Autopsy International games, why ?

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Kudos to the last few posts. My comments not really needed. Except to say that Port Adelaide’s motivation to start a China strategy in September 2013, as a treasure hunt for a $1 million sponsor, had by mid 2015 mushroomed into a ‘survival’ strategy once it became painfully clear that the Adelaide Oval deal was not going to reduce the club’s debt. This was when we got very serious about China ... because we had no other option that would get us out of the debt spiral in reasonable time. SA Govt Trade & Tourism in 2016 introduced us to Shanghai billionaire Gui Guojie who decided on the spot that his everlasting legacy to his home town would be to take Australian Football to Shanghai. He is now underwriting the venture, other partners have come on board, the AFL have as well of course, and from next year onward the Victorian Govt should be a stakeholder in parallel with the SA Govt with one of the Vic-based clubs playing Port Adelaide each year at Jiangwan Stadium. Sort of a State of Origin AFL international scenario, to which five years of sliding doors will have brought us. BTW Mr Gui has no interest whatsoever in AFLX. He wants the real deal, not a watered down version.

Are you saying the club has gained financially from the deal? and do you know how much?

 

[Lockhart Road]

Are you saying the club has gained financially from the deal? and do you know how much?

Absolutely.

 

[NoobPie]

I think the clubs should have vetoed the AFL decision to allow GC to play home games in China, the reason we have gone through the pain of recent expansion was to play 11 games on the gold coast and 11 games in western sydney, we have GC selling home games now and gws had to sell a massive wad of games to ACT.

What is it, 9 years now for GC? They were meant to be financially independent after 10 years, they needed an extra $10m last year to stay afloat. This wasn't the basis for how the expansion was pitched to the other clubs.

Can you provide evidence how hey were meant to be financially independent after 10 years?

North melbourne got over 16 million from the afl last year while west coast Collingwood and hawthorn all got under 11m. Is north financially independent?

If Gold Coast are making money out of moving 1 of 11 games to China are they not reducing their financial dependency?

 

[portly]

Pretty sure it was Port and Kochies idea. I remember hearing Kochie talk about it and from memory they played a few replayed matches of Port on TV in china and got decent views so because there is so many people they seen potential for $$$.

Correct me if I am wrong someone but I believe it was Port's Matt Richardson who had the idea, along with some Port followers in Hong Kong. Or vice versa.

They convinced Kochie to go for it.

No vast profits as yet for Ports, particularly after Trump's economic sanctions v China and our own government's recent difficulties with China.

Port has been running sessions in many schools for some time, and an AFL game from Australia is broadcast every week on three commercial channels in three enormous regions.

From the AFL point of view it is about expansion of the game, probably in the end as an AFLX version.

 

[Tas]

Can you provide evidence how hey were meant to be financially independent after 10 years?

The media covered the specifics of the pitch back around the time they tried to con us to move to the GC when they came out with the proposed GC/GWS model they put to the licence holders to vote on, good luck finding the articles going that far back, I can't find most of the horrific articles about my club going that far back.

The metrics have changed quite significantly since then though, what is independent is largely not relying on funding over and above what is budget as part of the Enhanced Club Funding Model which quite generously places clubs within one of five categories and gives a core distribution based on factors like supporter base size, quality of stadium deal, etc.

Without the AFL adopting the ECFM, after 10 years I assume the expansion clubs were expected to get by on the kind of distribution the 4th tier are currently receiving, that was considered to be the highest type of distribution to clubs and to receive that level of payment the AFL had a considerable influence in determining where that extra money was being spent.

That level of funding was considered the hand-out level of distribution, back when there was a core payment and an additional future fund or competitive balance fund payment. Now there is an ECFM core distribution which includes what was previously a future fund payment.

The problem is a number of clubs can't get by on the highest tier of the ECFM with a core distribution of $19.4m, particularly the Queensland clubs who also have the best stadium deals in the country. The AFL had to increase the core distribution from $19.4m to $24.2m last year and the club still made a $3m loss. GWS was given $26.6m last year, $22.6m core plus $4m as other funding.

North melbourne got over 16 million from the afl last year while west coast Collingwood and hawthorn all got under 11m. Is north financially independent?

Yeah, we are. Because the AFL decided 3 years beforehand what they would give us and we spend within our means. Before the ECFM we balanced the books, before future fund we balanced our books, before competitive balance fun we balanced our books, the only time we lose money is when the club has tried some stupid s**t in the past like thinking about relocating and the supporter backlash was severe, as it should be. We have indirectly benefited primarily from the work the Bulldogs and Saints have done over the years to improve the lot of the clubs who the AFL force to play at Docklands.

