State of AFLW

[Hawkk]

The first game at Ikon was a lock out.
Growth isn’t linear.

Weather it’s uncomfortable or not, there is enough evidence woman’s sport will always have and face barriers that men’s will not.

Do I follow it religiously - absolutely not. I’ll keep an eye on the app scores when Richmond is playing, but me and most of us aren’t the target market. It’s a generation of new young girls who can one day say me too.
You can’t put a price on that.

I have two major issues with AFLW in its current configuration.

1) as it stands just 9 of the 18 clubs are self succulent (below). The AFLW is a financial drain on the competition, which is only exacerbating the financial stress on the league. And whilst the AFL is currently propped up by an extremely lucrative media deal (the only reason we have 18-20 teams in the AFL and not 12-14) traditional media is dying and there is no guarantee that the networks or Foxtel are going to cough up another massive payday for the AFL. Soon the AFL is going to struggle to prop up North, Melbourne, St Kilda, Port, Gold Coast, GWS and the Devils men’s teams let alone the W.

2) AFLW (and for that matter the NRLW and WBBL) has cut off a lot of corporate and government money from flowing through to netball, hockey and other sports (and it’s not just AFLW either). The cynic in me thinks that the AFL’s big push into AFLW coincided with the last cycle of major stadium and facility upgrades. As the old saying goes, ‘in the race of life always back self interest because if nothing else you always know that self interest is trying hard.’

 

[Rouel_14]

I have two major issues with AFLW in its current configuration.

1) as it stands just 9 of the 18 clubs are self succulent (below). The AFLW is a financial drain on the competition, which is only exacerbating the financial stress on the league. And whilst the AFL is currently propped up by an extremely lucrative media deal (the only reason we have 18-20 teams in the AFL and not 12-14) traditional media is dying and there is no guarantee that the networks or Foxtel are going to cough up another massive payday for the AFL. Soon the AFL is going to struggle to prop up North, Melbourne, St Kilda, Port, Gold Coast, GWS and the Devils men’s teams let alone the W.

2) AFLW (and for that matter the NRLW and WBBL) has cut off a lot of corporate and government money from flowing through to netball, hockey and other sports (and it’s not just AFLW either). The cynic in me thinks that the AFL’s big push into AFLW coincided with the last cycle of major stadium and facility upgrades. As the old saying goes, ‘in the race of life always back self interest because if nothing else you always know that self interest is trying hard.’


View attachment 2475061

Weather it’s a financial drain on the AFL depends on what you value. You don’t value the woman’s competition therefore see it as a drain.

Someone may not value north Melbourne FC at all and see them as a drain on the competition - therefore should they not exist?

The AFL is in rude health and while the threat of the tv rights going down is real, I think the risk is relatively low. All the metrics on crowds show we are as engaged as ever - so maybe it is the perfect time to spend the cash while they have the money to spare.

It’s nearly comes down to a conservative v progressive argument.

 

[Bjo187]

Weather it’s a financial drain on the AFL depends on what you value. You don’t value the woman’s competition therefore see it as a drain.

Someone may not value north Melbourne FC at all and see them as a drain on the competition - therefore should they not exist?

The AFL is in rude health and while the threat of the tv rights going down is real, I think the risk is relatively low. All the metrics on crowds show we are as engaged as ever - so maybe it is the perfect time to spend the cash while they have the money to spare.

It’s nearly comes down to a conservative v progressive argument.

I agree AFLW should be viewed as a loss leader, but seriously there needs to be a cut off as to how much a business is willing to lose on a product. How much is too much, a billion dollars? Nuh that's fine the game is in rude health financially.

Changes are necessary. The savings would go back into important areas like grassroots and marketing of the game in non traditional markets.

 

[Rouel_14]

I agree AFLW should be viewed as a loss leader, but seriously there needs to be a cut off as to how much a business is willing to lose on a product. How much is too much, a billion dollars? Nuh that's fine the game is in rude health financially.

Changes are necessary. The savings would go back into important areas like grassroots and marketing of the game in non traditional markets.

Half the men’s teams are not sustainable without handouts every year so by that method big changes are necessary in the men’s too.

 

[Hawkk]

Half the men’s teams are not sustainable without handouts every year so by that method big changes are necessary in the men’s too.

