Opinion Is the AFL becoming an uneven competition?

[Mat Mann]

Don't you think a shared revenue model is unfair to clubs who have genuinely worked for what they have?

It's all well and good to say it'd benefit us because it would, but what if we were in their positions? All this money supporters pump into a club for it to be given to other clubs.

so currently we have a system that promotes the big clubs into the prime TV slots, they get the benefit of extra memberships and attendance on top of sponsors paying extra to get that FTA exposure. players want to play in "the big games and full stadiums" so they get those too. all the extra money they make at the expense of the smaller clubs not getting FTA is now funnelled into their footy dept which can pay extra staff facilities to help attract players and staff, then all that leftover cash is funnelled into business outside of football, ensuring that when the big club does fall down the ladder it can rely on assets and income to ensure that footy operations arent disrupted.

or maybe in the interests of fairness, the big clubs could lose a FTA standalone game each and play a few more on Sundays to allow the smaller clubs the ability and additional help to generate a profitable business model.

should we take $6m (but its actually more like $4m) in distributions or a decent chance of developing a profitable business case? It simply can't be one or the other, but a blend of both.

up until 2014 the AFL introduced the unequal distribution policy
here is Geelongs report before that policy came into effect

GEELONG'S SUGGESTIONS
We have a few points to contribute to the discussion.
These are:
• More revenue is not the solution to this problem
• Poor management is not the problem
• There is no need to talk about 'taxes' or 'penalising success' because there are reasonable grounds for compensating smaller clubs for fixture and stadium size disadvantages
• The current 'equalisation fund' should be reshaped to increase its impact
• Any 'equalisation' adjustments should also be used to increase the salary cap
• Sufficient funds can be sourced from these sources

to the DOCUMENT

read the whole document, it's very well written without the usual me me me slant

Here's another interesting article that models the 2015 club financials and applies other sports distributions to the AFL landscape.

did you know that the AFL had a revenue-sharing scheme in place until 2005, there was even a blockbuster tax, since then the rich got extremely rich. The AFL didn't introduce the unequal distributions until 2014, 10 years after we got lumped with the worst stadium deal in the AFL. in amassed huge debt that we haven't been able to eradicate.

So what do those who said the AFL are out to get us say now?

no ones saying that at all, but sure as hell they aren't actively trying to help us out of it either, not in the same manner as Carlton or Essendon, "The AFL needs a strong Carlton" has been wheeled out on multiple occasions, we get, The Saints are is a lot of debt and there are no more excuses when in fact there are plenty of legitimate ones.

 

[plugger66]

so currently we have a system that promotes the big clubs into the prime TV slots, they get the benefit of extra memberships and attendance on top of sponsors paying extra to get that FTA exposure. players want to play in "the big games and full stadiums" so they get those too. all the extra money they make at the expense of the smaller clubs not getting FTA is now funnelled into their footy dept which can pay extra staff facilities to help attract players and staff, then all that leftover cash is funnelled into business outside of football, ensuring that when the big club does fall down the ladder it can rely on assets and income to ensure that footy operations arent disrupted.

or maybe in the interests of fairness, the big clubs could lose a FTA standalone game each and play a few more on Sundays to allow the smaller clubs the ability and additional help to generate a profitable business model.

should we take $6m (but its actually more like $4m) in distributions or a decent chance of developing a profitable business case? It simply can't be one or the other, but a blend of both.

up until 2014 the AFL introduced the unequal distribution policy
here is Geelongs report before that policy came into effect


read the whole document, it's very well written without the usual me me me slant

Here's another interesting article that models the 2015 club financials and applies other sports distributions to the AFL landscape.

did you know that the AFL had a revenue-sharing scheme in place until 2005, there was even a blockbuster tax, since then the rich got extremely rich. The AFL didn't introduce the unequal distributions until 2014, 10 years after we got lumped with the worst stadium deal in the AFL. in amassed huge debt that we haven't been able to eradicate.



no ones saying that at all, but sure as hell they aren't actively trying to help us out of it either, not in the same manner as Carlton or Essendon, "The AFL needs a strong Carlton" has been wheeled out on multiple occasions, we get, The Saints are is a lot of debt and there are no more excuses when in fact there are plenty of legitimate ones.

