Opinion MODERATE ideas for a 'fairer' AFL without the hyperbole of VIC & non-VIC trolls. TROLLS FROM BOTH SIDES PLEASE KEEP OUT

Remove this Banner Ad

kranky al said:
The reason they are spending the money on gc, gws and aflw is to broaden their reach - to nationalise the comp

to make it a bigger and better product so it gets even more revenue.

nothing quite says how half hearted they are about it than their other actions which show the reality of it - which goes directly against building a national comp

I cant help but be reminded of flatmate ads in perth seeking fifo workers only

we want your money but we dont really want you. You will be tolerated.
Click to expand...

The first part was my point.

They can invest in further growth BECAUSE they have the additional money from being focussed on revenue.

Take away that money, and they wont have the money to invest....



I have no idea where you got that second part from.
 
telsor said:
The first part was my point.

They can invest in further growth BECAUSE they have the additional money from being focussed on revenue.

Take away that money, and they wont have the money to invest....



I have no idea where you got that second part from.
Click to expand...
Mate id believe the bit about revenue if it was applied across the board - but its not

Vic teams get double ups against collingwood because it makes money = fine and fair - all good.

north melbourne going broke with a shitty stadium deal ask to move a home game to Perth where they have a big fanbase and will sell out a stadium, make oodles of cash = unfair, distorts the comp. denied.
 
kranky al said:
Mate id believe the bit about revenue if it was applied across the board - but its not

Vic teams get double ups against collingwood because it makes money = fine and fair - all good.

north melbourne going broke with a shitty stadium deal ask to move a home game to Perth where they have a big fanbase and will sell out a stadium, make oodles of cash = unfair, distorts the comp. denied.
Click to expand...

I was clearly talking about AFL revenue.

If you want fair, I look forward to your club giving up a quarter of their ground to AFL members (AKA AFL revenue) and getting a pittance in return, or that shitty stadium deal that once again, was very lucrative for the AFL...

Vic clubs pay for the AFL, so if you want fair, why not pay your share.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

telsor said:
I was clearly talking about AFL revenue.

If you want fair, I look forward to your club giving up a quarter of their ground to AFL members (AKA AFL revenue) and getting a pittance in return, or that shitty stadium deal that once again, was very lucrative for the AFL...

Vic clubs pay for the AFL, so if you want fair, why not pay your share.
Click to expand...
Western australian clubs pay for wa grassroots football all the way up to the wafl

we pay our way.

dont lecture us about how victorian clubs are doing such a great thing for the afl by paying for docklands

docklands benefits victorian footy fans not wa, sa, nsw or qld footy fans.


wa footy teams developing football benefits all clubs - including yours.
 
Last edited:
Papa G said:
For many it would be a prestige thing.
The Boxing Day Test is a big event.
I have zero doubt if the Grand Final was not part of the membership, the MCC wouldn't lose a cent in membership.
Click to expand...
The enclosure only holds 22k. Not sure you would have 100k+ members paying more than $700 a year in membership for this one day alone, particularly if it is oversubscribed nearly five times over.
 
telsor said:
For those who want the AFL to be less focused on money, ask yourself where you want the cuts to come from the reduced revenue.

Players are still going to want their coin, AFL execs wont be cut much, so you're looking goodbye GWS, GC, & AFLW (all of which probably mean less money down the line, but hey, if they don't have the money to invest now...
Click to expand...
The AFL aren’t cutting the growth market. The first clubs to go would be smaller Victorian clubs.

It is pretty simple, the entire industry could have a shake up.

The actual game from a visual perspective really isn’t that much better than it was in the 80s, the over coaching and analysis has just encouraged risk aversion, ball retention and defensive football.

You really could drop right back to semi professional type engagement - 2 half days a week at the club and the actual game day - which would slash costs completely.

And then you don’t need the entire bloated footy departments and AFL head office etc. with development officers, engagement teams, about a dozen coaches, nutritionists, analyst, welfare officers, leadership and culture consulatants etc

Covid will force many industries to fast track change that would usually be considered too hard.

Hopefully the AFL does make some changes and even up the H&A season and make it more random and fair instead of the fix
 
MCG automatically gets the Grand Final

so to even up this advantage, if a non Victorian team qualifies for a preliminary final that final automatically gets played at their home ground. Irrespective of ladder positions
ie Richmond vs Adelaide prelim would automatically be played at Adelaide oval every time
If two non Vic teams qualify for the same prelim, normal home ground qualification rules applies...same for 2 Vic teams playing each other

Hypocritical for any Vic club or supporters to complain
 
Cull 4 teams (who is the question)

24 rounds, with each top team missing double ups vs low ones (e.g. 1st and 2nd would not double up vs 13 and 14, 3rd and 4th would miss 11 and 12....)

6 team, 3 week finals
 
If we are talking about things that actually can happen then moving the grand final from the MCG and stopping MCC access to the grand final aren't in the conversation.

Maybe it's unfair, but many things in life are unfair.

I can guarantee you that neither of those things are happening.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ziad said:
Start with the basics:
  1. 17 game season - reverse H&A each year
  2. Financial equalisation needs to be moderated to reward success and hard work. If not State Govt contributions etc need to be pulled into the Cap.
  3. Most of the others stuff is C grade journalism - there is planty across the full media landscape so we just put up with it.
As an aside I would ban gambling revenue and pokies but that a differnt agenda
Click to expand...
All for options to navigate the fixture but hate the idea of a 17 round season. I'd be more open to exploring cutting teams and playing twice with shorter games or expanding to 20 teams and adding in something like a genuine SoO to fill the gap.

Fans don't want to see less footy and losing 23% of games is a significant, drastic cut down.

You're also talking enormous revenue loss from every avenue doing this, tv rights, radio rights, membership, sponsorship, all drops significantly with that big a cut down.