Absolutely. But the answer isn’t loading up even more debt onto the clubs otherwise perhaps 2/3 of the clubs will be unsustainable instead of 1/2.

 

[Bjo187]

Half the men’s teams are not sustainable without handouts every year so by that method big changes are necessary in the men’s too.

Yeah but the money the men's game makes goes to the afl, which then redirects it back to these clubs, so it's feeding itself in a round about way. The women's game is straight up massive losses that are getting bigger every year, coz the stupid afl keep bowing to the pay rise requests.

I do think the cost base of running an afl club and AFL hq is way too high, all the clubs should be wealthy with how much money attendance and membership bring into the game. That's before we even get started on the tv rights.

 

[jatz14]

I agree AFLW should be viewed as a loss leader, but seriously there needs to be a cut off as to how much a business is willing to lose on a product. How much is too much, a billion dollars? Nuh that's fine the game is in rude health financially.

Changes are necessary. The savings would go back into important areas like grassroots and marketing of the game in non traditional markets.

Not a business. A business wants all of its divisions and operations to make money. The AFL is a not for profit, it has no shareholders. It has a self imposed overarching stewardship of the game. Any endeavour that advances Australian Football that is financially supportable is therefore justifiable, regardless of the profit/loss of that endeavour in and of itself.

The AFLW is not imperilling the financial future of the AFL, and while that is true, its not dropping the AFLW, and even if it did, they would financially restructure it, not abandon it.

Politically, dropping the AFLW at this point is about as likely as them cutting Collingwood. Its not happening, you just need to get your head around that reality.

 

[jatz14]

Absolutely. But the answer isn’t loading up even more debt onto the clubs otherwise perhaps 2/3 of the clubs will be unsustainable instead of 1/2.

So, cut the unprofitable clubs, use the money freed up to ensure the financial health of the rest. You know it makes financial sense if we look at it logically and not as bleeding hearts.

 

[The_Wookie]

I agree AFLW should be viewed as a loss leader, but seriously there needs to be a cut off as to how much a business is willing to lose on a product. How much is too much, a billion dollars? Nuh that's fine the game is in rude health financially.

Changes are necessary. The savings would go back into important areas like grassroots and marketing of the game in non traditional markets.

AFLW is almost singlehandedly responsible for the growth in womens participation. And thats been the largest growth area in grassroots since 2016.

 

[Bjo187]

Not a business. A business wants all of its divisions and operations to make money. The AFL is a not for profit, it has no shareholders. It has a self imposed overarching stewardship of the game. Any endeavour that advances Australian Football that is financially supportable is therefore justifiable, regardless of the profit/loss of that endeavour in and of itself.

The AFLW is not imperilling the financial future of the AFL, and while that is true, its not dropping the AFLW, and even if it did, they would financially restructure it, not abandon it.

Politically, dropping the AFLW at this point is about as likely as them cutting Collingwood. Its not happening, you just need to get your head around that reality.

Yeah but my argument is that of say the 70 mill they'll lose on it this year, you could cut that back to 40 mill loss and have a better product and reinvest that money into things that help the game, including women's football.

If you're happy to just piss $70 mill up the wall per year for no extra benefit that's fine, but it's incumbent on the AFL to get the best bang for their buck and make the women's league more watchable, so that it can eventually start making some money. The current set up fails to do that in every way, coz of really poor past decision making, by trying to look socially progressive. Which funnily enough, has actually killed the quality and watchability of the product.

 

[The_Wookie]

by trying to look socially progressive. Which funnily enough, has actually killed the quality and watchability of the product.

Its not the only goal of AFLW. Funnily enough that "socially progressive part" is singlehandedly responsible for more growth at grassroots than anything else the league has done in 50 years.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yeah but my argument is that of say the 70 mill they'll lose on it this year, you could cut that back to 40 mill loss and have a better product and reinvest that money into things that help the game, including women's football.

If you're happy to just piss $70 mill up the wall per year for no extra benefit that's fine, but it's incumbent on the AFL to get the best bang for their buck and make the women's league more watchable, so that it can eventually start making some money. The current set up fails to do that in every way, coz of really poor past decision making, by trying to look socially progressive. Which funnily enough, has actually killed the quality and watchability of the product.

I'm going to put aside the equality of opportunity argument that women have every right to be professional AFL footballers once they weren't discriminated against compared to the 150 year head start that men had and it's probably the right thing to do for the men to give up some of their money for the women so that's where the money is coming from.