No it’s actually more like 9 million. Where do you get 4 million from? The other option is complete fairness in everything and a huge reduction in media rights. Everyone will get equal money but unfortunately the smaller clubs will eventually fall by the wayside when the bigger clubs say what’s the point of being big. It will be a race to the bottom instead of a race to the top. Not sure why people bring up something from 6 years ago unless it’s to support the poor us syndrome

 

[Mat Mann]

No it’s actually more like 9 million. Where do you get 4 million from? The other option is complete fairness in everything and a huge reduction in media rights. Everyone will get equal money but unfortunately the smaller clubs will eventually fall by the wayside when the bigger clubs say what’s the point of being big. It will be a race to the bottom instead of a race to the top. Not sure why people bring up something from 6 years ago unless it’s to support the poor us syndrome

why is it one or the other, why extreme left or right I've stated my position as clear as day. re-read my post AGAIN if you don't comprehend.

* it, I'll quote myself AGAIN so it's impossible to miss it.

It simply can't be one or the other, but a blend of both.

as for 6 years ago, before the AFL's competitive balance fund, we lost $4m in that single year, you think that has no bearing on today's financial status?
again, read the Geelong article if you even want a clue into how clubs think these things out.

what is happening now is a result of 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 6 years ago, being handed wad loads of cash, and we are still one of the least resourced clubs in the comp, isn't working.

 

[plugger66]

why is it one or the other, why extreme left or right I've stated my position as clear as day. re-read my post AGAIN if you don't comprehend.

fu** it, I'll quote myself AGAIN so it's impossible to miss it.



as for 6 years ago, before the AFL's competitive balance fund, we lost $4m in that single year, you think that has no bearing on today's financial status?
again, read the Geelong article if you even want a clue into how clubs think these things out.

what is happening now is a result of 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 6 years ago, being handed wad loads of cash, and we are still one of the least resourced clubs in the comp, isn't working.

What about north? How do they have no debt. And in what year did we lose 4 million. And I’m still trying to work why the extra we get is closer to 4 million when it’s actually closer to 9 million. And what is extreme right or left? When I mention extreme anything? If you mean media rights it’s common sense it will be a huge reduction if we want complete fairness. No derby every year. No certain blockbusters every year. Media rights are vital to us even if we can’t big games on tv. Our last big chance for a big game was Good Friday and one we couldn’t get a crowd and two we played shocking footy.

 

[StCicatriz]

so currently we have a system that promotes the big clubs into the prime TV slots, they get the benefit of extra memberships and attendance on top of sponsors paying extra to get that FTA exposure. players want to play in "the big games and full stadiums" so they get those too. all the extra money they make at the expense of the smaller clubs not getting FTA is now funnelled into their footy dept which can pay extra staff facilities to help attract players and staff, then all that leftover cash is funnelled into business outside of football, ensuring that when the big club does fall down the ladder it can rely on assets and income to ensure that footy operations arent disrupted.

or maybe in the interests of fairness, the big clubs could lose a FTA standalone game each and play a few more on Sundays to allow the smaller clubs the ability and additional help to generate a profitable business model.

should we take $6m (but its actually more like $4m) in distributions or a decent chance of developing a profitable business case? It simply can't be one or the other, but a blend of both.

up until 2014 the AFL introduced the unequal distribution policy
here is Geelongs report before that policy came into effect


read the whole document, it's very well written without the usual me me me slant

Here's another interesting article that models the 2015 club financials and applies other sports distributions to the AFL landscape.

did you know that the AFL had a revenue-sharing scheme in place until 2005, there was even a blockbuster tax, since then the rich got extremely rich. The AFL didn't introduce the unequal distributions until 2014, 10 years after we got lumped with the worst stadium deal in the AFL. in amassed huge debt that we haven't been able to eradicate.



