So the AFL's taking 'trickle down economics' to a whole new level!

[Scodog10]

Whoa!

Now we know that the AFL staged the Essendon saga and their subsequent rebirth, and we know how much Richmond's revival meant to their bottom line - so much so that they scheduled an away final in front of their home fans at their home ground.

But for those who don't believe that the AFL stages and choreographs almost everything - surely it's now becoming obvious beyond dispute?

The game itself is on the nose, most agree. But that either gets forgotten about if the crowd is big, or refuted by the AFL through crowd stats.

So now we see the AFL also throwing their support behind the other 'big clubs' in the scheduling of Carlton and Collingwood's 2018 fixtures.

Some may not have an issue with these extreme 'trickle down economics', but we can't forget that although the bottom line of the AFL and most clubs will improve as a result - it does come at the expense of the smaller clubs.


Is this good for the game? Economics over competition?


Discuss....

Indeed.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...n/news-story/c450f059c9436a8343b81636d0273c52

GREATER Western Sydney received nearly $11 million more than the AFL’s financial heavyweights in distributions from the league last year.

My POV on this discussion is that the hypocrisy of it stinks.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Indeed.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...n/news-story/c450f059c9436a8343b81636d0273c52



My POV on this discussion is that the hypocrisy of it stinks.

What hypocrisy?

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

Spoken like someone who truly has no idea about our list. A top 2-3 backline, an already strong forwardline with the addition of Venables and Rioli, and the return of Naitanui and Lycett will ensure we don't slip far, certaintly not far enough for Carlton to catch us.

Let's agree to disagree, I just don't rate your list as was this year or at full strength. Soft front runners all over the park.

 

[Le Grille]

Spoken like someone who truly has no idea about our list. A top 2-3 backline, an already strong forwardline with the addition of Venables and Rioli, and the return of Naitanui and Lycett will ensure we don't slip far, certaintly not far enough for Carlton to catch us.

The main concern for WCE IMO is inside ball winners, losing Priddis will highlight a serious deficiency. Redden, Ah Chee will need to improve from good to great . I don't think you can cite Venables and Rioli as a definite improvement in the short term, longer term probably. Naitanui clearly is a big in of course.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Let's agree to disagree, I just don't rate your list as was this year or at full strength. Soft front runners all over the park.

Reckon you are pretty spot on about our list. Soft culture, soft players, very little resilience and an attitude of close enough is good enough and it keeps us in the news in WA. Needs a big turnaround and that is very possible but changing peoples character is always the hardest.

 

[JayJ20]

An honest analysis would also acknoweldge other factors such as MCG tenants, salary cap concessions.

Out of the 8 interside wins over vic teams, 4 were against non MCG tenants, and 3 of the 4 over MCG tenants were by teams who had salary concessions.
Out of the 8 Vic wins over interstate sides, 6 were by MCG teams.

Fact of the matter is an interstate side has to be so much better to win a flag than a victorian team. There has been 1 interstate premier in the 11 years since 2006, and they had COLA. You have to be deluded if you don't think victorian sides, and particularly MCG tenants, have an advantage when it comes to winning flags.

There are 4 MCG tenants. Hawthorn, Richmond, Melbourne and Collingwood. Melbourne haven't made a grand final in how long. Richmond only just made their first grand final in a long time. Collingwood only won one premiership since 1990. Their only appearance against an interstate side is a loss.

That only leaves Hawthorn, who have dominated for the last 50 years, not just in the AFL era. Out of the 5 (not 6) wins by MCG tenants (counting Hawthorn as a tenant of Waverley because the 1991 GF was held in Waverley), 4 were by Hawthorn and one by Richmond. It just tells us that Hawthorn dominated

Despite being an MCG tenant, Collingwood lost to Geelong in 2011 and were a bounce away from losing to St Kilda in 2010. If you're good enough, you'll win anywhere.

 

[mehow2g]

Since we live in a digital world with smart business software it is easy for the AFL to extract the KPI's to see where the most money is made and where the money is lost, they know what match up's generate the most at which grounds with each time slot.