But be specific about where you think $30 million is better spent. Sure you can renovate a few footy grounds so there's more female-friendly changing rooms - though they already do this and $30 million wouldn't stretch that far across that many rooms - but surely better facilities for a couple of hundred female players and their motivation to keep playing because they play in upgraded facilities is less cost effective than the inspiration and the motivation those same players will get by having hundreds of professionals run around on TV.

If you can nominate any better spend of $30 million I'm open to being convinced.

FWIW the women's league is "unwatchable" in my eyes to the extent that the matches are uncompetitive, and that maybe the AFL could have been more forceful in ensuring a level of professionalism and investment among all 18 clubs into their programs, and a bit better organisation of list rules and how the money is spread among the players (while spending the same amount).

But it's really not "pissing it up the wall". For an industry that generates nearly $2 billion having a professional league that's good representation for literally half our population is to me an absolute bargain.

 

[Bjo187]

Its not the only goal of AFLW. Funnily enough that "socially progressive part" is singlehandedly responsible for more growth at grassroots than anything else the league has done in 50 years.

I know you love playing devil’s advocate on everything I post, but if you look back a few pages you’ll see I’ve been clear: I’m a supporter of the women’s game. Its introduction has been fantastic for the code. The problem isn’t the concept, it’s the way it’s been managed.

The AFL expanded far too quickly and kept granting pay rises before the competition was on stable footing. Those decisions feel like they were driven more by the desire to appear socially progressive than by what was actually best for the long term health of the competition and in doing so, they've killed the product.

 

[The_Wookie]

I know you love playing devil’s advocate on everything I post, but if you look back a few pages you’ll see I’ve been clear: I’m a supporter of the women’s game. Its introduction has been fantastic for the code. The problem isn’t the concept, it’s the way it’s been managed.

That its being mismanaged is undisputed, but that the money would be better spent on grassroots is arguable given the returns in the womens department.

The AFL expanded far too quickly and kept granting pay rises before the competition was on stable footing. Those decisions feel like they were driven more by the desire to appear socially progressive than by what was actually best for the long term health of the competition and in doing so, they've killed the product.

Im not playing the devils advocate on anything here. I believe every single word i just wrote - and its borne out by grassroots facts. AFLW was as much about game development as anything else, a fact which is conveniently overlooked by people obsessed with the finances, ratings and crowds it gets.

Never mind that on that basis we wouldnt have the Suns or Giants in particular. And theres some Victorian clubs that would be under a severe microscope. Let alone the 5 state comps that the AFL runs.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

That its being mismanaged is undisputed, but that the money would be better spent on grassroots is arguable given the returns in the womens department.



Im not playing the devils advocate on anything here. I believe every single word i just wrote - and its borne out by grassroots facts. AFLW was as much about game development as anything else, a fact which is conveniently overlooked by people obsessed with the finances, ratings and crowds it gets.

Never mind that on that basis we wouldnt have the Suns or Giants in particular. And theres some Victorian clubs that would be under a severe microscope. Let alone the 5 state comps that the AFL runs.

While the AFL cut back on it it used to spend millions on his U18 high performance program, for a while partnered with the AIS and they used to spend millions on getting the players to tour Europe.

Which to me always seemed a bit bizarre. The clubs wanted this because they didn't want their draft picks to fail and they didn't want to spend the resources investing in their newly drafted players to get them "AFL-ready". But I'm of the view let them not be AFL ready - it's all zero sum anyway (as in that, if the entire U18 base is less AFL ready, that's distributed evenly among all clubs, and no club benefits or suffers in a competitive environment), and the AFL could have just given the money that the spent flying the players to Europe with slightly higher club distributions anyway.

 

[Bjo187]

That its being mismanaged is undisputed, but that the money would be better spent on grassroots is arguable given the returns in the womens department.

Im not playing the devils advocate on anything here. I believe every single word i just wrote - and its borne out by grassroots facts. AFLW was as much about game development as anything else, a fact which is conveniently overlooked by people obsessed with the finances, ratings and crowds it gets.

Never mind that on that basis we wouldnt have the Suns or Giants in particular. And theres some Victorian clubs that would be under a severe microscope. Let alone the 5 state comps that the AFL runs.