Our core distribution last year was $15.7m, our other funding is low at $1.71, league average is $2.28m. AFL has the means to distribute to all clubs what they give to us and much more, but they hold back a lot of funding that the clubs have earned through the generation of the broadcasting rights so they can piss it up against a wall. We have a love/hate relationship with the AFL, they give us some love with one hand while they repeatedly punch us in the face with the other. I'd prefer if the AFL just divvy up the broadcasting rights, create a fair schedule and stop being so manipulative, but it is what it is.

If Gold Coast are making money out of moving 1 of 11 games to China are they not reducing their financial dependency?

I have no issue with that in general, however, the AFL own GC and GWS, as they do Swans and Brisbane, they own the licences, they created the GC and GWS licences not just to dilute the talent pool and cripple two of their other licences by competing against them, their purpose was to provide access to football, both live and on TV in growth regions.

The AFL don't care about that we sell a few games because there is a large number of games in Victoria and the AFL believes we can retain our ratings and facilitate commitments to generating games for stadiums and crowds without it compromising their goals, but clubs didn't agree to dilute their share of the assets and their share of the revenue just to create any old clubs, these clubs had a purpose beyond just facilitating additional games, they were meant to grow the game in developing markets.

Brisbane and Swans didn't want either GWS or GC, they knew both clubs would negatively impact them and they wanted to vote no but the AFL own the licences and vetoed both clubs and voted in favour. If Port Adelaide want to make money in China, they can shift their games there if that is what their members want. The clubs should have blocked GC or GWS from moving games outside of their development regions, it is not like that $1m is the straw that breaks the camel's back, the AFL is going to plunge an almost bottomless pit of money at the NSW and QLD clubs, if a viable expansion is even possible in Queensland then it should be done properly.

It is just half-arsed at present.

 

[The King!]

Money

That took a while to get too the obvious

 

[NoobPie]

The media covered the specifics of the pitch back around the time they tried to con us to move to the GC when they came out with the proposed GC/GWS model they put to the licence holders to vote on, good luck finding the articles going that far back, I can't find most of the horrific articles about my club going that far back.

The metrics have changed quite significantly since then though, what is independent is largely not relying on funding over and above what is budget as part of the Enhanced Club Funding Model which quite generously places clubs within one of five categories and gives a core distribution based on factors like supporter base size, quality of stadium deal, etc.

Without the AFL adopting the ECFM, after 10 years I assume the expansion clubs were expected to get by on the kind of distribution the 4th tier are currently receiving, that was considered to be the highest type of distribution to clubs and to receive that level of payment the AFL had a considerable influence in determining where that extra money was being spent.

That level of funding was considered the hand-out level of distribution, back when there was a core payment and an additional future fund or competitive balance fund payment. Now there is an ECFM core distribution which includes what was previously a future fund payment.

The problem is a number of clubs can't get by on the highest tier of the ECFM with a core distribution of $19.4m, particularly the Queensland clubs who also have the best stadium deals in the country. The AFL had to increase the core distribution from $19.4m to $24.2m last year and the club still made a $3m loss. GWS was given $26.6m last year, $22.6m core plus $4m as other funding.



Yeah, we are. Because the AFL decided 3 years beforehand what they would give us and we spend within our means. Before the ECFM we balanced the books, before future fund we balanced our books, before competitive balance fun we balanced our books, the only time we lose money is when the club has tried some stupid s**t in the past like thinking about relocating and the supporter backlash was severe, as it should be. We have indirectly benefited primarily from the work the Bulldogs and Saints have done over the years to improve the lot of the clubs who the AFL force to play at Docklands.

Our core distribution last year was $15.7m, our other funding is low at $1.71, league average is $2.28m. AFL has the means to distribute to all clubs what they give to us and much more, but they hold back a lot of funding that the clubs have earned through the generation of the broadcasting rights so they can piss it up against a wall. We have a love/hate relationship with the AFL, they give us some love with one hand while they repeatedly punch us in the face with the other. I'd prefer if the AFL just divvy up the broadcasting rights, create a fair schedule and stop being so manipulative, but it is what it is.



I have no issue with that in general, however, the AFL own GC and GWS, as they do Swans and Brisbane, they own the licences, they created the GC and GWS licences not just to dilute the talent pool and cripple two of their other licences by competing against them, their purpose was to provide access to football, both live and on TV in growth regions.

The AFL don't care about that we sell a few games because there is a large number of games in Victoria and the AFL believes we can retain our ratings and facilitate commitments to generating games for stadiums and crowds without it compromising their goals, but clubs didn't agree to dilute their share of the assets and their share of the revenue just to create any old clubs, these clubs had a purpose beyond just facilitating additional games, they were meant to grow the game in developing markets.

Brisbane and Swans didn't want either GWS or GC, they knew both clubs would negatively impact them and they wanted to vote no but the AFL own the licences and vetoed both clubs and voted in favour. If Port Adelaide want to make money in China, they can shift their games there if that is what their members want. The clubs should have blocked GC or GWS from moving games outside of their development regions, it is not like that $1m is the straw that breaks the camel's back, the AFL is going to plunge an almost bottomless pit of money at the NSW and QLD clubs, if a viable expansion is even possible in Queensland then it should be done properly.