Each year they have goals for

An Ideal fixture
An Ideal top 8
An Ideal finals series match up's at certain grounds (EG, First Finals week Geelong Home game vs Richmond at the MCG.)
They would also look at which big clubs need a boost an so on.

Oh yeah and gambling advertising.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

If you're good enough, you'll win anywhere.

I don't like that argument.

Although it's true, it's not really accurate.

'Being good enough' for Collingwood in 2010, was a very different target for St Kilda. Just for example.

Playing the 7 straight games at home at the MCG (or however many it was) meant that the performance required to be 'good enough', was far easier to achieve than it was for St Kilda.

Very basically put, Collingwood needed only an 8/10 on GF Day to be 'good enough', whereas the Saints needed a 10/10 given the respective draws throughout the season.


So yeah, if the Saints were good enough, they would have won. That's true. But if many factors have been stacked in one teams favour, the chances of them being 'good enough' increases.

 

[JayJ20]

The GF is a huge advantage to a Victorian side and it is not debatable. I love the GF at the G and don't want it to change really but I am rarely sure anymore if the best side in the comp wins the GF. For 100 years of the game 90% of the time the best side won the flag. Just don't think you can say that anymore as it all comes down to a fixture, location of games, times of games etc etc. Some get it better than others and there is no real solution to it.

You can also argue that interstate sides have a much easier pathway to a grand final, with the exception of Geelong. If they win say 10 out of 12 games (for the western teams) and 10 out of 11 (for the northern teams), then they only need to win about 3 or 4 away games to lock themselves in finals. Then another extra 2 games against bad teams and they're in the top 4. It's why interstate sides and Geelong can make the top 4 more regularly than Melburnian sides.

Compare that to Essendon and we play 6 interstate games, Etihad games against Etihad tenants that play 9-11 home games there, MCG games against MCG tenants, and home games at Etihad against interstate sides that play at the venue up to 5 times a year, while we only play 8 games there.

Take next year's fixture for example. We'll be playing Sydney in round 19. It will be our 7th Etihad game for the year. It will be Sydney's 5th Etihad game for the year. Where's the huge advantage there? If that game was at the SCG, it would be their 8th or 9th game at the SCG compared to our 1st and only game there. That'll also be Sydney's 4th game in 8 rounds at Etihad while we play there only twice from round 6 to round 18. Not really a big advantage, but you don't see us complaining about it all the time.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

There are 4 MCG tenants. Hawthorn, Richmond, Melbourne and Collingwood. Melbourne haven't made a grand final in how long. Richmond only just made their first grand final in a long time. Collingwood only won one premiership since 1990. Their only appearance against an interstate side is a loss.

That only leaves Hawthorn, who have dominated for the last 50 years, not just in the AFL era. Out of the 5 (not 6) wins by MCG tenants (counting Hawthorn as a tenant of Waverley because the 1991 GF was held in Waverley), 4 were by Hawthorn and one by Richmond. It just tells us that Hawthorn dominated

Despite being an MCG tenant, Collingwood lost to Geelong in 2011 and were a bounce away from losing to St Kilda in 2010. If you're good enough, you'll win anywhere.

It is not just the venue it is the travel and broken week that is the issue. Whether it be Grand Final day or a round 15 game the stats clearly show that when you play outside of your bubble be that a Vic side travelling to Perth or a Perth side travelling to Melbourne their backs are to the wall.
The absolute exceptional sides can overcome this and win but the vast majority will lose more than they win when playing away.
How on GF day would this change all of a sudden? All of a sudden it's a neutral venue with no advantage for anyone.
By the way I want the GF to stay at the G.
But I am not silly enough to think a Vic club playing an interstate side there on GF day is not an advantage for the Vic club. Just as I think it is an advantage for the Eagles playing a Vic club in Perth.
It is very likely in my opinion that Adelaide would of won the GF had the game been at Adelaide Oval, we will never know of course and it is not to take away from Richmond as they were super on the day but that is just how big a difference it is.
I just cannot for the life of me understand how so many think this is not the case.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You can also argue that interstate sides have a much easier pathway to a grand final, with the exception of Geelong. If they win say 10 out of 12 games (for the western teams) and 10 out of 11 (for the northern teams), then they only need to win about 3 or 4 away games to lock themselves in finals. Then another extra 2 games against bad teams and they're in the top 4. It's why interstate sides and Geelong can make the top 4 more regularly than Melburnian sides.