I’m not criticising AFLW itself I’m a supporter, and there’s no doubt it’s been great for grassroots footy and female participation. But do you agree the league expanded far too quickly? That’s where the real problems began. Adding so many teams when the standard was still poor stretched the talent pool even thinner, made the competition less watchable, and ultimately hurt the product.

I also don’t think expanding to all 18 clubs actually boosted participation. The growth at junior level was already happening organically. If anything, the drop in overall quality, online criticism, move of the sport to fully secondary channel exposure and the number of uncompetitive teams may have reduced the appeal for aspiring young female athletes.

On top of that, the rapid expansion forced an immediate jump from about 300 players to well over 500, which made the subsequent pay rises ridiculous. Young girls getting into footy aren’t driven by being the highest-paid athletes in the country, they’re excited because, for the first time, there’s a genuine pathway to play the sport they love.

The AFLW concept is good, but the rush to look fully established before the foundation was ready has created issues the league is still trying to fix. The only way to put some of the toothpaste back in the tube and save face (and cut the losses) is to go to promotion and relegation, at least until the talent catches up.

I'm going to put aside the equality of opportunity argument that women have every right to be professional AFL footballers once they weren't discriminated against compared to the 150 year head start that men had and it's probably the right thing to do for the men to give up some of their money for the women so that's where the money is coming from.

But be specific about where you think $30 million is better spent. Sure you can renovate a few footy grounds so there's more female-friendly changing rooms - though they already do this and $30 million wouldn't stretch that far across that many rooms - but surely better facilities for a couple of hundred female players and their motivation to keep playing because they play in upgraded facilities is less cost effective than the inspiration and the motivation those same players will get by having hundreds of professionals run around on TV.

If you can nominate any better spend of $30 million I'm open to being convinced.

FWIW the women's league is "unwatchable" in my eyes to the extent that the matches are uncompetitive, and that maybe the AFL could have been more forceful in ensuring a level of professionalism and investment among all 18 clubs into their programs, and a bit better organisation of list rules and how the money is spread among the players (while spending the same amount).

But it's really not "pissing it up the wall". For an industry that generates nearly $2 billion having a professional league that's good representation for literally half our population is to me an absolute bargain.

There are so many parts of the game that desperately need investment, yet the AFL continues to pour money into an oversized AFLW competition. It’s like running a business with 100 unnecessary staff, the company might be profitable overall, but that doesn’t justify wasting resources on roles that don’t add value.

If the AFL moved to a promotion and relegation model and reduced the number of AFLW teams in the top flight until the talent pool is ready, the money saved could be redirected into areas that would actually grow the sport. For example:

Buying into the Brisbane GPS school system, that is a factory for elite sports talent.

Repairing the broken talent pathways in Western Australia, especially the WAFL Colts structure.

Investing in multicultural engagement, both for grassroots participation and expanding the supporter base.

Building proper academies and hiring better credentialed coaches, so the quality of AFLW talent and talent in underperforming regions like WA improves.

Establishing new grassroots clubs in Western Sydney or getting into the schools there and driving participation growth the most important expansion markets.

Paying to get AFL broadcasts onto overseas networks for exposure.

Boosting marketing in Queensland and NSW, the latter where the game is still fighting for relevance.

Funding more development officers in northern markets.

These are just a few ideas, but the point is simple, I’m not arguing to cut AFLW. I’m arguing that the extra $30 million (or whatever it is) spent to expand to 18 teams, along with hundreds of new players, hasn’t improved the product. If anything, it has diluted the standard and made the league less appealing. Which means that money isn’t just failing to add value, it may actually be doing more harm than good.

 

[The_Wookie]

I’m not criticising AFLW itself I’m a supporter, and there’s no doubt it’s been great for grassroots footy and female participation. But do you agree the league expanded far too quickly? That’s where the real problems began. Adding so many teams when the standard was still poor stretched the talent pool even thinner, made the competition less watchable, and ultimately hurt the product.

I also don’t think expanding to all 18 clubs actually boosted participation.

The numbers disagree

The growth at junior level was already happening organically.

no, it wasnt.

If anything, the drop in overall quality, online criticism, move of the sport to fully secondary channel exposure and the number of uncompetitive teams may have reduced the appeal for aspiring young female athletes.