It is just half-arsed at present.

Well you've written over 800 words and a lot of it was hyperbole, none of it answered my request to attest to your claim that the AFL said the suns would be financially independent with in a decade

Strip all your acronyms and here is the reality, North Melbourne contribute next to nothing to the value of the TV rights deal that they get an above average distribution of. Not to take anything away about how they have managed themselves within a legacy of much less support and profile than other Melbourne clubs but this is the truth.

The Swans have clearly not been "crippled" by the Giants, they have grown substantially over the period. Brisbane lost support to the Suns but we don't know how much, because they have been absolutely appalling this decade. The AFL are not plunging a "bottomless pit of money" into the NSW and QLD clubs. Using North Melbourne as the benchmark they are distributing $18M extra to Gold Coast and the Giants. The shanghai game and the canberra arrangements contribute somewhat to offsetting it, and each have other game development objectives. The fact you rely so heavily on hyperbole to try and make the case you are trying to make is a sure sign your case isn't strong

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

The media covered the specifics of the pitch back around the time they tried to con us to move to the GC when they came out with the proposed GC/GWS model they put to the licence holders to vote on, good luck finding the articles going that far back, I can't find most of the horrific articles about my club going that far back.

The metrics have changed quite significantly since then though, what is independent is largely not relying on funding over and above what is budget as part of the Enhanced Club Funding Model which quite generously places clubs within one of five categories and gives a core distribution based on factors like supporter base size, quality of stadium deal, etc.

Without the AFL adopting the ECFM, after 10 years I assume the expansion clubs were expected to get by on the kind of distribution the 4th tier are currently receiving, that was considered to be the highest type of distribution to clubs and to receive that level of payment the AFL had a considerable influence in determining where that extra money was being spent.

That level of funding was considered the hand-out level of distribution, back when there was a core payment and an additional future fund or competitive balance fund payment. Now there is an ECFM core distribution which includes what was previously a future fund payment.

The problem is a number of clubs can't get by on the highest tier of the ECFM with a core distribution of $19.4m, particularly the Queensland clubs who also have the best stadium deals in the country. The AFL had to increase the core distribution from $19.4m to $24.2m last year and the club still made a $3m loss. GWS was given $26.6m last year, $22.6m core plus $4m as other funding.



Yeah, we are. Because the AFL decided 3 years beforehand what they would give us and we spend within our means. Before the ECFM we balanced the books, before future fund we balanced our books, before competitive balance fun we balanced our books, the only time we lose money is when the club has tried some stupid s**t in the past like thinking about relocating and the supporter backlash was severe, as it should be. We have indirectly benefited primarily from the work the Bulldogs and Saints have done over the years to improve the lot of the clubs who the AFL force to play at Docklands.

Our core distribution last year was $15.7m, our other funding is low at $1.71, league average is $2.28m. AFL has the means to distribute to all clubs what they give to us and much more, but they hold back a lot of funding that the clubs have earned through the generation of the broadcasting rights so they can piss it up against a wall. We have a love/hate relationship with the AFL, they give us some love with one hand while they repeatedly punch us in the face with the other. I'd prefer if the AFL just divvy up the broadcasting rights, create a fair schedule and stop being so manipulative, but it is what it is.



I have no issue with that in general, however, the AFL own GC and GWS, as they do Swans and Brisbane, they own the licences, they created the GC and GWS licences not just to dilute the talent pool and cripple two of their other licences by competing against them, their purpose was to provide access to football, both live and on TV in growth regions.

The AFL don't care about that we sell a few games because there is a large number of games in Victoria and the AFL believes we can retain our ratings and facilitate commitments to generating games for stadiums and crowds without it compromising their goals, but clubs didn't agree to dilute their share of the assets and their share of the revenue just to create any old clubs, these clubs had a purpose beyond just facilitating additional games, they were meant to grow the game in developing markets.

Brisbane and Swans didn't want either GWS or GC, they knew both clubs would negatively impact them and they wanted to vote no but the AFL own the licences and vetoed both clubs and voted in favour. If Port Adelaide want to make money in China, they can shift their games there if that is what their members want. The clubs should have blocked GC or GWS from moving games outside of their development regions, it is not like that $1m is the straw that breaks the camel's back, the AFL is going to plunge an almost bottomless pit of money at the NSW and QLD clubs, if a viable expansion is even possible in Queensland then it should be done properly.

It is just half-arsed at present.

