissed off? This is where, I concede, my theory moves from deduction to inference, but I do not believe it is an implausible inference at all: the AFL wanted to ship north off to Tasmania. And this time, they were going to employ the very 'split home games' tactic they passed on when it was presented to them on a platter in 2007. They had learnt their lesson.

I haven't looked at our Annual Report for a while but, IIRC, we have a sizeable debt payable later this year. We still rely on AFL 'handouts', and will continue to do so until we start getting more FTA and quality scheduling - which is, of course, dependent on the whims of the AFL. The AFL still have us where they want us and, barring a miraculous Kerry Stokes injection of many millions of dollars, it will be a long time before we are financially secure enough to be able survive without AFL support.

Certain egos within the AFL are determined to leave their mark on AFL history (and, perhaps, Australian sporting history in general). The decision to introduce a brand new Gold Coast club in 2011 was bold, but to introduce GWS in 2012... these are men who truly see themselves as pioneers, visionaries. If they could have a full-time Tasmanian side to complete the picture of a 'truly national' competition, they would walk away happy men. I believe that is their motivation.

The AFL learned in the 90s that you don't simply and suddenly declare a club finished, it is a bad look for the League and not enough supporters cross over to the new entity. You need to build public support and make it seem like the club will be better off for the move.

The AFL learned in the 00s that you don't push for an immediate, complete 'relocation' (even if you have garnered public support), you slowly up the number of away 'home' games like the frog in the boiling pot. Jeff Kennett stole some of their firewood (and HFC will pay for that for a long time) but they still got us in the pot. We need to make sure we get out of it before the Hawthorn Launceston deal expires because the AFL will be back with more firewood, I am certain of it.

Maybe IanW, I don't really know. Alternate histories are always a bit of tricky thing I suppose.

All I do know is that, for me, footy was a lot more enjoyable in the 70s and 80s than it is now. It had a genuine sense of tribalism. When you rode the tram to Princes Park, Vic Park or Arden St. you had a genuine sense you were entering into foreign territory. You didn't have to worry about booking tickets 2 weeks hence and you weren't in some nosebleed section like some schmuck at a No Direction concert at Rod Laver arena. You were standing at ground level, tinny in hand - you could actually hear the hit of a nice shirtfront. Now it is a bit like going the movies. It doesn't even seem real sometimes. It is cliche to say so, but footy has lost its soul; it is designed for 'soccer moms'.

Now that my son is a teenager and playing footy it is great to be back at the suburban grounds each weekend. I'm fast losing interest in the "national game". Maybe that will change if Richmond actually make the bloody finals one year.

I deeply empathise with this post. Particularly the bolded bit.

 

[Last of the Roys]

As a Fitzroy / Lions supporter my message to North Melbourne and their supporters would be:

Never trust the AFL for one second. They say all the right things in the media, but when they get the opportunity again they will try to shaft you.


Unfortunately for North (and even Brisbane to a degree) the gap between the richest and poorest clubs seem to be getting exponentially larger each passing year. It is hard to see how it is sustainable for the entire competition. I mean the Lions have 20,000 members vs. Collingwood 70,000. How in hell can we possibly compete. North have done very well to get well over 30,000 members but that is still way behind. But then of course is the bigger side of things such as the corporates / sponsorship, etc.

I want all the Melbourne clubs to survive in Melbourne in the long term, in part at least so I can see the Lions play here as often as possible. Of course Fitzroy supporters know how painful it is to lose your club (even if it is reborn in a different form like the Lions) and most of us would not wish that on anyone.

 

[fairdinkum]

Today we've learned that Demetriou was 'joking' with Brian Cook when he said that he should consider the NMFC CEO role... months before Arocca resigned as our CEO.

Because those are the sorts of 'jokes' the CEO of the AFL should going around making after a few glasses of red.

Anybody remember the story about Foghorn Demetriou telling Brendon Gale (of course, while out at dinner) that under his tenure as AFL CEO the NMFC would fold within a few years?

Personally, I'm just waiting for the Caro articles citing 'sources' from 'within the AFL' being 'concerned with the club's future'. They will pin it on the loss of Arocca, no doubt, because right now the story the Three Stooges (Yobbo, Serpent and FatPrick) are running with is that the AFL had been impressed with Eugene's work (which, of course, is an effort to make JB look worse for EA's departure).

In 2007 we had an amazing, backs-to-the-wall season from the team - players and coaches - to galvanise the supporter base against 'relocation'/death. How I would dearly love for Scott and his boys to give us something similar beginning at Metricon in just over a week.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

What do we think about the crowd GWS got today at Blacktown. I remember we got critisized for having low crowds in our final year at the Western Oval.

Doesn't look like the football club is a basketbase just yet, infact they are doing pretty swell. Time will tell.

 

[Slax]

GWS are going to succeed. But like the Swans, it will take 20 years.

The problem here is the AFL doesn't have the funds to continually prop up sides for 20 years. The AFL are currently underwriting a number of established clubs (ie. not including GWS & GC) to the tune of about $10M a year. They will now be required to find another $30M to prop up both of the new clubs. On top of this I see the subsidy required for Sydney and Brisbane to increase also.

