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

[owen87]

Aha.

Apologies. RUNVS

In any case, what we have now which is not the 'ideal 800k cities per club' seems to be working.

It suggests that there are only 649000 fans per vic club. In other words 'we should have less clubs in vic'. 2 less in fact.

In reality the two lowest supporter bases in vic equates to 468k (according to that poll), they ain't gonna accept their club no longer competing in the league and distribute themselves to other clubs to reach this 'ideal'.

They'd be lost from the league, the only positive is evening up the draw and travel somewhat. It creates a much larger problem that it solves from HQ's perspective.

Yes, VIC probably has too many teams in real terms, but there's historical reasons for why this is so. If you were starting a league from scratch you wouldn't have 9 sides in Melbourne (Geelong has it's own catchment region).

North, St Kilda and the Bulldogs are all on the smaller side, but fortunately Melbourne has strong historical support for AFL and a higher per capita membership figure than Sydney does.

I don't think there is a positive outcome from removing or relocating any of the VIC teams at this point. North's link to Tasmania means they get brought up a lot as one to relocate, but I doubt it would attract the outcome people hope for.

 

[Rich01]

Not exact but I think the AFL should be aiming for 1 team per million people, with exceptions for Queensland and NSW since they are not heartland states.

It should be 1 team per 800,000 at an absolute minimum, and even that feels like not enough people.

Seems an arbitrary number. Why did you land there? Interested in your supporter conversion ratio, particularly your rationale on heartland vs non-heartland states.

 

[RUNVS]

Seems an arbitrary number. Why did you land there? Interested in your supporter conversion ratio, particularly your rationale on heartland vs non-heartland states.

Heartland needs a lower figure as there are a higher percentage of fans within the numbers. I also arrived at the number based on things like how strong the Western Australian clubs are financially, and how they never need assistance like some of the Melbourne based clubs.

1 million per team in a heartland state means each club is financially comfortable, in a non-heartland state you would need to double that figure.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Didn't the Dockers take an Indigenous kid from their academy in the first round last year?

Yes, were very lucky. He was from the Kimberly.

Correct re nsw and qld, new markets and require more $. That's why the landscape is geared the way it is, more $ to grow the game - that's the end game.

It's not intended to be a vic advantage because vic, it's intended to maximize revenue.

As the old sayin goes 'nothing personal just business'.

So giving the Vic side more NGA players maximise revenue?? Please explain?

How much of an advantage is it? The Bulldogs will get a good player this year, maybe he's the first. Sydney and Brisbane aren't exactly new football teams.

Tarryn Thomas last year.

I am glad you feel that way, then there is no harm if giving the SA and WA sides the same access.

 

[legend166]

1. The reason for that is capacity, more capacity = more revenue.

Freo an outlier because they're a small draw card in vic, however I'd argue they would've got more gate receipts at the G. I'd imagine this won't be happening again soon.

2. See 1.

These are not moderate from HQ's view point because of less revenue, so not easy, it won't be happening.

3. Partly agree with this, gc and gws have been given concessions in all manner of forms since their inception. So it's not new, but could be applied differently - your idea may already be in place. Can anyone confirm this?

If we can't make any changes that would impact revenue then what are we doing here in the first place?

The AFL is, despite how it may be run, a non-profit organisation, i.e. profit should not be the main driver of decisions. It is an organisation that manages a sporting competition. The very first thing that motivates decisions should be "How can we most fairly run this sporting competition?" If, after that, they can make decisions one or another that increase revenue, go ahead. Something like a twilight/night Grand Final is a good example. It has no bearing on the fairness of the competition.

Now, as I said, there are certain inherent inequalities to the competition that will never disappear because of how it evolved over the last 140 years. But something as simple as "Hey maybe certain clubs shouldn't be protected from playing at certain grounds around the country because it doesn't make us enough money" isn't part of that.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

actually they are well below the ratio
and considering the Richmond supporter I was responding to consistently spouts that Non Vic sides have the advantages, you would expect those sides to have done better

fact is they (Non Vic sides)are at a complete disadvantage and the numbers 100% reflect that

Please provide the numbers that prove Non Vic sides have the advantages, like Richmond supporters consistently state but provide zero evidence of

There is no statistical difference between Victorian teams and non-Victorian teams in terms of their finals performances based on the numbers you provided. So the numbers suggest no disadvantage or advantage in finals performances based on where a club is based.

Feel free to knock yourself out -

Analyze a 2x2 contingency table

www.graphpad.com

 

[The 747]

Can you tell me one advantage the WA and SA sides have when compared to the Victorian sides.

10 games at home vs an interstate team is not an advantages, when you compare it to only travelling 4-7 times a year plus playing 4-17 games in your home state.

Being an attractive destination for WA and SA bred players and having only one other team to compete against for talent (and that other team never seriously competes). There you go.

 

[RUNVS]

Being an attractive destination for WA and SA bred players and having only one other team to compete against for talent (and that other team never seriously competes). There you go.

And how many players in the last 5 years have gone back home to SA and WA?

 

[The 747]

And how many players in the last 5 years have gone back home to SA and WA?

I don't know, are you disputing that they have an advantage in getting home grown talent back to their clubs?

 

[The 747]

oh really ...you got all that from one reply

I have provided figures to substantiate my viewpoint

you have only provided hyperbole and opinion based on zero evidence and facts

Sure. Yay WA!

 

[RUNVS]

I don't know, are you disputing that they have an advantage in getting home grown talent back to their clubs?

Why would I dispute that? It is the same for every club in whatever state they are in. I am not entirely sure how you think it is an advantage that only WA clubs get.

 

[LordLucifer]

Not exact but I think the AFL should be aiming for 1 team per million people, with exceptions for Queensland and NSW since they are not heartland states.

