Jesse Hogan(mini-draft)- priority for us

[whiteoak]

Plenty of clubs have cheated in this competition and then fallen on hard times. Carlton is the prime example. They cheated the salary cap, fell into debt, were rescued by the AFL, and arguably tanked as well (though the AFL didn't want to know about it then). There's an argument put by former players that Fremantle 'cheated' in 1999. I don't believe it, but it's on the record just as Brock McLean put it on the record about Melbourne.

Essendon are still the only club to cheat the salary cap in a premiership year, and now have the PED thing hanging over them. And hey, look at the AFL assistance they're getting, Demetriou personally contacting their sponsors, among other things. If you want to find examples of impropriety in the AFL, you don't have to look very far.

The AFL are committed to 18 clubs, and there are no viable options for relocating a struggling club - except maybe to Western Australia, which is a growing state, economically prosperous, and under catered for when it comes to football.

The penalty handed out to Carlton, in comparison to today's fines, was manifestly excessive and essentially drove Carlton to the brink. So that was partly of the AFL's own doing. And to use your own language, the AFL cannot afford to lose one of the big 4 Victorian teams.

So again, an unfair and irrelevant comparison to the current MFC situation.

I would agree that the CURRENT AFL Administration is committed to 18 clubs, with the current imbalance of Melbourne teams to stay in place.

However, again I put a lot of this down to the aforementioned Victorian-centric Commission make up at present.

Hopefully a future, more balanced and less biased, Commission will realise the inevitable and apply some common sense to this farcical situation.

 

[Enya]

Well, if you were going to cut the number of clubs the perfect place to start would be a club in both NSW and QLD.

 

[Freo Shark]

Well, if you were going to cut the number of clubs the perfect place to start would be a club in both NSW and QLD.

Logical move to rationalise clubs in "non AFL states" which is the whole premise for expanding the comp.

 

[Tulip]

Why feel sorry for Neeld? He wanted the job. Then went in with whatever he thought was needed, but clearly no clue how to actually handle the situation. And for being one of the most incompetent coaches in a very long time he gets to walk away with a massive payout that is way above what someone with his skills should actually earn. He's done pretty well for himself.

Especially when Bailey's Melbourne comprehensively beat Freo on multiple occasions.

 

[Enya]

Logical move to rationalise clubs in "non AFL states" which is the whole premise for expanding the comp.

It will be 20 years at least before GWS pulls crowds above 15,000, if they make it that far. I have been to games, and games of other codes in that part of Sydney. The club has zero pull. It is unlikely it ever will.

 

[manpurple]

It will be 20 years at least before GWS pulls crowds above 15,000, if they make it that far. I have been to games, and games of other codes in that part of Sydney. The club has zero pull. It is unlikely it ever will.

Maybe so but I am a little sick of the complete focus on Melbourne (city not club) and the disregard for anything or anyone outside. As far as I'm concerned anything that starts to even that balance up is good for the sport and us in the long run.

So yes, I'm all for merging some melbourne clubs. No i'm not in favour of melbourne clubs having "home games" outside of melbourne (because it prevents the "local" teams being added to the AFL). Yes I am in favour of a teams in Tas, Canberra, NZ and the top end as a long term strategy.

 

[whiteoak]

It will be 20 years at least before GWS pulls crowds above 15,000, if they make it that far. I have been to games, and games of other codes in that part of Sydney. The club has zero pull. It is unlikely it ever will.

Which is exactly why the AFL should have rolled a Melbourne based club into Tasmania and pour our hard earned into propping up that club instead of going into a soccer and Rugby League heartland.

 

[Paracleet]

Who cares. If they pull in an extra 100 or 200 million in tv rights at every new deal then they have paid for themselves for a very long time. That would be exactly 100 or 200 million more than a struggling Melbourne team who cuts even one year and makes at hundred thousand dollar loss the next would be contributing.

 

[Enya]

I can't see Channel 7 paying an extra 100 million for games they shunt to 7mate in NSW. Or Foxtel for the handful of extra subscribers they might receive. If you lived in Sydney and didn't have Foxtel, you'd barely know they existed.

 

[Paracleet]

Well that’s their thinking isn't it. And there is no way to prove them wrong is there without an identical control league were they had to negotiate the latest round of rights without Gold Coast and GWS coming into existence in that period to see if it shaved 253 Million off the price.

 

[Alfonz]

Which is exactly why the AFL should have rolled a Melbourne based club into Tasmania and pour our hard earned into propping up that club instead of going into a soccer and Rugby League heartland.

I don't disagree with you. I think there should be a team in Tasmania (Melbourne would be the obvious candidate).

But advertising revenue to Sydney markets is obviously more atractive to the TV channels than Tasmania/NT. Maybe the TV execs would rethink if they saw how GWS was going and realise that barely anybody is watching their games ... but at the time of the deal, I'm sure they were sold about the bright future of GWS. Two games involving Sydney teams looked much more attractive than just 1 Sydney side. I'd say whatever is being spent on GWS is more than made up for by the extra TV rights they received.

 

[Enya]

Well that’s their thinking isn't it. And there is no way to prove them wrong is there without an identical control league were they had to negotiate the latest round of rights without Gold Coast and GWS coming into existence in that period to see if it shaved 253 Million off the price.

And isn't that a disingenuous attempt at a double blind comparison. Inflation over five years alone accounts for around 10-15%, on top of the 12.5% increase in number of games to be scheduled when going to 18 teams.

A 25% increase on top of the previous rights deal is about fair, not out of proportion due to the presence of some untapped market. Neither GWS nor GCS are responsible for that increase aside from the fact they provide extra games. Neither Channel Seven nor Foxtel are paying extra because of the existence of the expansion clubs.