no ones saying that at all, but sure as hell they aren't actively trying to help us out of it either, not in the same manner as Carlton or Essendon, "The AFL needs a strong Carlton" has been wheeled out on multiple occasions, we get, The Saints are is a lot of debt and there are no more excuses when in fact there are plenty of legitimate ones.

thanks for sharing Geelong absolutely nailed it.

as i said, mismanagement isnt the reason why clubs are up against the wall. they've effectively been under AFL management for years now. if they're going to put it down to mismanagement then they might as well concede they can't manage s**t either.

if it's all about mismanagement how does Essendon still prosper financially even after the biggest * up governance wise in the history of the game.

the reality is as you have pointed out, the AFL lost complete sight of equalisation. it was working. it was effective, especially on field. they had brought many clubs back from the brink. but since then it's been slowly eroded.

 

[StCicatriz]

thanks to Matt Mann how's this from Geelong:

We accept the data showing that the gap between the most and least wealthy clubs is increasing which enables larger clubs to invest more. We accept that the revenue gap between smaller and larger clubs has now grown to the point where adequate competitive balance is undermined and there is a case for addressing this

from *in 2013 mind you!!!!

one of the best run clubs in the land according to many and they could tell back in 2013, 2 years off a flag, how uncompetitive the league had become between the rich and poor.

but what i love most about the document is this little bomb shell about the salary cap. basically the players seem to be interested in "non-player activities and expenditure" which seems to be spend outside of the football dept:

We accept that the gap between clubs in their capacity to invest in non-player football department activities is growing and we accept that this gap will have some impact on on-field competitiveness - though hard to measure

We note the AFL's comment that the gap in player payments between clubs has remained "modest" while the gap in other football costs is increasing. We believe that this points to an important issue about the salary cap which we discuss later in this paper.

The salary cap for players is pretty much held down to the level that is affordable by the least wealthy clubs. Thus, as the financial gap between clubs grows, the excess spending capacity of the large clubs goes into non-player expenditure in and outside the football departments. If this view is correct, the fabric of our competition is threatened if this gets too far out of kilter. The players won't put up with it and will have reasonable cause to challenge the salary cap. The competition objective should be to re-allocate funds away from the wealthiest to the least wealthy clubs (which will reduce industry cost pressures) while ensuring that a good part of this reallocation goes into increasing the salary cap. In other words, the objective should be to increase the capacity of the smallest clubs to pay the players more while, at the same time, reducing the capacity of the rich clubs to spend on non-player items

in other words players are not so much interested in what they get paid inside the cap, there's other stuff they're interested in too, stuff the smaller club's are priced out of.

that's a huge statement to make!

 

[Mat Mann]

What about north? How do they have no debt. And in what year did we lose 4 million. And I’m still trying to work why the extra we get is closer to 4 million when it’s actually closer to 9 million. And what is extreme right or left? When I mention extreme anything? If you mean media rights it’s common sense it will be a huge reduction if we want complete fairness. No derby every year. No certain blockbusters every year. Media rights are vital to us even if we can’t big games on tv. Our last big chance for a big game was Good Friday and one we couldn’t get a crowd and two we played shocking footy.

North who hasn't won or been to a GF since '99, how are they debt-free?, - run on a massively oily rag, sold home games to anywhere that would have them, they ran their club out of portables, the ground looked like a suburban VAFA home rather than an elite facility for the country's top sport the club's Admin ran out of rented space at Docklands, same ( re: selling games) as the Dogs before they were gifted $40m in land by a Dogs loving Vic politician.
And in what year did we lose 4 million - 2014 can you read? for the third time

$4 million -

• St Kilda - $20,539,315
• Port Adelaide - $19,805,849 (includes match day and merch)
• North Melbourne - $16,918,003
• Melbourne - $16,336,739
• Western Bulldogs - $16,271,119

again, there is a middle ground between mass handouts and complete evenness, one that allows the big clubs to earn the profits and still allows the small clubs the exposure they need to right their business and get back to being profitable and sustainable.