The AFL will reach a tipping point either when negotiating the enxt tv rights deal or the one after that where they will have to kill of some unprofitable clubs. I expect GC to be #1 on this list and GWS not far behind. The AFL as big as it is now does not have a bottomless pit of money and if it does not get the sort of increase in tv rights that it got last time (as many experts predict) then it will require the AFL to rethink its strategy. As shown by the recent decision in Victoria not to provide a grant to Essendon, governments are no longer going to throw money at sporting clubs like the have in the past which will mean that the AFL and the clubs will have to dig deeper into their pockets.

 

[IanW]

The problem here is the AFL doesn't have the funds to continually prop up sides for 20 years. The AFL are currently underwriting a number of established clubs (ie. not including GWS & GC) to the tune of about $10M a year. They will now be required to find another $30M to prop up both of the new clubs. On top of this I see the subsidy required for Sydney and Brisbane to increase also.

The AFL will reach a tipping point either when negotiating the enxt tv rights deal or the one after that where they will have to kill of some unprofitable clubs. I expect GC to be #1 on this list and GWS not far behind. The AFL as big as it is now does not have a bottomless pit of money and if it does not get the sort of increase in tv rights that it got last time (as many experts predict) then it will require the AFL to rethink its strategy. As shown by the recent decision in Victoria not to provide a grant to Essendon, governments are no longer going to throw money at sporting clubs like the have in the past which will mean that the AFL and the clubs will have to dig deeper into their pockets.

Slax,

Almost everything you have written there is not only untrue, but provably untrue.

Have you read the AFL Club Funding and Equalisation Strategy ?

Google "afl disequal funding pdf" - its the document dated 26 September 2011.

The AFL props up *every* club to the tune of about $10m a year - thats their base distribution.

Then look at page 7. Note how they comment on Norf's bad stadium deal, and note that the Club Future Fund is used to compensate them.

Then look at page nine, specifically at the AFL investing to build capability at the weaker clubs.

Note also that the AFL will own Ethihad about when the last of this years draftees wind down their careers. The AFL will want to keep playing at the MCG, but will need a lot of games in Melbourne to keep the turnstiles on the ground it owns ticking over.

There will be no next media deal. Look at page 10 of the pdf. Then go watch a game on afl.com.au - I recommend the first half of GWS at Geelong, myself. Then consider how many people subscribe to Foxtel for the footy. Now, connect the dots.

There is no next pay TV deal, there is only full membership of your club, attending member of your club and TV member of your club.

Next, GC. You clearly havent bothered to see the fact that the AFL owns the management rights at Metricon Stadium. They got a crowd of 37 000 in there last year ... for a Foo Fighters concert. That allegedly netted the Gold Coast Suns a quarter of a million.

If the GC is folded, the AFL still have to pay rent on that stadium.

GWS, has a similar argument with Skoda. It's also nice having three grounds with different owners negotiating with one AFL over how much does it cost to play. Sure, its *nice* playing derbies at ANZ, but if the rent is too high, then we could play once at the SCG and once at Skoda.

Its also not impossible that at some point the owners of ANZ might want to sell.

 

[OldLion]

Trashing the brand - now getting used to turning off one sided games and all the attendant "encouraging showing' twaddle that spews out of every AFL orafice.

Time for Premier League - 10 teams play each other twice and final 4. It's all about TV right ? Institute promotion / relegation and a draft ballot.

 

[IanW]

Trashing the brand - now getting used to turning off one sided games and all the attendant "encouraging showing' twaddle that spews out of every AFL orafice.

Time for Premier League - 10 teams play each other twice and final 4. It's all about TV right ? Institute promotion / relegation and a draft ballot.

Yeah, because eliminating Fitzroy worked so well last time.

By guaranteeing two teams in every important media market, the AFL is doing what it can to make sure that every market will have a team that can make finals. Try selling pay TV subs into Adelaide if, because Port and the Crows both had a bad year, they are both playing in the second tier.

Oh, and when you're saying "Its all about TV right", it just shows you either cant count, or havent bothered to look at where Australian Rules gets its money. AFL revenue as a whole, including all the clubs, is about equally split between attendees/members, corporate sponsorship and TV.

If the current AFL leadership was running the league back in the day, Fitzroy would be solvent from playing 6 home games a year in Canberra and the rest at Ethihad, the Bears would be in Brisbane battling the Suns in a Q-clash and we'd all go 'Fold Fitzroy ? That'd be as dumb as merging Melbourne and Hawthorn'.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

On the back of impressive crowd numbers at Port Adelaide's initial home matches, I recall numerous media commentaries justifying their inclusion at the expense of the Roys. Time, nonetheless, tells a different story. Accordingly I'm not prepared to judge GWS' low crowd figures at this moment. All the same I do appreciate the viewpoints of previous posters and similarly am bemused by the monies the AFL have directed to GWS and the Gold Coast given historic (that being mid-1990's) strategic approaches.

Port Adelaide won the licence and were going to be in the AFL regardless of what happened. I wish people would actully get this through their head. Port Adelaide had nothing to do with Fitzroy and or what happened to them.