 

[whiteoak]

I don't disagree with you. I think there should be a team in Tasmania (Melbourne would be the obvious candidate).

But advertising revenue to Sydney markets is obviously more atractive to the TV channels than Tasmania/NT. Maybe the TV execs would rethink if they saw how GWS was going and realise that barely anybody is watching their games ... but at the time of the deal, I'm sure they were sold about the bright future of GWS. Two games involving Sydney teams looked much more attractive than just 1 Sydney side. I'd say whatever is being spent on GWS is more than made up for by the extra TV rights they received.

You'd think that will be quantified come the next round of TV rights negotiations.

It will will be interesting to see what transpire; if GWS continue to be as unpopular as they are. Yeah, they'll start winning games in the coming seasons and should play finals; but will that translate into comparable attendances, memberships and TV ratings in comparison to other clubs?

Personally, I have my doubts.

 

[Enya]

You'd think that will be quantified come the next round of TV rights negotiations.

It will will be interesting to see what transpire; if GWS continue to be as unpopular as they are. Yeah, they'll start winning games in the coming seasons and should play finals; but will that translate into comparable attendances, memberships and TV ratings in comparison to other clubs?

Personally, I have my doubts.

The reason why it can succeed is due to the long-term concessions the AFL have instituted - COLA and Academy draft picks. But that is the only way it can succeed. That will mean two clubs that have leg ups over the rest of the competition for on field performance in the interest of bringing in TV rights money.

 

[Paracleet]

And isn't that a disingenuous attempt at a double blind comparison. Inflation over five years alone accounts for around 10-15%, on top of the 12.5% increase in number of games to be scheduled when going to 18 teams.

A 25% increase on top of the previous rights deal is about fair, not out of proportion due to the presence of some untapped market. Neither GWS nor GCS are responsible for that increase aside from the fact they provide extra games. Neither Channel Seven nor Foxtel are paying extra because of the existence of the expansion clubs.

I nominted 253 mill as a neat round down figure on the deal as it was struck. The actual amount might have been 300 million, 100 or nothing at all. The point is we don't know. It certainly wasn't disingenuous; unlike making up statisitics to support your arguement. Last time I checked the 780 Million was not 25% less than 1.254 Billion but more like 40%.
(BTW Kudos on inventing the phrase 'disingenuous attempt at a double blind comparison'. I'm sure that's the first time those words have been used in that order in the history of the universe.)

 

[Enya]

My mistake, I assumed from your statement it was 1 billion last time. My argument remains the same, the increase of money is not significant enough to be attributed to the new clubs, neither of which attract any major media interest (especially GWS which attracts no interest in Sydney and won't during the term of the contract). Say 2006 dollars is like for like as 2011 dollars is at best misleading, and the increase is not out of proportion to previous increases in TV rights deals.

(BTW Kudos on inventing the phrase 'disingenuous attempt at a double blind comparison'. I'm sure that's the first time those words have been used in that order in the history of the universe.)

I'm glad we have someone like you around to keep us on our toes with spelling, grammar and sentence construction.

BTW what is pueso logic again?

 

[Paracleet]

My mistake, I assumed from your statement it was 1 billion last time. My argument remains the same, the increase of money is not significant enough to be attributed to the new clubs, neither of which attract any major media interest (especially GWS which attracts no interest in Sydney and won't during the term of the contract). Say 2006 dollars is like for like as 2011 dollars is at best misleading, and the increase is not out of proportion to previous increases in TV rights deals

Oh Clay, don't ever change man. Tell me, what quantum in difference between what you 'thought' and what actually was the case would have been enough for you to change your mind?

I'm glad we have someone like you around to keep us on our toes with spelling, grammar and sentence construction.

You are more than welcome

BTW what is pueso logic again?

Apparently it's Spanish for He. I confess you've got me there.

 

[Enya]

From what I can gather reading the interwebs:

2001: $500 million for TV rights
2006: $780 million
2011: $1.25 billion

Seems dollar per game value increases at a rate of 7% per year. The entrance of a second Sydney team has not disproportionately increased the value of the rights at all. Which makes sense, because they have zero exposure on mainstream FTA TV and have minimal expectations of playing deep in finals prior to 2016.

 

[caterina]

Not good news for the boy, may have done a serious knee today

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-17/knee-scare-for-hogan

 

[leeloo]

Fingers crossed it's nothing serious. Poor bugger.

 

[PapaJ]

Bad luck to the guy obviously. Doesn't sound like it is necessarily an ACL so may well avoid the reco surgery and be back on the park next year.

But boy this is a bump that pisses me off. Hogan should never have been allowed to go to Melbourne. They only got that stupid mini-draft picks because of tanking plus the mini-draft was intended to bring mature aged bodies to the GWS, not give tanking scum like Melbourne access to even more of the prized picks.

... As you can see, I'm really struggling to let this go. Smash them tomorrow at the 'G' and I might feel a touch better about it all.

 

[mightymouse75]

Means some time at home with the family, pondering playing with his beloved Dockers perhaps?
Could be a blessing in disguise, how long is he signed up with those turkeys?

 

[DOCKERZ]

Means some time at home with the family, pondering playing with his beloved Dockers perhaps?
Could be a blessing in disguise, how long is he signed up with those turkeys?

Til the end of 2015.

 

[free at last]

Til the end of 2015.

Is that a normal length first sign-on contract?

 

[Nothing]

Is that a normal length first sign-on contract?

Yes 2 years for draftees (this year doesn't count)