I give up with you mate, you're either being purposefully obtuse or just .......

 

[plugger66]

North who hasn't won or been to a GF since '99, how are they debt-free?, - run on a massively oily rag, sold home games to anywhere that would have them, they ran their club out of portables, the ground looked like a suburban VAFA home rather than an elite facility for the country's top sport the club's Admin ran out of rented space at Docklands, same ( re: selling games) as the Dogs before they were gifted $40m in land by a Dogs loving Vic politician.
And in what year did we lose 4 million - 2014 can you read? for the third time

$4 million -

• St Kilda - $20,539,315
• Port Adelaide - $19,805,849 (includes match day and merch)
• North Melbourne - $16,918,003
• Melbourne - $16,336,739
• Western Bulldogs - $16,271,119

again, there is a middle ground between mass handouts and complete evenness, one that allows the big clubs to earn the profits and still allows the small clubs the exposure they need to right their business and get back to being profitable and sustainable.


I give up with you mate, you're either being purposefully obtuse or just .......

No I’m not. You want fairness. There cannot be fairness for many reason. And the main reason is it will effect the distribution to every club. You can talk about the past all you like but what has happened has happened. Changing things to be totally fair now would see the death of some clubs. As for north well they have excellent facilities now so again in the past. We also had crap facilities and also sold games yet we are 12 million in debt. We also moved twice in about 6 years. Our decision our fault. That’s a one off debt that we chose to have. No ones fault but us. And then we get further debt by moving again. All because a previous ceo was an idiot. None of those decisions had anything to do with evenness of the afl but in both cases they gave us some money. That sounds like evenness. I don’t even understand what you want. And I don’t agree there is middle ground. How can you make a north versus us on a Friday a big game? Or do we have to play the pies then complain they get all the Friday night games. Just out of interest what is your middle ground that won’t effect revenue. Revenue we need more than any other Victorian club. And I will say it again. Who cares if you get your revenue as a handout and not effect overall afl revenue or get an even comp, which is impossible anyway, and effect revenue.
And I won’t bother personally attacking you. I’ve got to know when people personally attack they don’t have much else. But if you do decide to answer me can explain why you think our extra 6 million is closer to 4 than 9 compared to most of the sides who use the g? I have no idea how to link articles but I suggest you read an age article in feb 2020 on the distribution to us and why we get more than most clubs.

 

[mightymalaka]

No I’m not. You want fairness. There cannot be fairness for many reason. And the main reason is it will effect the distribution to every club. You can talk about the past all you like but what has happened has happened. Changing things to be totally fair now would see the death of some clubs. As for north well they have excellent facilities now so again in the past. We also had crap facilities and also sold games yet we are 12 million in debt. We also moved twice in about 6 years. Our decision our fault. That’s a one off debt that we chose to have. No ones fault but us. And then we get further debt by moving again. All because a previous ceo was an idiot. None of those decisions had anything to do with evenness of the afl but in both cases they gave us some money. That sounds like evenness. I don’t even understand what you want. And I don’t agree there is middle ground. How can you make a north versus us on a Friday a big game? Or do we have to play the pies then complain they get all the Friday night games. Just out of interest what is your middle ground that won’t effect revenue. Revenue we need more than any other Victorian club. And I will say it again. Who cares if you get your revenue as a handout and not effect overall afl revenue or get an even comp, which is impossible anyway, and effect revenue.
And I won’t bother personally attacking you. I’ve got to know when people personally attack they don’t have much else. But if you do decide to answer me can explain why you think our extra 6 million is closer to 4 than 9 compared to most of the sides who use the g? I have no idea how to link articles but I suggest you read an age article in feb 2020 on the distribution to us and why we get more than most clubs.

I've got nothing else!

So i'm gonna call you a tosser who smells!