Compare that to Essendon and we play 6 interstate games, Etihad games against Etihad tenants that play 9-11 home games there, MCG games against MCG tenants, and home games at Etihad against interstate sides that play at the venue up to 5 times a year, while we only play 8 games there.

Take next year's fixture for example. We'll be playing Sydney in round 19. It will be our 7th Etihad game for the year. It will be Sydney's 5th Etihad game for the year. Where's the huge advantage there? If that game was at the SCG, it would be their 8th or 9th game at the SCG compared to our 1st and only game there. That'll also be Sydney's 4th game in 8 rounds at Etihad while we play there only twice from round 6 to round 18. Not really a big advantage, but you don't see us complaining about it all the time.

I am agreeing with you mate, but none of these games are playing for the cup. And you guys do complain, not you in particular but complaining about 6 day breaks after travelling to Perth, why can't we win after travelling to Perth etc etc. Must be something in that travel and interrupted week I reckon. lol

 

[JayJ20]

It is not just the venue it is the travel and broken week that is the issue. Whether it be Grand Final day or a round 15 game the stats clearly show that when you play outside of your bubble be that a Vic side travelling to Perth or a Perth side travelling to Melbourne their backs are to the wall.
The absolute exceptional sides can overcome this and win but the vast majority will lose more than they win when playing away.
How on GF day would this change all of a sudden? All of a sudden it's a neutral venue with no advantage for anyone.
By the way I want the GF to stay at the G.
But I am not silly enough to think a Vic club playing an interstate side there on GF day is not an advantage for the Vic club. Just as I think it is an advantage for the Eagles playing a Vic club in Perth.
It is very likely in my opinion that Adelaide would of won the GF had the game been at Adelaide Oval, we will never know of course and it is not to take away from Richmond as they were super on the day but that is just how big a difference it is.
I just cannot for the life of me understand how so many think this is not the case.

To be honest, I doubt that Adelaide would have won even in Adelaide. That's because Richmond broke Adelaide's midfield the way Melbourne did. Dusty and co aren't going to disappear. Richmond had all of the momentum in the back end of the season leading into the finals.

Sure the margin could have been closer, but I thought Richmond were too strong for Adelaide tactically and physically.

 

[JayJ20]

I am agreeing with you mate, but none of these games are playing for the cup. And you guys do complain, not you in particular but complaining about 6 day breaks after travelling to Perth, why can't we win after travelling to Perth etc etc. Must be something in that travel and interrupted week I reckon. lol

Yes but it gives you a better shot at playing for the cup. What's the use of playing at the MCG when you're stuck between 5-8 every year because you can't win enough games to finish in the top 4.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

To be honest, I doubt that Adelaide would have won even in Adelaide. That's because Richmond broke Adelaide's midfield the way Melbourne did. Dusty and co aren't going to disappear. Richmond had all of the momentum in the back end of the season leading into the finals.

Sure the margin could have been closer, but I thought Richmond were too strong for Adelaide tactically and physically.

You may be right mate and we will never know. The point I am making is it is a totally different mindset.
Adelaide at home go through their week expecting to win, in their minds they own the ground and a re full of confidence.
Now take them for the same game against Richmond at the G and their mindset is different no matter how hard they try for it not to be, now we are in their den, they are the ones that own the ground, they are the ones who feel confident.
If you have played any reasonable level of sport you will know what I am saying here. It is a huge difference whether we like to admit it or not. It is also why I have always said that any side that wins the flag from outside of Victoria and are playing a victorian team really are vastly superior sides to their opposition. By a long long way.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Yes but it gives you a better shot at playing for the cup. What's the use of playing at the MCG when you're stuck between 5-8 every year because you can't win enough games to finish in the top 4.

It does not give you any better shot at winning the cup though and ultimately that is all that matters, no matter how you get there if we are playing against Essendon on GF day I would give us a 30% chance at best.

 

[Randomizor]

Americanas make make s**t pizzas. How is a cheese only pizza, a pizza?

The also call them pies.