 

[tribey]

On the back of impressive crowd numbers at Port Adelaide's initial home matches, I recall numerous media commentaries justifying their inclusion at the expense of the Roys. Time, nonetheless, tells a different story. Accordingly I'm not prepared to judge GWS' low crowd figures at this moment. All the same I do appreciate the viewpoints of previous posters and similarly am bemused by the monies the AFL have directed to GWS and the Gold Coast given historic (that being mid-1990's) strategic approaches.

1) As Rory said above, Port Adelaide was awarded the licence in 1995 after a process that began in 1994 and was coming in regardless of Fitzroy's circumstances.

2) The circumstances pertaining to the Port Adelaide situation are complex, including only recently being permitted to reunify our supporter base that was forcibly cleaved in two at great expense by the SANFL back in 1996, playing at an ageing stadium with an external facade that is swathed in permanent Crows branding (Westpac Centre, Crowmania, Adelaide HQ offices) where we require between 28000-30000 gameday attendees to breakeven in increasingly poor timeslots. We have 37000+ members, our own home base at Alberton with multiple facilities and own two licensed premises with 80 pokie licences. The Adelaide Oval move in 2014 promises to increase our revenue streams with less income being siphoned off to prop up the SANFL and more matchday cash flowing back to the club.

Chalk and cheese.

 

[Roysforever]

Port Adelaide won the licence and were going to be in the AFL regardless of what happened. I wish people would actully get this through their head. Port Adelaide had nothing to do with Fitzroy and or what happened to them.

G'day Rory,
I think most Fitzroy supporters, including myself, understand the licencing arrangement you speak of. My point several months ago was that we can't accurately appraise the success of a new side based on one crowd attendance alone.

 

[Stocka]

I don't have a problem with GWS and GC or the AFL financing them.

In fact, I think the AFL should move to a two-tiered competition and expand further, with teams such as Tasmania, Canberra and maybe even a few others.

The minnow teams, and those established teams who are not as competitive, could be in the lower tier, with the possibility of promotion.

Perhaps there could even be different rules for the lower tier, such as not requiring these teams to pay as much of the salary cap as teams in the upper tier.

Obviously there'd be some challenging decisions to be made, such as who would initially qualify for the upper tier, how teams may be relegated or promoted, the fixtures, how many Victorian and non-Victorian teams in each tier, etc., but I think it's an idea worth investigating.

In hindsight, I wish the AFL had gone down this route in the 90's. Perhaps a club like Fitzroy might have been able to survive in a lower tier of the AFL along with a few other struggling Victorian clubs.

 

[Broken]

The AFL is handing out tickets for this weeks GWS-Sydney match to boost numbers/support for the new team. I understand it in this current AFL culture, but it still irks me.

 

[Silent Alarm]

The AFL is handing out tickets for this weeks GWS-Sydney match to boost numbers/support for the new team. I understand it in this current AFL culture, but it still irks me.

Not just AFL culture, but sports culture. I know someone from England who, because they attended a certain university, got into Sheffield United games for free. And this is when the Blades were in the Premier League.

For what it's worth, a Bigfooty poster pointed out that this isn't exclusive to the Northern states. Melbourne FC gave away 50-odd tickets to a school in the city. It's not a foreign tactic and, personally, it's one I support. We need to vest interest and money into the Suns and Giants. Giving kids a free day out isn't a bad way to do it. If half those kids want to go to another game, buy a Sherrin, or ask their folks for a 2013 Membership, what's the issue? I'd rather see the AFL be proactive in supporting Gold Coast and GWS, rather than letting them fend for themselves.

If Fitzroy were still an AFL club, there's every chance the AFL would be giving tickets to Roys games. I love the romanticism of Fitzroy and I don't mean to be a prick. But it's realistic, and if AD was heading the AFL in the 90s, the Roys would still be an AFL club. You wouldn't be huge, but I'm sure you'd be no smaller than North and you'd have a healthy Canberran support base. But you'd still give out the odd ticket. Jus' sayin'.

 

[Mr Ripper]

The AFL is handing out tickets for this weeks GWS-Sydney match to boost numbers/support for the new team. I understand it in this current AFL culture, but it still irks me.

By the look of the crowd on the telly, they haven't given out anywhere near enough.

 

[Broken]

...

If Fitzroy were still an AFL club, there's every chance the AFL would be giving tickets to Roys games. I love the romanticism of Fitzroy and I don't mean to be a prick. But it's realistic, and if AD was heading the AFL in the 90s, the Roys would still be an AFL club. You wouldn't be huge, but I'm sure you'd be no smaller than North and you'd have a healthy Canberran support base. But you'd still give out the odd ticket. Jus' sayin'.

That's the part that irks me. That Fitzroy, as an AFL entity, didn't survive to the touchy-feely AFL of today instead of being the sacrificial lamb of the hatchet men in charge in the 90s.

 

[Stocka]

That's the part that irks me. That Fitzroy, as an AFL entity, didn't survive to the touchy-feely AFL of today instead of being the sacrificial lamb of the hatchet men in charge in the 90s.

Yeah, particularly considering the AFL of the day also pursued our demise.