 

[Mat Mann]

No I’m not. You want fairness. There cannot be fairness for many reason. And the main reason is it will effect the distribution to every club. You can talk about the past all you like but what has happened has happened. Changing things to be totally fair now would see the death of some clubs. As for north well they have excellent facilities now so again in the past. We also had crap facilities and also sold games yet we are 12 million in debt. We also moved twice in about 6 years. Our decision our fault. That’s a one off debt that we chose to have. No ones fault but us. And then we get further debt by moving again. All because a previous ceo was an idiot. None of those decisions had anything to do with evenness of the afl but in both cases they gave us some money. That sounds like evenness. I don’t even understand what you want. And I don’t agree there is middle ground. How can you make a north versus us on a Friday a big game? Or do we have to play the pies then complain they get all the Friday night games. Just out of interest what is your middle ground that won’t effect revenue. Revenue we need more than any other Victorian club. And I will say it again. Who cares if you get your revenue as a handout and not effect overall afl revenue or get an even comp, which is impossible anyway, and effect revenue.
And I won’t bother personally attacking you. I’ve got to know when people personally attack they don’t have much else. But if you do decide to answer me can explain why you think our extra 6 million is closer to 4 than 9 compared to most of the sides who use the g? I have no idea how to link articles but I suggest you read an age article in feb 2020 on the distribution to us and why we get more than most clubs.

you mean this overly vague and repetitive article that simply iterates our financial report in words but gives no case as to why things are as they are.
Low attendance, low sponsorship, s**t stadium deal, poor football, all results not the causes, how again are wads of cash going to change things.

on the fairness front, when have I ever said completely fair???????? we were supposed to play 1 Friday night game this year with Collingwood hosting at Marvel. Even if our fans do turn up, Collingwood gets those profits, would it really affect the league that much if StKilda hosted that game??? We host Richmond in Maddie's match, Sunday Arvo 4.40pm, would it be too onerous on the league to schedule that game or the Pride game in more reasonable hours that have a chance building momentum and pulling decent crowds. That's the middle ground I speak of.

Handouts as the only means is simply not enough.

compare us to Melbourne
4.3m in distributions difference
10.2m in sponsorship vs our 7.7m
15.2 in gate taking vs our 7.69m
both 730k for Merch
Melbourne has 2 standalone fta games "blockbuster" games and we have none

except of course the AFL stepped in and gave then heaps of cash that never had to be repaid, similar to Carlton.

when have I ever EVER said St Kilda has no responsibility for the debt amassed, I don't really care who or how it was made, I care about how we are going to get rid of it and exist beyond the next rights deal, and simply being handed money hasn't worked and won't continue to work unless we get more of it or other areas for improving the bottom line change

 

[plugger66]

you mean this overly vague and repetitive article that simply iterates our financial report in words but gives no case as to why things are as they are.
Low attendance, low sponsorship, s**t stadium deal, poor football, all results not the causes, how again are wads of cash going to change things.

on the fairness front, when have I ever said completely fair???????? we were supposed to play 1 Friday night game this year with Collingwood hosting at Marvel. Even if our fans do turn up, Collingwood gets those profits, would it really affect the league that much if StKilda hosted that game??? We host Richmond in Maddie's match, Sunday Arvo 4.40pm, would it be too onerous on the league to schedule that game or the Pride game in more reasonable hours that have a chance building momentum and pulling decent crowds. That's the middle ground I speak of.

Handouts as the only means is simply not enough.

compare us to Melbourne
4.3m in distributions difference
10.2m in sponsorship vs our 7.7m
15.2 in gate taking vs our 7.69m
both 730k for Merch
Melbourne has 2 standalone fta games "blockbuster" games and we have none

except of course the AFL stepped in and gave then heaps of cash that never had to be repaid, similar to Carlton.

when have I ever EVER said St Kilda has no responsibility for the debt amassed, I don't really care who or how it was made, I care about how we are going to get rid of it and exist beyond the next rights deal, and simply being handed money hasn't worked and won't continue to work unless we get more of it or other areas for improving the bottom line change

