The economics of footy tourism & finals

[telsor]

Your comment that the AFL make money from finals to pay for football in ----/Tas. That is absolutely wrong. The AFL put money into AFLtas who, as clubs & the public have been told time & time again, is 'the AFL IN Tasmania'. In otherwords, a branch office. Their activities are for the AFL. The pissy amount the TSL clubs get is to operate statewide. Its of little use otherwise as it helps offset the costs of state wide travel, loss of home spectators & helping develop draft chances. Financially & for supporters & families etc, they'd be better off playing locally. But the AFL want some better level of club football for the development of players.

The TSL clubs each get ~100K from AFLtas..hardly a 'pissy amount' considering those clubs operate on budgets of a little over half a million. As for 'the AFL in Tasmania', I suspect that has something to do with the league rebranding the entire game at all levels as 'AFL' to distinguish it from the other 'footballs' (I don't really agree with that, but that's another matter), so it would cover everything from auskick upwards.

Yes, the AFL wants better development, of course it does! The league in order to get more quality players, and the 'custodian of the game' to improve and expand the game at lower levels (I don't really agree that the league and custodian are the same entity, but again, that's another argument).

Overall with money the Gument pays AFLTas (some $500k p.a.) the sponsorships & paying for games & the host of AFL memberships, Tasmania is a net contributor to the AFL. NOT the other way around.

The economic argument of what AFL games generate in the economy is irrelevant to my point. Its a different issue & nothing to do with your comment.

So you count memberships to Hawthorn/North, as well as sponsorships as contributions towards the AFL, but having those games bring in tourists, as well as the benefits of said sponsorships in promoting the state don't count?

Well, if only the money flowing one way counts, then you're absolutely right about the net contribution (obviously)...but when you look at the whole picture, the Tasmanian government says those things MAKE money (net) for the state, so not counting them isn't really valid.

I was just looking at ONLY the AFL spending (and revenue) from Tas, and as the AFL itself would make next to nothing in Tas, that's clearly one way. I wasn't talking about what the clubs do and don't contribute, but if you're going to include them, then your own government says that brings a net INFLOW of money to the state, making the flow even more towards Tas.

 

[Kwality]

agree with your financial conclusions telsor,
&
a Tas team playing 11 games will be even better for the Tas taxpayer.

 

[telsor]

agree with your financial conclusions telsor,
&
a Tas team playing 11 games will be even better for the Tas taxpayer.

Maybe (would depend on how the costs are covered), but the real question is would it be better for the AFL?

 

[Papa G]

Maybe (would depend on how the costs are covered), but the real question is would it be better for the AFL?

* yeah!

 

[madmug]

The TSL clubs each get ~100K from AFLtas..hardly a 'pissy amount' considering those clubs operate on budgets of a little over half a million. As for 'the AFL in Tasmania', I suspect that has something to do with the league rebranding the entire game at all levels as 'AFL' to distinguish it from the other 'footballs' (I don't really agree with that, but that's another matter), so it would cover everything from auskick upwards.

Yes, the AFL wants better development, of course it does! The league in order to get more quality players, and the 'custodian of the game' to improve and expand the game at lower levels (I don't really agree that the league and custodian are the same entity, but again, that's another argument).



So you count memberships to Hawthorn/North, as well as sponsorships as contributions towards the AFL, but having those games bring in tourists, as well as the benefits of said sponsorships in promoting the state don't count?

Well, if only the money flowing one way counts, then you're absolutely right about the net contribution (obviously)...but when you look at the whole picture, the Tasmanian government says those things MAKE money (net) for the state, so not counting them isn't really valid.

I was just looking at ONLY the AFL spending (and revenue) from Tas, and as the AFL itself would make next to nothing in Tas, that's clearly one way. I wasn't talking about what the clubs do and don't contribute, but if you're going to include them, then your own government says that brings a net INFLOW of money to the state, making the flow even more towards Tas.

Sorry but you know nothing of the cost of playing in the TSL. I know officials at 3 clubs & have discussed such things with them. Playing Northern sides brings almost no paying visitor supporters ( & Vice Versa). The AFL makes demands on how the money is spent. The AFL supports some clubs to the hilt & does the bare minimum for others. A club Has to allow for lots of free passes given out by the AFL. The club loses on such tickets. The AFL get sponsors which allays some of their costs but clubs see none of that. Its the AFLs competition for its own purposes.

