- Thread starter
- #201
So we're not allowed to bring up some rather obvious points of contention.
You made the Telstra analogy. I guess when you make illogical comment you'd need to hide it with the big 'AFL are god' statement.
End of discussion.
Possible Future AFL Expansion Discussion
- Thread starter madmug
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You made the Telstra analogy. I guess when you make illogical comment you'd need to hide it with the big 'AFL are god' statement.
End of discussion.
Ian Dunross
Premiership Player
- Mar 18, 2013
- 4,718
- 6,992
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Glenelg Tigers
But they had a gold pass to join the national competition, so it evens out
Ian Dunross
Premiership Player
- Mar 18, 2013
- 4,718
- 6,992
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Glenelg Tigers
The strongest argument I see for WA3 is the prospect of having a permanent Sunday night match for pay tv $
Ratings would be huge for a 6.30 pm fixture beamed live into Melbourne with one of the 3 x WA sides playing a Collingwood, Richmond, etc
5pm local time in Perth is not ideal for Perth fans, but it's not the worst either
Ratings would be huge for a 6.30 pm fixture beamed live into Melbourne with one of the 3 x WA sides playing a Collingwood, Richmond, etc
5pm local time in Perth is not ideal for Perth fans, but it's not the worst either
- Moderator
- #204
Well apparently others cant also speculate on business practices without drawing your ire, what makes you a special little snowflake.
4:40pm local starts, giving Perth true Twilight footy... put it on Ch 7 as part of a Sunday double header like in the 90s
3pm ET- Game out east
6pm ET - News (or the universe will fold onto itself if the news does not start at 6pm)
6:30pm ET - Sunday Night Football from Perth
Would be easier than trying to do Thursday Night football as a permanent fixture and having to compromise 6 day breaks etc.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #206
Perhaps a snowflake thats not a sycophant.
I think some people confuse being rabidly and reflexively anti-AFL (as in the commission) as being somehow more independent of mind than those that are sometimes critical and sometimes supportive
- Thread starter
- #208
Quite so. I merely pointing out the obvious business inconsistency of 2 clubs in a city of 2 million people, yet another city of 4.5million has 10 clubs a number of whom really have for most of their existence have struggled financially due to the competition pressures in that place. Its most obvious not a business decision to change rules & give handouts to support them.
BringBackTorps
Club Legend
- Jan 5, 2017
- 2,963
- 1,827
- AFL Club
- GWS
It is universally acknowledged that Footscray, North, & St Kilda had appalling, often unprofitable stadium deals with Docklands (They had to pay Docklands for playing there if their crowds were under C. 24,000). But the AFL GUARANTEED the former Dockland builders & owners that for 25 years c. minimum 45 games pa (+Finals) would be played there -thus "solidifying"Docklands long term high profitability, & ENSURING it would be built, with virtually no financial risk for its developers.
Therefore, these 3 Clubs have taken 17 years of financial pain; & have effectively "subsidised"the building of Docklands, as Peter Gordon FFC CEO likes to point out. And ALL AFL Clubs will, obviously, benefit from an asset they now own, costing them initially $30, on top of original AFL payment of $30,000,000 in 2001 (In 2017, Docklands Stadium is worth c. $1,200,000 -$1,500,000. It is now considered prime waterfront land, no longer moribund, industrial wasteland as it was considered in the early 90's. The State Govt. proposed Western Distributor Toll road will also improve inner west amenity, desirability, & land values).
McLachlan late last year stated the AFL was in discussions with the State Govt. to resurrect Docklands stuttering WATERFRONT tourist potential, & bring tourist $ -for GOVT. moneys to transform the Harbour Esp. waterfront section of the stadium itself into night clubs, restaurants,Meeting & Reception Rooms, Gallery etc. If successful, this would greatly & joyfully increase Docklands land values for EVERYONE ie AFL, other private Docklands landowners, & State Govt. (It is only c. 50 % developed, Govt. still owns land there!). Oh, what a happy outcome !
The AFL want the stadium to be a 365 day pa venue -generating profits every day from Stadium night clubs etc (Google "Soldier Field Stadium Chicago", the modern 365 day prototype money spinner); or:-
https://soldierfield.net
The other 15 Clubs should ADORE Footscray, North, & St Kilda for this windfall - they have more than "paid their way"for the AFL! As the AFL is a Not-For-Profit organisation, it is not required to pay any Land Tax on its appreciating asset (unlike previous Private owners).
Furthermore, in the last 10 years, the western & northern suburbs of Melb. have had Aust.'s highest population increases (from the 60's, this mantle was held by the Gold Coast). Demographers are predicting this trend will increase (cheap land cf. Syd., & not as far from CBD like Penrith etc), & Melb. will overtake Syd. c.2040.
Obviously, these big population increases (also being followed by businesses) will significantly increase support & profitability for Footscray (now becoming far more gentrified) & North (ditto).
Melb. FC will always survive, due to its name & status (founded 1858, probably the oldest continuously operating, "organised" FC in the world)-& the support & wealth of corporate Melb. & the eastern suburbs. This Australian national pride in our code & its history is immutable.