How can the so called greatest country in the world get both beer and pizza so, so wrong?

I agree, but don’t tell my American girlfriend I said that

 

[Benji85]

Pineapple on a pizza is just wrong. Only fruit that is allowed on a pizza is tomato paste.

Just live a little

 

[Yippy Yi Yeo]

I don't like that argument.

Although it's true, it's not really accurate.

'Being good enough' for Collingwood in 2010, was a very different target for St Kilda. Just for example.

Playing the 7 straight games at home at the MCG (or however many it was) meant that the performance required to be 'good enough', was far easier to achieve than it was for St Kilda.

Very basically put, Collingwood needed only an 8/10 on GF Day to be 'good enough', whereas the Saints needed a 10/10 given the respective draws throughout the season.


So yeah, if the Saints were good enough, they would have won. That's true. But if many factors have been stacked in one teams favour, the chances of them being 'good enough' increases.

Easy for them to paint with a big brush and use generalised statements like that when they are the beneficiaries. When it comes down to winning a game of football there are countless factors, but home ground, and even home state advantage are huge factors in that. Regardless of the outcome, having the grand final in your home state, and better yet at your home ground gives you a huge advantage in a grand final.

 

[garlic munchers]

That's not to dismiss the interstate clubs impact as it has been positive but its total BS to suggest they saved the VFL clubs. Do you really think Aussie rules in the 2nd most populous state in Aus was ever seriously under threat?

No just clubs like the Bulldogs, or whatever you were once called?

 

[telsor]

No just clubs like the Bulldogs, or whatever you were once called?

So you think a mere $8Million from WCE & Brisbane 'saved' all those VFL clubs?

Even with the finances at the time, you've got to be kidding yourself.

The league owned VFL park (remember, no commission then so the clubs could have forced a sale) , and the easy option of stopping paying transfer fees (which would have driven WAFL & SANFL broke), but even if they didn't do that, Richmond's Save our Skins campaign raised over a million in a month, showing what could/would have been done to save clubs who got close to going under. Then of course, there could also have been the government option where they chipped in to save the comp (as happened in WA when the WAFL actually went bust).

The licence fees were just a minor factor in Vic clubs surviving, one repeated, usually, by ignorant WA fans who want to pretend they actually matter and forget that their league was the one that did go broke.

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFL own Richmond.

No they dont. Richmond is owned by its Membership.

They own all clubs.

No they dont. Technically they dont own any clubs - they do own the right to appoint the majority of the board to Sydney, GWS, Gold Coast, and temporarily to Adelaide and Port Adelaide. (as they represent the Mjaority or Transition Member)

The AFL is not a body that administers a football competition for a bunch of independent clubs.

The AFL is an independent body, consisting of Commissioners nominated by the clubs and the CEO, that not only runs the AFL competition, but the state competitions of Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales, ACT, QLD and NT.

The AFL is an entertainment company. A behemoth of an entertainment business.

Entertainment is a modern part of sport.

Their job is to make money, lots of it, by selling entertainment to their customers.

Sure, its why the VFL board of directors created the commission in the first place - to ensure the profitability and viability of the league.

If you think that the AFL don't 'help' Richmond, you're utterly delusion.

Please tell us more about this help. Try to be specific.

 

[The_Wookie]

Imagine the hit to the bottom line when they lose just under half their market. Reckon that TV agreement would be even close to as big?

half the market?

Lets play this game.

• Brisbane are reliant on AFL funding to survive, they leave the AFL and they are dead in the water. The AFL are also the owners and funders of AFL Queensland.
• Gold Coast are reliant on AFL funding to survive, the AFL appoint its board, and the stadium contract is with the league, manged by the club ot its behalf.
• GWS are in the same boat as Gold Coast, and the AFL own and fund AFL NSW/ACT
  
• Sydney's board is also subject to AFL approval.
• For the next 13 years, both Port Adelaide and Adelaides boards are subject to AFL approval.

That leaves the WAFL and its two clubs out on their own. The WAFL can barely afford to run itself, already takes money from the AFL, and is wholly reliant on AFL income at Perth Stadium.

Without WA, the tv deal probably wouldnt move as much as you think. The AFL still gets all its membership and attendance revenues from.