On top of that, the rapid expansion forced an immediate jump from about 300 players to well over 500, which made the subsequent pay rises ridiculous. Young girls getting into footy aren’t driven by being the highest-paid athletes in the country, they’re excited because, for the first time, there’s a genuine pathway to play the sport they love.

The AFLW concept is good, but the rush to look fully established before the foundation was ready has created issues the league is still trying to fix. The only way to put some of the toothpaste back in the tube and save face (and cut the losses) is to go to promotion and relegation, at least until the talent catches up.

The AFL wont take a step backwards on this, anymore than they let Sydney or Brisbane go to the wall.

There are so many parts of the game that desperately need investment, yet the AFL continues to pour money into an oversized AFLW competition. It’s like running a business with 100 unnecessary staff, the company might be profitable overall, but that doesn’t justify wasting resources on roles that don’t add value.

Not everything is an AFL responsibility. And what clearly doesnt add value for you, doesnt mean its the same for everyone else.

If the AFL moved to a promotion and relegation model and reduced the number of AFLW teams in the top flight until the talent pool is ready, the money saved could be redirected into areas that would actually grow the sport. For example:

Not ever been seriously suggested by anybody.

Buying into the Brisbane GPS school system, that is a factory for elite sports talent.

The AFL already heavily invests in school prgrams in Queensland.

Repairing the broken talent pathways in Western Australia, especially the WAFL Colts structure.

That is specifically a responsinility of the WAFC - who recieve money for development from the AFL.

Investing in multicultural engagement, both for grassroots participation and expanding the supporter base.

AFLW and womens football oddly enough do all three of these.

Building proper academies and hiring better credentialed coaches, so the quality of AFLW talent and talent in underperforming regions like WA improves.

Establishing new grassroots clubs in Western Sydney or getting into the schools there and driving participation growth the most important expansion markets.

Paying to get AFL broadcasts onto overseas networks for exposure.

The AFL does not care about overseas markets. And realistically, theres good reason for that.

Boosting marketing in Queensland and NSW, the latter where the game is still fighting for relevance.

They have spent hundreds of millions in Queensland and New South Wales since the Commissions reports on both states in 1999 and 2000 directly led to the formation of the Suns and Giants.

Funding more development officers in northern markets.

They already fund more development officers.

These are just a few ideas, but the point is simple, I’m not arguing to cut AFLW. I’m arguing that the extra $30 million (or whatever it is) spent to expand to 18 teams, along with hundreds of new players, hasn’t improved the product. If anything, it has diluted the standard and made the league less appealing. Which means that money isn’t just failing to add value, it may actually be doing more harm than good.

No we get it, AFLW as it stands was expanded too fast for your liking, and you dont like the KPIs.
Its not just a "product".

 

[Bjo187]

".

Despite missing the point again, you didn't answer the question. Was the AFL right in going to 18 teams this quickly?

 

[The_Wookie]

Despite missing the point again,

I actually didnt think you had a point beyond AFLW money bad

you didn't answer the question. Was the AFL right in going to 18 teams this quickly?

Ive said this many times before, i think its too early to tell. The effect of having the AFLW on grassroots has been huge, and the AFL has never done anything major without a long term plan - we are already starting to see the fruits of that development come through. However, Ten years is not long enough for what is a generational shift in the league and at grassroots.

You cant even compare it to NRLW which runs more than half of its matches and most of its finals as double headers to the mens which makes tv and attendance look better than it is.

 

[Bjo187]

I actually didnt think you had a point beyond AFLW money bad

You’re still missing the point. You’ve rushed to disagree as usual, rather than actually reading what was written. AFLW is good, but expanding the competition to 18 clubs has been damaging, lowered the overall quality, and created major financial losses with almost no real benefit from those extra teams, in fact I'd argue it's been a negative.

The smart way to keep the positives of the women’s game while improving standards, consolidating talent and top-level coaching into less teams, making the product more watchable, and saving millions, is to shift to 10 teams in a premier division and 9 teams in a championship division below it, ensuring growth without diluting the league. Promotion and relegation is the only option, since all the clubs have created women's programs now anyway.

Ive said this many times before, i think its too early to tell. The effect of having the AFLW on grassroots has been huge, and the AFL has never done anything major without a long term plan - we are already starting to see the fruits of that development come through. However, Ten years is not long enough for what is a generational shift in the league and at grassroots.