Firstly we were given a blockbuster and stuffed it up completely Also maddie match should be a blockbuster but due to our poor form since the game started we haven’t been able make it one. On Melbourne well they were coming offa top4 year and we were coming off a bottom 4 year so the comparison is a little unfair especially as they also averaged 7k more per home game. How do we compare to north. Yes the afl can give us a slightly better fixture money wise but all they will probably do is lower the dividend. Even if they didn’t lower the dividend a big game here or there isn’t going to get rid of over 20 million at the end of this year. Our debt continued to rise as north continued to fall. They did it with less dividend but probably a similar ordinary fixture and the same stadium deal whilst also building new facilities

 

[#gosaintas]

The good Friday game between 2 little melb clubs at marvel is not a blockbuster. If it doesn't involve one of the higher drawing clubs then it's not a blockbuster game. But the main issue is Saints supporters don't turn up to games unless the team is flying. If our supporters won't go to games then we're stuffed and will have to suck on the AFL's teat until they merge us or ship us off to Tassie/Gold Coast. Our membership/supporter conversion number is poor and our supporters are soft. Bit like the team. Bums on seats will turn the club around and nothing else. Once this social distancing crap is over we need to go to the frigging games and join as members.

 

[plugger66]

The good Friday game between 2 little melb clubs at marvel is not a blockbuster. If it doesn't involve one of the higher drawing clubs then it's not a blockbuster game. But the main issue is Saints supporters don't turn up to games unless the team is flying. If our supporters won't go to games then we're stuffed and will have to suck on the AFL's teat until they merge us or ship us off to Tassie/Gold Coast. Our membership/supporter conversion number is poor and our supporters are soft. Bit like the team. Bums on seats will turn the club around and nothing else. Once this social distancing crap is over we need to go to the frigging games and join as members.

The day is a blockbuster day. Wb and north drew 41k in the first game. They would no where near that on an ordinary day. And it says a lot for the bottom sides if we need to play the pies or tigers to make it a blockbuster and then complain they have to many blockbusters.

 

[#gosaintas]

The day is a blockbuster day. Wb and north drew 41k in the first game. They would no where near that on an ordinary day. And it says a lot for the bottom sides if we need to play the pies or tigers to make it a blockbuster and then complain they have to many blockbusters.

No matter what you say, 40,000 people turming up to watch Nth play footscray is not a blockbuster. What do all the blockbuster's have in common? They involve at least one of Coll, Rich or Ess. The Geelong/Hawks is the only other game that comes close and that rivalry is genuine, not manufactured. Similar to the Derbies.
Maddie's match is our best chance but we need the AFL to schedule it at on a fri/sat and we need our supporters to pack it out. It should be either a saints home game at Etihad or a Rich home game at the G but for whatever reason, Saints fans can't be stuffed going to the football. Of all the fanbases, it's StKilda's that are really begging to be put out of their misery.

 

[#gosaintas]

The other game is the Blue Ribbon game v Hawks. A Sat arvo MCG game where we supporters actually attend and honour fallen police. Rotate the H & A but make them all at the G

 

[Mat Mann]

Firstly we were given a blockbuster and stuffed it up completely Also maddie match should be a blockbuster but due to our poor form since the game started we haven’t been able make it one. On Melbourne well they were coming offa top4 year and we were coming off a bottom 4 year so the comparison is a little unfair especially as they also averaged 7k more per home game. How do we compare to north. Yes the afl can give us a slightly better fixture money wise but all they will probably do is lower the dividend. Even if they didn’t lower the dividend a big game here or there isn’t going to get rid of over 20 million at the end of this year. Our debt continued to rise as north continued to fall. They did it with less dividend but probably a similar ordinary fixture and the same stadium deal whilst also building new facilities

yet Melbourne
1st 3 Queen's B'day game's lost by 77, 51 and 56 points the whole game is littered with more blow out results than close matches, 3 margins going beyond 80 points, crowds average around the mid 60's, ok certainly, but hardly blockbuster. Collingwood even went so far as to donate their proceeds to Melbourne to help out "a smaller club"

Maddie's Match
2015 - Saturday night 45,722 attendance
2016 - didn't happen despite both clubs pushing for it too
2017 - Sat night demo of Richmond 47,514
2018 - Fri Night - 36,269
2019 - Sunday 40,962

jeez our supporters really haven't shown up for that event.