 

[telsor]

half the market?

Lets play this game.

• Brisbane are reliant on AFL funding to survive, they leave the AFL and they are dead in the water. The AFL are also the owners and funders of AFL Queensland.
• Gold Coast are reliant on AFL funding to survive, the AFL appoint its board, and the stadium contract is with the league, manged by the club ot its behalf.
• GWS are in the same boat as Gold Coast, and the AFL own and fund AFL NSW/ACT
  
• Sydney's board is also subject to AFL approval.
• For the next 13 years, both Port Adelaide and Adelaides boards are subject to AFL approval.

That leaves the WAFL and its two clubs out on their own. The WAFL can barely afford to run itself, already takes money from the AFL, and is wholly reliant on AFL income at Perth Stadium.

Without WA, the tv deal probably wouldnt move as much as you think. The AFL still gets all its membership and attendance revenues from.

Yep.

But even if all the Non Vic clubs did somehow overcome their own boards, and the hurdles in place (AFL exclusive stadium deals, IP rights, etc) and leave to form their own comp....They'd have less than half the revenue of the league (<50% of TV rights, none of AFL membership/venue revenues), and more than half of the expenses (funding northern teams, travel, promotion in northern states, more expensive junior development due to larger areas covered).

Then there would be the future where both leagues try to expand into the others area...How much success do you think the "We hate Victoria and have a massive chip on our shoulder about it league" would have in tempting Vic clubs & fans away? Meanwhile the Vic league would have a tried and tested blueprint for expanding into the other states.

 

[The_Wookie]

So you think a mere $8Million from WCE & Brisbane 'saved' all those VFL clubs?

Even with the finances at the time, you've got to be kidding yourself.

The league owned VFL park (remember, no commission then so the clubs could have forced a sale) , and the easy option of stopping paying transfer fees (which would have driven WAFL & SANFL broke), but even if they didn't do that, Richmond's Save our Skins campaign raised over a million in a month, showing what could/would have been done to save clubs who got close to going under. Then of course, there could also have been the government option where they chipped in to save the comp (as happened in WA when the WAFL actually went bust).

The licence fees were just a minor factor in Vic clubs surviving, one repeated, usually, by ignorant WA fans who want to pretend they actually matter and forget that their league was the one that did go broke.

Minor notes

• Technically there was a Commission - the VFL Commission was formed in 1985, but didnt properly replace the Board of Directors until 1993.
• In 1988, The VFL announced a reduction in transfer fees for interstate and country recruits. Clearance fees were abolished.
• The $8 million in license fees was rather helpful, but not as helpful as the $30 million tv deal 7 signed in 1987.
• Richmond DID require VFL assistance around this time according to Ross Oakley. Richmond posted a loss of 1.4 million and required league assistance to pay bills over Christmas. The league considered appointing an administrator, but instead sent the leagues finance supervisor to the club. Richmond along with St Kilda and North Melbourne all request advances on their 1988 disbursements. (The Phoenix Rises pg.136)

 

[BTs Nana]

half the market?

Lets play this game.

• Brisbane are reliant on AFL funding to survive, they leave the AFL and they are dead in the water. The AFL are also the owners and funders of AFL Queensland.
• Gold Coast are reliant on AFL funding to survive, the AFL appoint its board, and the stadium contract is with the league, manged by the club ot its behalf.
• GWS are in the same boat as Gold Coast, and the AFL own and fund AFL NSW/ACT
  
• Sydney's board is also subject to AFL approval.
• For the next 13 years, both Port Adelaide and Adelaides boards are subject to AFL approval.

That leaves the WAFL and its two clubs out on their own. The WAFL can barely afford to run itself, already takes money from the AFL, and is wholly reliant on AFL income at Perth Stadium.

Without WA, the tv deal probably wouldnt move as much as you think. The AFL still gets all its membership and attendance revenues from.

Yes the AFL have been very clever in making sure they have control. Cool.

We know it'll never happen. Cool.

But don't even try to say that the current model would be sustainable if it was just Victorian clubs.

Vics need the interstate clubs just as much as the other way around. Don't be so ******* arrogant and stupid.