You cant even compare it to NRLW which runs more than half of its matches and most of its finals as double headers to the mens which makes tv and attendance look better than it is.

So you're saying that they would not have gotten those same benefits with a slower growth of the number of teams? The AFL model worked better than the NRL slow and steady growth model?

 

[The_Wookie]

You’re still missing the point. You’ve rushed to disagree as usual, rather than actually reading what was written.

I read every damn word.

AFLW is good,

and everything you write after that shows you dont believe it.

but expanding the competition to 18 clubs has been damaging, lowered the overall quality, and created major financial losses with almost no real benefit from those extra teams, in fact I'd argue it's been a negative. \

And I read your little rant, and i dont agree, in fact I believe that theres a longer term to be seen out before anything is conclusive, never mind that the AFL itself cant run its way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to the women s comp.

The smart way

Your way is clearly not the only way.

to keep the positives of the women’s game while improving standards, consolidating talent and top-level coaching into less teams, making the product more watchable, and saving millions, is to shift to 10 teams in a premier division and 9 teams in a championship division below it, ensuring growth without diluting the league. Promotion and relegation is the only option, since all the clubs have created women's programs now anyway.

well clearly its not the oinly option. as witnessed by the presence of other active options that you disagree with.

So you're saying that they would not have gotten those same benefits with a slower growth of the number of teams? The AFL model worked better than the NRL slow and steady growth model?

Im saying they are different models, and that just because one is more visible now, doesnt mean its better overall or in the long term. Im saying that theres a world of difference between the two methods, and that theres differing philsophies in how they are and what their present goals are.

 

[jatz14]

Despite missing the point again, you didn't answer the question. Was the AFL right in going to 18 teams this quickly?

Yes.

Australian football had more participation in full contact womens footy prior to the start of the AFLW than there were full contact female Rugby league players by an order of magnitude. There were more female footy players in Queensland than there were female Rugby league plyers in the whole country.

What league had was a national team and therefore, an elite program giving a core group to base the womens league on, but that was a very limited resource. They went for a limited number of teams and slow expansion because they literally had no choice, they didnt have the players.

The AFL had the opposite problem, lots of players, but pretty much all of it at not much more than community footy level. The league had the player numbers, but needed to raise the quality across the board, and ideally do it as quickly as possible. The fastest way to do that is to get all clubs involved as quickly as possible. The risk with a small number of teams is that the large number of people supporting a club not involved just switch off, and stay switched off.

A case in point is SA, womens footy in SA prior to AFLW was a bit of a basket case, it had been ignored, starved of resources, and almost completely collapsed, to the point it was feared they couldn't field a successful team. They have had huge growth, and a large part of that has been the impetus from the SA AFL clubs. The advantage to SA of Port Adelaide being involved in womens footy far outweighs the negative impact of the small talent dilution from bringing Port into the comp. Even the players that dont make it, that recycle back into state footy advance the sport, and the more of them the better.

If you want to advance womens footy, getting all 18 clubs behind it and pushing is the best way.

 

[glengowan]

AFLW should play and be paid (less) alongside the AFL reserves in state league comps during winter.

Then a 6 team, 12 week competition at this time of year which is the elite women's competition. A team in Adelaide (covers NT), Perth, Sydney (covers Canberra), Brisbane and two in Melbourne (one covers Victoria Country and one covers Tas).

18 top flight teams is ridiculous when some can barely kick the 15m required. Rebrand the AFLW with new teams and get away from the comparison with men's football.

 

[420]

As long as the aflw is tied to the modern political divide, any legitimate discussion on its current state or its future feasibility will be impossible. Might as well sit back and enjoy the product for what it is

 

[jatz14]

AFLW should play and be paid (less) alongside the AFL reserves in state league comps during winter.

Then a 6 team, 12 week competition at this time of year which is the elite women's competition. A team in Adelaide (covers NT), Perth, Sydney (covers Canberra), Brisbane and two in Melbourne (one covers Victoria Country and one covers Tas).

18 top flight teams is ridiculous when some can barely kick the 15m required. Rebrand the AFLW with new teams and get away from the comparison with men's football.

If you don't like women's football, and just want it gone, have the balls to just say that.

Because that's what this is, in weasel words.

And neither is happening, so, another old man shakes fist at clouds.