North has done well, no doubt, but they have consistently sold home games and multiple of them every year to do so, and their facility was a 10m investment 1/5th of what Moorabbin is.

seems like we are done here, continue the handouts, limit the club's scope to improve independently of the AFL, become a slave to the man

 

[George]

yet Melbourne
1st 3 Queen's B'day game's lost by 77, 51 and 56 points the whole game is littered with more blow out results than close matches, 3 margins going beyond 80 points, crowds average around the mid 60's, ok certainly, but hardly blockbuster. Collingwood even went so far as to donate their proceeds to Melbourne to help out "a smaller club"

Maddie's Match
2015 - Saturday night 45,722 attendance
2016 - didn't happen despite both clubs pushing for it too
2017 - Sat night demo of Richmond 47,514
2018 - Fri Night - 36,269
2019 - Sunday 40,962

jeez our supporters really haven't shown up for that event.

North has done well, no doubt, but they have consistently sold home games and multiple of them every year to do so, and their facility was a 10m investment 1/5th of what Moorabbin is.

seems like we are done here, continue the handouts, limit the club's scope to improve independently of the AFL, become a slave to the man

Not going to argue with the entirety of this post (can't be bothered) but I will stress that Marvel only holds 53,000, it's disingenuous to say it's a poor crowd and try to compare it to Melbourne-Collingwood at the MCG that holds double the capacity.

Maddies Match
2015 - 86% stadium capacity
2017 - 90%
2018 - 68%
2019 - 77%

I can almost guarantee we would've got around 60,000 (maybe even more) if we played these games at the MCG. We got 52,000 to Carlton at the MCG last year when our season was already done for.

Our last real marquee game against Richmond at the MCG was Rooey's last game. It wasn't our home game. 69,000 turned up.

 

[Mat Mann]

Not going to argue with the entirety of this post (can't be bothered) but I will stress that Marvel only holds 53,000, it's disingenuous to say it's a poor crowd and try to compare it to Melbourne-Collingwood at the MCG that holds double the capacity.

Maddies Match
2015 - 86% stadium capacity
2017 - 90%
2018 - 68%
2019 - 77%

I can almost guarantee we would've got around 60,000 (maybe even more) if we played these games at the MCG. We got 52,000 to Carlton at the MCG last year when our season was already done for.

Our last real marquee game against Richmond at the MCG was Rooey's last game. It wasn't our home game. 69,000 turned up.

It was sarcasm George, 40k+ at Etihad is a decent crowd for all and a very good crowd for us.
Melbourne is a comparison, s**t for almost 2 decades, exceeded 70k at the G on a public Holiday only 5 times., the actual games usually suck and are lopsided one way or the other, yet there they happen without fail, year after year.

Roo's 300th, was 2016, the year the AFL decided not to allow Maddies Match so it was cross-promoted alongside.

but that's the point I'm making if we accept the status quo and take the payout as Pugger suggests, we lose the capacity to expand on the large latent base we actually do have.

I'm arguing for more assistance not less, a better fixture and chance to build OUR club ourselves, not rely on a large yet still small handout that won't break the cycle we find ourselves in

 

[George]

It was sarcasm George, 40k+ at Etihad is a decent crowd for all and a very good crowd for us.
Melbourne is a comparison, s**t for almost 2 decades, exceeded 70k at the G on a public Holiday only 5 times., the actual games usually suck and are lopsided one way or the other, yet there they happen without fail, year after year.

Roo's 300th, was 2016, the year the AFL decided not to allow Maddies Match so it was cross-promoted alongside.

but that's the point I'm making if we accept the status quo and take the payout as Pugger suggests, we lose the capacity to expand on the large latent base we actually do have.

I'm arguing for more assistance not less, a better fixture and chance to build OUR club ourselves, not rely on a large yet still small handout that won't break the cycle we find ourselves in

Okay if that was sarcasm it completely flew over my head.