A couple of things

1. Pretty sure you'll find the GC licence is held by a private consortium not the AFL.

2. Our relationship with Canberra is fundamentally different to yours with Hobart, although they look similar superficially. We are not simply selling games to Canberra they are fundamentally a part of what we are. We pay a price in having only 8 gone games in Sydney, heavier than yours because there are no replacement games it's true.

It's a relatively easy trip and I attend both venues. Manuka has very ordinary facilities but still a better atmoshere, though the difference is reducing.
The Canberra crowds actually adopted the club with more enthusiasm initially, and the ACT is part of our academy zone and not "foreign" territory.

If you doubt our commitment is greater then you'll be surprised when we play some finals at Manuka, which is the stated intention. The nature of finals means they cant be projected and obviously we have to have home finals, but it will happen at some point. Conceivably as early as this year.

We actually do potentially have a virtually bottomless pit of money, that's true. Our constitution has specific provision for the AFL to inject additional funds as required, missing from the other AFL owned clubs.
It is subject to the AFL deciding we need it of course, but it does presumably mean we wont be tied to a specific distribution long term anytime soon.

We were perceived as a big risk at start up, and held close while being provided more help than others. It's just the way it is.

 

[M Malice]

The Swans have clearly not been "crippled" by the Giants, they have grown substantially over the period. Brisbane lost support to the Suns but we don't know how much, because they have been absolutely appalling this decade. The AFL are not plunging a "bottomless pit of money" into the NSW and QLD clubs. Using North Melbourne as the benchmark they are distributing $18M extra to Gold Coast and the Giants. The shanghai game and the canberra arrangements contribute somewhat to offsetting it, and each have other game development objectives. The fact you rely so heavily on hyperbole to try and make the case you are trying to make is a sure sign your case isn't strong

Membership numbers.
Lions-
2008- 23,079.
2009- 26,324.
2010- 29,014.
2011- 20,792. -8,222 members (Suns enter competition).
2017- 21,362.

To further highlight the supporter dilution on the Suns admission to the competition our home crowd average from 2006-2010 varied from a low of 28,127 in 2008 to a high of 29,993 in 2010. The Suns start up in 2011 and our average home crowd drops to 20,461 and has never recovered, a drop off of 9,532 attendees in one season.

IMO the admission of the Suns into the competition has not garnered any significant increase in the supporter base or corporate support for Australian Rules Football in Queensland, it has just diluted the supporter base/corporate support from one club to two. I personally know a few family groups who cancelled Lions memberships and defected to the Suns in 2011.

The rabid support of the general public for Rugby League/Broncos and the saturation media coverage of it has to be seen to be believed. Brisbane is the Rugby League capital of the world.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Membership numbers.
Lions-
2008- 23,079.
2009- 26,324.
2010- 29,014.
2011- 20,792. -8,222 members (Suns enter competition).
2017- 21,362.

To further highlight the supporter dilution on the Suns admission to the competition our home crowd average from 2006-2010 varied from a low of 28,127 in 2008 to a high of 29,993 in 2010. The Suns start up in 2011 and our average home crowd drops to 20,461 and has never recovered, a drop off of 9,532 attendees in one season.

IMO the admission of the Suns into the competition has not garnered any significant increase in the supporter base or corporate support for Australian Rules Football in Queensland, it has just diluted the supporter base/corporate support from one club to two. I personally know a few family groups who cancelled Lions memberships and defected to the Suns in 2011.

The rabid support of the general public for Rugby League/Broncos and the saturation media coverage of it has to be seen to be believed. Brisbane is the Rugby League capital of the world.

Interesting what NoobPie said about NSW is spot on. The Swans have tracked up rapidly independently of us tracking up fairly rapidly from a low base at the same time.
I think their moment has come with club a seemingly permanent finals fixture and doing everything right.

I'm dont know QLD footy st alo, but interesting to see in a few years when both are likely to winning a lot more games.

 

[Tas]

Well you've written over 800 words and a lot of it was hyperbole, none of it answered my request to attest to your claim that the AFL said the suns would be financially independent with in a decade

No, I said do your own searching. I am sure the articles exist in archive somewhere.

Strip all your acronyms and here is the reality, North Melbourne contribute next to nothing to the value of the TV rights deal that they get an above average distribution of. Not to take anything away about how they have managed themselves within a legacy of much less support and profile than other Melbourne clubs but this is the truth.

The largest and most valuable advertising market in AFL is Melbourne, games in Melbourne are on the primary digital channel, games in the north go to the re-run channel 7-Mate. Last time I checked the ratings, our small number of games that were on C7 that went live into Melbourne had higher ratings than Sydney, GWS, Brisbane and Gold Coast combined into their primary city.

Of the $2.5b broadcasting rights, C7 paid $840m for their broadcasting rights, the pay-tv component is around twice the value of the free-to-air component and the value of these games is heavily skewed towards the live and exclusive content, as that is what drives their subscription sales. We facilitate a much larger share of the more lucrative portion of the broadcasting arrangement than clubs that predominately facilitate the free-to-air market.