It should be 1 team per 800,000 at an absolute minimum, and even that feels like not enough people.

I like your approach.

I normally use 500,000 people per team as a yardstick but if it is higher then it increases the potential for success.

 

[Rich01]

[

Heartland needs a lower figure as there are a higher percentage of fans within the numbers. I also arrived at the number based on things like how strong the Western Australian clubs are financially, and how they never need assistance like some of the Melbourne based clubs.

1 million per team in a heartland state means each club is financially comfortable, in a non-heartland state you would need to double that figure.

What’s your rationale on member uptake for each?

 

[RUNVS]

[

What’s your rationale on member uptake for each?

Are you referring to membership numbers?

I think you can tell the true support of a Victorian side if you see what crowds they get in Victoria against a team like Fremantle or Port Adelaide. Membership numbers can be rather wooly sometimes, but the true level of support for each Victorian club can be figured out by seeing how many people turn up to a game against a side with a very low supporter base in Victoria.

 

[Rich01]

Are you referring to membership numbers?

I think you can tell the true support of a Victorian side if you see what crowds they get in Victoria against a team like Fremantle or Port Adelaide. Membership numbers can be rather wooly sometimes, but the true level of support for each Victorian club can be figured out by seeing how many people turn up to a game against a side with a very low supporter base in Victoria.

No. I’m talking to your numbers on being financially viable. Members are a reflection of team support and a generator of income. The higher the membership base generally the more financially secure they are (Covid has mixed this up but the sentiment stays the same).

The amount of members also has a link to how attractive clubs are to sponsors (on field success does play a role as well).

And to your point on crowds, there’s probably a link in the amount of members and game attendances - definitely a watch out with the two franchises in GC and GWS.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

That's a discussion for another thread. At minimum they've got guaranteed fan base, regardless of size.

Also more than what the GC will ever get to a game.

Would provably pull higher crowds than some of the smaller Melbourne teams too.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yes, VIC probably has too many teams in real terms, but there's historical reasons for why this is so. If you were starting a league from scratch you wouldn't have 9 sides in Melbourne (Geelong has it's own catchment region).

North, St Kilda and the Bulldogs are all on the smaller side, but fortunately Melbourne has strong historical support for AFL and a higher per capita membership figure than Sydney does.

I don't think there is a positive outcome from removing or relocating any of the VIC teams at this point. North's link to Tasmania means they get brought up a lot as one to relocate, but I doubt it would attract the outcome people hope for.

I agree totally with this post, as you correctly stated IF a league were to start from scratch you'd have less clubs in vic. The reality is though it is an expanded VFL no matter how much HQ claim it's a national one. The reason the smaller clubs are still viable is yes in part due to historical reasons but also the fact HQ don't want to lose the revenue of even the smallest fan base.

 

[The 747]

Why would I dispute that? It is the same for every club in whatever state they are in. I am not entirely sure how you think it is an advantage that only WA clubs get.

WA and SA produce more players than they use at their four clubs, when home grown talent wants to return (and there is a surplus) the clubs have only one other club to bid against and that other club usually does not bid seriously. Is that not an advantage over other clubs? I was asked to provide one example of an advantage.

 

[Papa G]

2019 AFL season by the TV ratings numbers - Sports Industry AU

Note: the below article was published on TV Blackbox on September 30th. Follow them on twitter at @TV_Blackbox At a

www.footyindustry.com

According to 2 Stars own figures on 2019 20.08 million people in Melbourne watched the AFL regular season on FTA. Adelaide and Perth combined was 16.68 million.

It has been argued that it's all about money. TV brings in the most money by far. Perth and Adelaide together get around 83% of the TV Audience Melbourne does despite only having 40% of the teams, 60% of the population and getting less than 20% of the prime time games. You can clearly see where the real heartland of Australian Rules Football lies.

 

[Carringbush2010]

So giving the Vic side more NGA players maximise revenue?? Please explain?

Never stated that, and I don't believe it would. I was pointing out the whole landscape not NGA.

If anything this one moderate idea that could be changed and have net zero effect on the bottom line.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Correct re nsw and qld, new markets and require more $. That's why the landscape is geared the way it is, more $ to grow the game - that's the end game.

It's not intended to be a vic advantage because vic, it's intended to maximize revenue.

As the old sayin goes 'nothing personal just business'.

When maximise revenue ends up handicapping sides it needs to be stopped.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Also more than what the GC will ever get to a game.

Would provably pull higher crowds than some of the smaller Melbourne teams too.

Fair call, at some point in the very far future, maybe gc would pull higher crowds and tv ratings. That would mean that AF would be the dominant code if not level with RL in that area. We're talking about generations away.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Your argument is that the teams are not representative of population, now you want to change your argument since your first one was no good.

How is the distribution unhealthy?

Is the game losing money?

Does too many teams mean less TV rights money?

What is your argument here other than I am a #vicco?

I'll help you though, too many teams dilutes the standard of play - I agree with that.

The AFL distribution to clubs is unhealthy as some clubs require significant more funds than other clubs.

Take out the expansion clubs, there are some sides who regular require millions more each year than other clubs. These clubs are effectively losing money & the AFL could be strengthened by reducing the number of teams & increasing the season.

TV rights depend more on games & their quality. Viewers have reduced as the quality has reduced. Would be better of having higher quality games for longer.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Never stated that, and I don't believe it would. I was pointing out the whole landscape not NGA.

If anything this one moderate idea that could be changed and have net zero effect on the bottom line.

My bad.

Agree there is no reason for it except #VICBIAS

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I'll assume you believe the distribution you're alluding to is too many in vic, do you have evidence that the distribution is unhealthy?

Just look at the AFL distribution to each side.

There are quite a number of clubs relying on significantly higher distribution from the AFL.