Even with double up games, I'm not sure a premier has ever been decided by those extra games. The best team still wins in finals.
 
Last edited:
Equal spread of Friday night and Thursday night games.
All indigenous players in Australia eligible for NGA. Remove current exclusion for people in SA and WA.
Equal nationally broadcast games.
 
juss said:
All for options to navigate the fixture but hate the idea of a 17 round season. I'd be more open to exploring cutting teams and playing twice with shorter games or expanding to 20 teams and adding in something like a genuine SoO to fill the gap.

Fans don't want to see less footy and losing 23% of games is a significant, drastic cut down.

You're also talking enormous revenue loss from every avenue doing this, tv rights, radio rights, membership, sponsorship, all drops significantly with that big a cut down.

Even with double up games, I'm not sure a premier has ever been decided by those extra games. The best team still wins in finals.
Click to expand...
Fans want to see more of their team...many only when they are doing well.

As the season rolls on, plenty lose interest and only watch the odd game even footy tragics (like myself) lose interest in Friday night footy if it is Carlton getting trounced by Port.

The actual TV contract isn’t about number of games, it is about quantity of quality games in prime time TV slots.

C7 would pay more $ to have a guaranteed Thursday night game over two Sat arvo and a 1:10 Sunday game.

However, the clubs would lose money if you cut games as they get $ from gate receipts and how many games they can throw in.

And that is where it is the AFLs job to try and balance all of the competing priorities
  • TV wanting ‘blockbuster’ fixtures
  • Stadium contracts stating certain number of ‘marquee’ games
  • Non-vic teams wanting to play each other twice to avoid travel
  • Small clubs all wanting ‘home’ games against Collingwood/Essendon and now Richmond since they have finally come good to boost their gate
  • Small clubs looking for ways to make additional money when they are getting shunted to s**t time slots (hence China, NZ, NT games)
  • Non-vic clubs complaining about where their away games are played...but not even bothering to consider that Cox clubs don’t even get their ‘home’ games where they want!!
  • All clubs wanting more games in prime time (but TV broadcasters not interested in half the league)
  • The AFL itself trying deciding to handicap the league to create a false sense of equity (we can’t have a bottom team being belted each week, so let’s fixture the bottom teams to play each other more).
The AFL juggles all those competing interests to create a ‘fixture’, which is always going to have inequality depending on your own perspective.
 
For the most part they do a pretty decent job, as if a club gets its s**t together they can have a good run at sustained finals appearances, but if club is a mess you struggle.

If you actually look at long term stats, the H&A ladder has non-Melbourne teams dominating the finals and top 4 spots.

Almost as if their perceived disadvantage about travel, less ‘blockbuster’ slots and lack of MCG games are actually less important to winning games of footy compared to actually retaining a proper home ground advantage, and having their away disadvantage reduced.

What is more important?

Playing games on public holidays or Friday night in neutral stadiums with no real advantage for either side, or actually getting an unequal balance in games where you have an advantage so you stand a better chance of finishing higher on the ladder, making finals and getting an easier path to a GF?

To me it is fairly obvious that playing a Melbourne team in the NT is advantageous in terms of actually winning that game. As your opponents the supposed ‘home’ team with an ‘advantage’ have traveled, sleep in a hotel, don’t enjoy a crowd advantage and aren’t familiar with the ground or conditions...all the things that supposedly make up the away ‘disadvantage’!

Yet somehow SA and WA fans think they are disadvantaged in that scenario, because it costs them a potential game at the G!

What it does is give them a better chance at an extra win, and boost %. Which means instead of finishing 3rd/4th on the ladder, they finish 2nd and then get the easy run in finals and even get a chance to qualify for a GF (which of the fixture was fair they really probably didn’t deserve to finish that high on the ladder anyway).
 
juss said:
All for options to navigate the fixture but hate the idea of a 17 round season. I'd be more open to exploring cutting teams and playing twice with shorter games or expanding to 20 teams and adding in something like a genuine SoO to fill the gap.

Fans don't want to see less footy and losing 23% of games is a significant, drastic cut down.

You're also talking enormous revenue loss from every avenue doing this, tv rights, radio rights, membership, sponsorship, all drops significantly with that big a cut down.

Even with double up games, I'm not sure a premier has ever been decided by those extra games. The best team still wins in finals.
Click to expand...

Normally Juss you're a reasoned poster who posts with practic front of mind. But you've conflicted yourself in this one post.

' I'd be more open to exploring cutting teams'

Then

'Fans don't want to see less footy and losing 23% of games is a significant, drastic cut down.'

'You're also talking enormous revenue loss from every avenue doing this, tv rights, radio rights, membership, sponsorship, all drops significantly with that big a cut down.'

By cutting teams as you put it, you immediately cut fan bases and games. Unless it is a gc or gws (even then there is some public interest in them). This is the primary reason HQ are hell bent on ensuring the survival of all clubs, they don't want to lose revenue (the fans).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Taper
West Coast are the only non VIC club to win a premiership without concessions
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
151
Views
7K
Taper
Taper
Dirty Bird
Are non-Victorian teams' fans killing their own clubs?
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
MC Bad Genius
MC Bad Genius
HugeJohnson
Roast We are at round 1 and THIS is the big headline from the AFL official page
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Colonial
Colonial
PowerfulPies2023
  • Locked
When was the last time Both Grand Finalists started the season 0-2?
Replies
1
Views
168
Gralin
Gralin
Lingsface
King of Victoria
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Lingsface
Lingsface
PowerfulPies2023
Carlton are the one to watch out for - They can win The Premiership
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
244
Views
6K
Thrawn
Thrawn
RUNVS
Who wins - Your 2015 side vs 2024 side?
2
Replies
33
Views
835
PJays
P

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top