I don't know why you brought up his 300th but Rooey's last game was R23 2017 v Richmond at the MCG.

 

[jimmytigs]

while mummas boys can keep leaving clubs it will never be even,especially when 2 of them can say they have to get back to geelong and collingwood respectively for personal reasons,NO YOU NEED TO GET BACK TO VICTORIA FOR PERSONAL REASONS MR BEAMS AND MR ABLETT & VICTORIA HAS 10 CLUBS

while they can nominate a club rather than a state(for personal reasons),they make a total joke out of it & the afl seems to just allow it

unless things change re this issue,gold coast can revel in having high picks every season & gws will be the same when their honeymoon is over,while in victoria the bigger clubs will benefit more than the others

you want to leave gold coast gary ablett,or brisbane dayne beams,thats fine,but those clubs should be allowed to deal with 10 clubs,not 1,to be best compensated,not held over a barrel by sookie lalas

 

[Diehard Saint]

while mummas boys can keep leaving clubs it will never be even,especially when 2 of them can say they have to get back to geelong and collingwood respectively for personal reasons,NO YOU NEED TO GET BACK TO VICTORIA FOR PERSONAL REASONS MR BEAMS AND MR ABLETT & VICTORIA HAS 10 CLUBS

while they can nominate a club rather than a state(for personal reasons),they make a total joke out of it & the afl seems to just allow it

unless things change re this issue,gold coast can revel in having high picks every season & gws will be the same when their honeymoon is over,while in victoria the bigger clubs will benefit more than the others

you want to leave gold coast gary ablett,or brisbane dayne beams,thats fine,but those clubs should be allowed to deal with 10 clubs,not 1,to be best compensated,not held over a barrel by sookie lalas

I agree with these sentiments.

The AFL has allowed this inequity to go on for too long and I do believe that if the player is still under contract and they need to go back to their home state for whatever reason, it’s got to be for the best deal for their contracted club. This pick and choose business really puts the club in a no win position with absolutely no bargaining power at all.

 

[Mat Mann]

Okay if that was sarcasm it completely flew over my head.

I don't know why you brought up his 300th but Rooey's last game was R23 2017 v Richmond at the MCG.

Maddie Riewoldt's Vision - Nick's 300th

www.mrv.org.au

 

[George]

Maddie Riewoldt's Vision - Nick's 300th

www.mrv.org.au

Yep I know but I was talking about the last marquee game we played vs Richmond at the MCG. I don't know what relevance that game holds to the point I was making.

 

[plugger66]

yet Melbourne
1st 3 Queen's B'day game's lost by 77, 51 and 56 points the whole game is littered with more blow out results than close matches, 3 margins going beyond 80 points, crowds average around the mid 60's, ok certainly, but hardly blockbuster. Collingwood even went so far as to donate their proceeds to Melbourne to help out "a smaller club"

Maddie's Match
2015 - Saturday night 45,722 attendance
2016 - didn't happen despite both clubs pushing for it too
2017 - Sat night demo of Richmond 47,514
2018 - Fri Night - 36,269
2019 - Sunday 40,962

jeez our supporters really haven't shown up for that event.

North has done well, no doubt, but they have consistently sold home games and multiple of them every year to do so, and their facility was a 10m investment 1/5th of what Moorabbin is.

seems like we are done here, continue the handouts, limit the club's scope to improve independently of the AFL, become a slave to the man

Agree. Continue handouts

 

[plugger66]

I agree with these sentiments.

The AFL has allowed this inequity to go on for too long and I do believe that if the player is still under contract and they need to go back to their home state for whatever reason, it’s got to be for the best deal for their contracted club. This pick and choose business really puts the club in a no win position with absolutely no bargaining power at all.

how are the afl allowing it. It’s the clubs. Nothing to do with the afl. We didn’t allow jack to leave 2 years ago. Geelong didn’t allow kelly to leave 2 years ago. I’m not sure how the afl can stop this. Any rule they put in place would end up in court.