When the AFL was trying to get us to move to the Gold Coast, C7 and Foxtel made public statements at that time that they weren't interested in more games in NSW or QLD at the time, they wanted more games in Victoria. AFL just competes against their other Rugby products that services that market far better than AFL does.

Part of the reason we were able to get so much more from broadcasting rights with the last agreement is that we freed C7 from having to play AFL on their main channel, it cost them a fortune in lost advertising, a cost that was passed on to us with the amount they were prepared to pay for the rights.

If you can't grasp these marketing basics you are completely clueless and it is pointless even having a conversation with you at all.

The Swans have clearly not been "crippled" by the Giants, they have grown substantially over the period.

Giants get the bulk of their support from Sydney, it is a direct competition to them irrespective how much Swans have grown. Do you understand what competition means?

Brisbane lost support to the Suns but we don't know how much, because they have been absolutely appalling this decade.

It doesn't matter how much it is, Brisbane relied on the Gold Coast for some of their support, the presence of GC has harmed them.

The AFL are not plunging a "bottomless pit of money" into the NSW and QLD clubs.

An extra $5m so the club can afford to pay it's bills when a Tier 1 club only gets $10m is a bottomless pit of money, if we were in a similar financial position they would put the screws on us to move to Tasmania, Fitzroy went arse over **** over what, $1.5m?

Using North Melbourne as the benchmark they are distributing $18M extra to Gold Coast and the Giants. The shanghai game and the canberra arrangements contribute somewhat to offsetting it, and each have other game development objectives. The fact you rely so heavily on hyperbole to try and make the case you are trying to make is a sure sign your case isn't strong

We aren't a good benchmark to use because we have a really shitty stadium deal, AFL is in the process of putting down a better stadium deal now that they have bought out Docklands and they have indicated to the clubs in the 4th tier that they will likely be scaled back to a higher tier once the new stadium deals are in effect. NSW and QLD have the best stadium deals, they can't get better because GC and GWS were given clean stadiums, Brisbane and Swans have a great stadium deal and I don't think those can get better while they subsidise cricket, similar to the MCG.

I don't think anything I have said is exaggerated. The AFL had unrealistic expectation of the support levels GWS and GC would acquire over the first ten years and the target revenue goals they needed to meet. GWS knew they weren't going to hit those goals and the AFL hides how much it gives to GWS. Ie, a significant chunk of GWS' revenue comes from selling a wad of their games to the ACT, paid for by the AFL ACT, their revenue comes directly from the AFL. On the books, it looks like GWS is only getting $26m from the AFL, but everything that comes from the ACT funding are development grants by the AFL. AFL has hid $20m a year in funding for Swans and Brisbane for decades through the use of development grants.

It is as bottomless as it gets when the AFL control how much they allow to drip out of the broadcasting revenue tap.

If the AFL sold a new licence and a GC consortium paid for their share of the assets and future revenue I would say you can do whatever you want, because you paid for that right to do so. These licences were created by the AFL and remain AFL owned for the purpose of growth of the game in developing markets. But that wasn't the basis for the granting of these licences.

 

[M Malice]

Love your post #61 Tas ......except for the Lions reference in this part-

" NSW and QLD have the best stadium deals, they can't get better because GC and GWS were given clean stadiums, Brisbane and Swans have a great stadium deal and I don't think those can get better while they subsidise cricket, similar to the MCG."

The Lions have an horrendous stadium deal with the Gabba, it bleeds them dry, it is why we have been trying for years to get the 3 tiers of government and the AFL to come to the party and fund a state of the art ($75,000,000) Administration, Training and AFLW base. We usually only get access to the Gabba playing surface once a week for training, most of our on field training is done at minor suburban grounds.

Apparently this is very close to being officially announced and Greg Swann has said recently that it should be ready for the 2020 AFLW season. HALLELUJAH!

 

[NoobPie]

Love your post #61 Tas ......except for the Lions reference in this part-

" NSW and QLD have the best stadium deals, they can't get better because GC and GWS were given clean stadiums, Brisbane and Swans have a great stadium deal and I don't think those can get better while they subsidise cricket, similar to the MCG."

The Lions have an horrendous stadium deal with the Gabba, it bleeds them dry, it is why we have been trying for years to get the 3 tiers of government and the AFL to come to the party and fund a state of the art ($75,000,000) Administration, Training and AFLW base. We usually only get access to the Gabba playing surface once a week for training, most of our on field training is done at minor suburban grounds.

Apparently this is very close to being officially announced and Greg Swann has said recently that it should be ready for the 2020 AFLW season. HALLELUJAH!