I fully support your views GR AF is struggling in many areas, not just TAS., & much more time & money needs to be spent on GR -but that's another issue.
Last edited:
Heaven forbid having an opinion that doesn't accord with city hall.
Succinct.
- Moderator
- #212
Never said he couldnt, but his expertise is no better or worse than the "budding BF management types". Heaven forbid anyone should point out that both of you seem to think you are better than everyone else posting on the subject, even though not one of us is in on the Commissions decisions or dealings.
- Thread starter
- #213
Nor does one need to be 'inside'
The view from the outside is stark. Perth, 2mill people, 2nd biggest footy market. About to get the use of a 60k stadium for 1 game a week!
Melbourne 10 teams, some of them are perennial strugglers , exports games interstate to make money. They are in an established market. The model requires huge handouts & tax the better off clubs to allow them to function in the long term.
Anyone can see the discrepancy & wonder what sort of business model drives the place.
Its clearly a political model. Decisions based on the distribution of power, not financial decisions.
Despite your attempted analogy, it is certainly not how Telstra would run it.
- Moderator
- #214
The model requires huge handouts because thats how the market has been designed by the league since the 90s. Its BASED on centralised revenues, and centralised contracts the smaller clubs have no control over, and wages that the clubs have no control over.
Or you are the one who cant handle an opposing view .... your views are no less credible than the mugsta. As for me I do express my point of view, and w3ill continue so to do.
- Thread starter
- #216
A 'business' model based on centralised control which allows loss making entities to continue is hardly a profit driven business. It's more akin to a type of political system intent on maintaining the status quo. Which is pretty well how I've described it over the journey. Look up the USSR!
People maintain the AFL is a 'profit' driven business. Well if it quacks like a politician, waddles like a politician, then it is a political model, not a profit driven business as some try to insist it is.
- Moderator
- #217
I have never claimed they are. And you can express what you like so long as you dont insult others in the process.
A 'business' model based on centralised control which allows loss making entities to continue is hardly a profit driven business. It's more akin to a type of political system intent on maintaining the status quo. Which is pretty well how I've described it over the journey. Look up the USSR!
People maintain the AFL is a 'profit' driven business. Well if it quacks like a politician, waddles like a politician, then it is a political model, not a profit driven business as some try to insist it is.
Your business-or-politics dichotomy is a false (and rather silly one)
The AFL is a not for profit, as are its clubs ultimately, but clearly operates on a commercial basis
The AFL commissioners are ultimately appointed by its 18 clubs and it operates in a political environment (including in the access of public funds for stadia for instance), so clearly it is a political entity
The AFL is the "keeper of the code" and is clearly orientated towards managing the code in the interests of its long term health (as it sees it)
The AFL is clearly "politically constrained" at a number of levels to not go cutting clubs willy nilly. It is also not necessarily in its business interests of the interests of the game to do so. Ten teams in Melbourne and two (relatively bigger) teams in Perth can certainly be argued as appropriate in both commercial, political and "cultural" terms.
Last edited:
Amen! Perth aka WA footy has a different model to the AFL, WA sans pokies.
Someone chucked in a comparison with Telstra too ..
Be absolutely certain Subi play in the WAFL & the Eagles are not Subi.
Ian Dunross
Premiership Player
- Mar 18, 2013
- 4,718
- 6,992
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Glenelg Tigers
Not sure if this is intended for me
My post is making the point that smaller VFL clubs, including mine, were given up a walk up start in the national comp (for non-contentious reasons, being that the national comp spawned out of the VFL) ahead of more successful, more financially solvent and similarly sized clubs from SA and WA, a point which softens the blow in the hypothetical scenario where they get booted from the AFL and have to then compete in the VFL.
Garlic muncher
Cancelled
- Feb 3, 2016
- 4,480
- 3,258
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
That is a good idea, the strongest argument for mine is the waiting lists that may or may not be satisfied by the new stadium, have said it before but my son and he is far from being alone saw more AFL games on a 5 day footy trip to Melbourne than 15 years in Perth and he is representative of thousands of kids, a scenario that does not happen in Melbourne.
You only really get to a AFL game in Perth if you are handed a membership ( for the day) by friends or family, a third team may not fill the stadium immediately but it will build like the Dockers have done.
Ian Dunross
Premiership Player
- Mar 18, 2013
- 4,718
- 6,992
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Glenelg Tigers
Even if WA3 initially averaged only 30,000 a home game (non Derby), that would still rank it as a middle of the road side for home attendances - which is excellent for a brand new team
The corporate support I imagine would be the largest hurdle, as opposed to the bums on seats as you indicate
The corporate support I imagine would be the largest hurdle, as opposed to the bums on seats as you indicate
Garlic muncher
Cancelled
- Feb 3, 2016
- 4,480
- 3,258
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I cant be sure if it true now, but a couple of years ago WCE had a waiting list for sponsors !!! - yes a waiting list - i find that unbelievable!
Whether they would jump to a new team and disliked the Dockers enough not to sponsor them is another question.
Easton Thighs
Unqualified Mōderator
- Mar 25, 2016
- 1,483
- 2,042
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Did the sponsors have to pay a fee to be on the waiting list
Similar threads