So you love his wild assertions providing they don't misrepresent your positions. I personally just don't like wild assertions generally

 

[M Malice]

So you love his wild assertions providing they don't misrepresent your positions. I personally just don't like wild assertions generally

The overall gist of Tas s post I agree with, although I know through my keen interest in all things Lions that the part about our so called great stadium deal is false. I couldn't be bothered conducting a thorough pedantic fact check of his $$$ mentions.

I suggest you take your complaints up with Tas.

 

[NoobPie]

No, I said do your own searching. I am sure the articles exist in archive somewhere.

No, I'm not going to waste time looking for a statement that I don't think exists. Just in this thread you have made several incorrect assertions. I think we can dismiss that one (i.e. the AFL said suns would be financially independent within a decade) as well

The largest and most valuable advertising market in AFL is Melbourne, games in Melbourne are on the primary digital channel, games in the north go to the re-run channel 7-Mate. Last time I checked the ratings, our small number of games that were on C7 that went live into Melbourne had higher ratings than Sydney, GWS, Brisbane and Gold Coast combined into their primary city.

Of the $2.5b broadcasting rights, C7 paid $840m for their broadcasting rights, the pay-tv component is around twice the value of the free-to-air component and the value of these games is heavily skewed towards the live and exclusive content, as that is what drives their subscription sales. We facilitate a much larger share of the more lucrative portion of the broadcasting arrangement than clubs that predominately facilitate the free-to-air market.

When the AFL was trying to get us to move to the Gold Coast, C7 and Foxtel made public statements at that time that they weren't interested in more games in NSW or QLD at the time, they wanted more games in Victoria. AFL just competes against their other Rugby products that services that market far better than AFL does.

Part of the reason we were able to get so much more from broadcasting rights with the last agreement is that we freed C7 from having to play AFL on their main channel, it cost them a fortune in lost advertising, a cost that was passed on to us with the amount they were prepared to pay for the rights.

If you can't grasp these marketing basics you are completely clueless and it is pointless even having a conversation with you at all.

So a short essay that does nothing to dismiss that north melbourne contributes next to nothing to the value of the TV rights

The swans in particular are one of the highest rating teams on foxtel each year. North would be one of the lowest. The argument that, because you play more games on foxtel exclusively you contribute a "much larger share" is laughable.

And the point is not that North contribute more than the northern clubs, its that ultimately they get more out than they contribute to the value of the rights.

Also: The AFL was been broadcast on the multi-channels under the previous broadcast deal, not his one

Giants get the bulk of their support from Sydney, it is in direct competition to them irrespective how much Swans have grown. Do you understand what competition means?

I do. You don't if your brain can't think beyond an assumption of a zero sum game

It doesn't matter how much it is, Brisbane relied on the Gold Coast for some of their support, the presence of GC has harmed them.

Sure in the short term, and my point is we don't know how much because their introduction coincided with a complete collapse on field. Given that the Gold Coast Suns play 1hr 20 minutes away you can guarantee it was only a marginal contributor

An extra $5m so the club can afford to pay it's bills when a Tier 1 club only gets $10m is a bottomless pit of money, if we were in a similar financial position they would put the screws on us to move to Tasmania, Fitzroy went arse over **** over what, $1.5m?



We aren't a good benchmark to use because we have a really shitty stadium deal, AFL is in the process of putting down a better stadium deal now that they have bought out Docklands and they have indicated to the clubs in the 4th tier that they will likely be scaled back to a higher tier once the new stadium deals are in effect. NSW and QLD have the best stadium deals, they can't get better because GC and GWS were given clean stadiums, Brisbane and Swans have a great stadium deal and I don't think those can get better while they subsidise cricket, similar to the MCG.

I don't think anything I have said is exaggerated. The AFL had unrealistic expectation of the support levels GWS and GC would acquire over the first ten years and the target revenue goals they needed to meet. GWS knew they weren't going to hit those goals and the AFL hides how much it gives to GWS. Ie, a significant chunk of GWS' revenue comes from selling a wad of their games to the ACT, paid for by the AFL ACT, their revenue comes directly from the AFL. On the books, it looks like GWS is only getting $26m from the AFL, but everything that comes from the ACT funding are development grants by the AFL. AFL has hid $20m a year in funding for Swans and Brisbane for decades through the use of development grants.

It is as bottomless as it gets when the AFL control how much they allow to drip out of the broadcasting revenue tap.

If the AFL sold a new licence and a GC consortium paid for their share of the assets and future revenue I would say you can do whatever you want, because you paid for that right to do so. These licences were created by the AFL and remain AFL owned for the purpose of growth of the game in developing markets. But that wasn't the basis for the granting of these licences.

...and more unstructured, bloated rambling substituting for coherent argument

 

[NoobPie]

The overall gist of Tas s post I agree with, although I know through my keen interest in all things Lions that the part about our so called great stadium deal is false. I couldn't be bothered conducting a thorough pedantic fact check of his $$$ mentions.

I suggest you take your complaints up with Tas.

No I'm giving up after the last comment I just made. My point was that you know that assertion to be false should raise question marks over all his other assertions. He can't discern between his inklings and facts

I can understand Lions fans being frustrated back in the day with the introduction of the Suns. At some point though we need to work with where we are at now. You also need to acknowledge that the onfield disaster has to be the primary consideration as to any stagnation in the commercial side of Queensland football rather than the Suns

 

[magpienato]

Probably the same reason the Europeans colonized the new world...

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

No I'm giving up after the last comment I just made. My point was that you know that assertion to be false should raise question marks over all his other assertions. He can't discern between his inklings and facts

I can understand Lions fans being frustrated back in the day with the introduction of the Suns. At some point though we need to work with where we are at now. You also need to acknowledge that the onfield disaster has to be the primary consideration as to any stagnation in the commercial side of Queensland football rather than the Suns

It's actually an interesting post from Tas to me. It looks right until you go to the details which are all wrong.

 

[Tas]

The overall gist of Tas s post I agree with, although I know through my keen interest in all things Lions that the part about our so called great stadium deal is false. I couldn't be bothered conducting a thorough pedantic fact check of his $$$ mentions.

I suggest you take your complaints up with Tas.

Don't shoot the messenger, I am not responsible for the status quo.

The main benefit of the stadiums in Queensland is that a portion of gambling revenue in QLD goes into management of sporting venues (Stadiums Queensland), that has resulted in subsidised relatively low cost stadium deals, GC and GWS got clean stadiums meaning there are no third parties associated with the AFL or the stadium taking money away from the gate outside what it costs to host the games and manage the stadium.

The problem for both clubs at the moment is that your state government is trying to siphon money from sports fans and that is eating into the profit margin of local games for all codes in QLD, clubs are forced to raise prices and people drop off in large numbers, especially outside of successful periods.

That isn't an issue of stadium costs, your state government is just bending over all sporting clubs in QLD atm irrespective which code or which stadium, to the point GC is fearing it will be shut down and the AFL will shift it's licence to Tasmania once both Hawthorn and North Melbourne reject the one-team model in Tasmania during the next rights discussions.

http://www.themercury.com.au/sport/...n/news-story/bba4c824095a56dacdfd45c263c835d1

Irrespective of state government levies though the Gold Coast stadium is clean and should be very profitable even with a modest crowd, my club estimated it could make $750k a game from playing in Ballarat where there is little in the way of seating. We only make about $500k per game in Hobart because we graciously share the profits with AFL Tasmania and Cricket Tasmania, something Hawthorn doesn't do in Launceston.

The problem is you still need to generate about $35-40m or so to service a football club, even though the stadium itself may be profitable, if you don't adequately generate the other non-AFL revenue and non-gameday revenue you can still struggle a lot.

 

[M Malice]

No I'm giving up after the last comment I just made. My point was that you know that assertion to be false should raise question marks over all his other assertions. He can't discern between his inklings and facts

I can understand Lions fans being frustrated back in the day with the introduction of the Suns. At some point though we need to work with where we are at now. You also need to acknowledge that the onfield disaster has to be the primary consideration as to any stagnation in the commercial side of Queensland football rather than the Suns

Fair enough, good point.

To go along with my points in post number #59, the fact that our slide to the bottom regions of the ladder coincided with the introduction of the Suns and Giants and the resulting highly compromised drafts meant that we missed out on access to 3-4 drafts worth of high picks. The resulting stockpiling of elite talent (particularly well done by the Giants) resulting in their ability to continually trade up for higher draft picks resulted in the drafts only getting back to some sense of normality relatively recently. I acknowledge that our off field structure ie. coaching setup, recruitment/retention strategies and welfare has been a shambles since Leigh Matthews left. I'm very confident we are now heading in the right direction with Swann, Noble and Fagan steering the ship.

IMO the AFL drastically over rated the interest in the game in QLD. I was a long term Broncos season ticket holder through the 90s and only went to watch a Lions game in the late 90s out of curiosity and the fact that the Lions were starting to be competitive, I went to a few more games and was hooked, haven't been back to the Broncos since and have been a Lions member since the glory years. The Lions need to be competitive or the interest will slowly fade away, the casual QLD sports follower will only jump on board then. The AFL need to pump promotional resources into QLD once we start to rise so we consolidate unlike during the 2000-2004 period when the AFL thought the job had been done.

Stark demonstration of Rugby Leagues popularity and domination of the media coverage was tonight's news bulletin, the first 4 minutes was all about the retirement from representative football of Cameron Smith which also included a comment from the premier of QLD. Two teams in QLD will need to be a huge time and $$$ investment from the AFL if there is to be any chance of success.

 

[NoobPie]

Fair enough, good point.

To go along with my points in post number #59, the fact that our slide to the bottom regions of the ladder coincided with the introduction of the Suns and Giants and the resulting highly compromised drafts meant that we missed out on access to 3-4 drafts worth of high picks. The resulting stockpiling of elite talent (particularly well done by the Giants) resulting in their ability to continually trade up for higher draft picks resulted in the drafts only getting back to some sense of normality relatively recently. I acknowledge that our off field structure ie. coaching setup, recruitment/retention strategies and welfare has been a shambles since Leigh Matthews left. I'm very confident we are now heading in the right direction with Swann, Noble and Fagan steering the ship.

IMO the AFL drastically over rated the interest in the game in QLD. I was a long term Broncos season ticket holder through the 90s and only went to watch a Lions game in the late 90s out of curiosity and the fact that the Lions were starting to be competitive, I went to a few more games and was hooked, haven't been back to the Broncos since and have been a Lions member since the glory years. The Lions need to be competitive or the interest will slowly fade away, the casual QLD sports follower will only jump on board then. The AFL need to pump promotional resources into QLD once we start to rise so we consolidate unlike during the 2000-2004 period when the AFL thought the job had been done.

Stark demonstration of Rugby Leagues popularity and domination of the media coverage was tonight's news bulletin, the first 4 minutes was all about the retirement from representative football of Cameron Smith which also included a comment from the premier of QLD. Two teams in QLD will need to be a huge time and $$$ investment from the AFL if there is to be any chance of success.

I've got no doubt the Lions are heading in the right direction as well.

I think the AFL may have overrated the interest levels in QLD somewhat but really it was much more about long term growth than any delusion of meeting existing untapped demand. Also, Brisbane's collapse in attendance is not actually much different to what has happened to teams in AFL heartland states who's on-field performance suffered similar declines. And Club histories are divined as much through suffering as glory

The AFL is never going to match rugby league's profile in Queensland but the whole point of having two clubs is, over time, you can strengthen the presence there, insure against one of the clubs having a poor patch and ultimately have clubs in the two biggest populations centres in SEQ perpetually sowing seeds and cultivating pathways. They also lock in the large expat communities that might otherwise drift off towards league over time

You are dead right though, QLD will need AFL investment for decades to underpin this

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

Back to the ‘International Games, why’

To simply look at this through the prism of the ‘AFL’ is rather narrow. Sports diplomacy is one of the obvious avenues as a wedge for soft diplomacy tactics. We need only look to comments made by senior politicians regarding international responses to the ball tampering issue to see the importance of sport in helping to define a nations place in the world. Indeed, dfat explicitly details the notion of sporting diplomacy and the Australian Governments strategy:
http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/australian-sports-diplomacy-strategy-2015-18.aspx

Furthermore, it shouldn’t just be limited to the China game. AFL as a part of a wider strategy makes sense in a social, diplomatic, economic and policy sense.

Good question though and I would hope other teams are considering the benefit they might have to the wider Australian population as well as their current ambitions - not in place of (as I hope both clubs are doing in China).

 

[Apsaalooke]

Your not missing anything at all my friend.
Its a totally pointless s**t idea.
Alot of hassle, for absolutely zero in return. OH !! Except for $$$. And thats all the AFL care about. OH! That, and not getting sued for concussions.
Only other reason I can think of...AFL junkett.

If money is to be made then it's fair enough but I'm not convinced that's the case. I presume Gold Coast are getting a tidy amount to sell their home game, but I heard Kochie say on radio that Port made a small loss on the trip last year. They talk about partnerships, sponsorships and intangibles etc but it all sounds a bit wishy washy.
Travel agents in Adelaide are doing well though by selling packages to Port fans I guess.

 

[NomadPie]

I'm all for the idea. As someone who has spent the last 7 years living mostly abroad in several countries and having pulled the boots on for a couple of clubs in Scotland and Canada it is really exciting to see the game we love and are very privileged to have had growing up being played and followed by people from all corners of the globe. I must admit i'm glad its not Collingwood playing internationally for points as I would be concerned the travel could effect performance in following games but I think it's a great initiative by the AFL to look to expand. We have the best product on the market as far as sports go so why not make it a world wide product. It will take generations for it to take off and start producing talent consistently at an elite level so why not start now.

I get a real kick out of showing our game to international sports fans, most are confused by it but also fascinated by it.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

There is an NRL team in Melbourne and marketing the game there makes sense to me from their point of view. I have to say I've not seen any evidence of big revenue though. When College football has been played at ANZ it wasn't broadcast on FTA. It seems to me it would be easy to confirm prior to comitting to overseas games. Does anyone have last years revenue figures or projected figures for this year. I can't locate any.

The college football is a bit different as it is actually the stadiums and government that pay the colleges to come out here.

Ethiad down in Melbourne were trying real hard to get a college game down there too.