Once again, you said the AFL finals money pays for Tasmanian football. No, the AFL pay clubs a minimum amount to play a state league that they want. Financially, clubs would be better playing in local, regional footy comps. If they wanted to leave the league would pay to set up its own teams & make sure the best players & juniors played in it. They did it with Western Storm/Hawks. A club that they actually made up. No ground, no supporters, no clubrooms, nothing, but they are 'looked after'.

Saying that Tasmania makes money out of the tourist aspect of AFL games has nothing to do with how much money leaves Tasmania to the AFL, versus what they send down here. So you are wrong in saying they pay for Tasmanian football. We are a net financial contributor to the AFL.

Indeed one might even say that given the money from media rights that are boosted by having a national competition that covers the nations biggest & 3rd biggest markets, actually pays for the money spent on the game in NSW & Qld. It might be too hard to tease those figures out to be certain of that. But in Tasmania's case its pretty obvious which way the money actually flows.

 

[The_Wookie]

Saying that Tasmania makes money out of the tourist aspect of AFL games has nothing to do with how much money leaves Tasmania to the AFL, versus what they send down here. So you are wrong in saying they pay for Tasmanian football. We are a net financial contributor to the AFL.

Except it completely ignores WHY the money is going to the AFL, and you cant realistically separate the cause from the money. Tasmania is literally paying a sponsorship to AFL clubs. Its not just gifting money for no purpose. Tasmania gains exposure and Tourism according to successive Tasmanian Governments over the last 10 or more years. The money doesnt go to the League itself - its club sponsorships, not league ones - so money going back to Tasmania is literally coming out of the AFLs pocket.

Malaysia did the same thing with Carlton a couple of years ago, despite having no games there. Canberra literally does the same thing with GWS - for less money (23.5 million over 10 years for a similar number of games to Hawthorn, in both cases the name is on the jumper.)

 

[Kwality]

Maybe (would depend on how the costs are covered), but the real question is would it be better for the AFL?

& what is considered when defining better for the AFL.

NO MORE TEAMS PLEASE !!!

 

[telsor]

**** yeah!

How?

 

[telsor]

Saying that Tasmania makes money out of the tourist aspect of AFL games has nothing to do with how much money leaves Tasmania to the AFL, versus what they send down here. So you are wrong in saying they pay for Tasmanian football. We are a net financial contributor to the AFL.

So when Jeep sponsor Richmond (to give just one example of the thousands of club sponsorships out there), they think nothing of the return they get (profile, sales, tickets, corporate entertainment opportunities, etc, etc, etc) in considering spending that money?

But OK, if you're ruling out the indirect, tell me, how does Tasmania contribute money directly to the AFL?

 

[telsor]

& what is considered when defining better for the AFL.

NO MORE TEAMS PLEASE !!!

Then any replacements need to CLEARLY add more to the league than the team they're replacing does, after the club being killed off has been given a fair run.

 

[Kwality]

Then any replacements need to CLEARLY add more to the league than the team they're replacing does, after the club being killed off has been given a fair run.

That does not set the bar very high, certainly doesn't need to be profitable & I'd back a Tas club against 2 - 3 Melbourne clubs on a $ for $ basis, no extra $s for FIXturing, equalisation, stadium deals. Tas would be profitable early on, not still haemorraging after 150 years.

Rebuilding a traditional nursery has merit as does pruning the heartland to revitalise it.

 

[Kwality]

So when Jeep sponsor Richmond (to give just one example of the thousands of club sponsorships out there), they think nothing of the return they get (profile, sales, tickets, corporate entertainment opportunities, etc, etc, etc) in considering spending that money?

But OK, if you're ruling out the indirect, tell me, how does Tasmania contribute money directly to the AFL?

Don't think Jeep are a good example: http://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/jeep-expects-more-legal-action-to-be-taken-against-it-by-companies-named-in-30-million-scandal/story-fns0kb3z-1227502628999

 

[Papa G]

How?

...Up to 30,000 Adelaide fans are expected to travel to Melbourne to watch the semi final..... 2-3,000 North fans are expected to make the trip to Sydney.

 

[madmug]

Except it completely ignores WHY the money is going to the AFL, and you cant realistically separate the cause from the money. Tasmania is literally paying a sponsorship to AFL clubs. Its not just gifting money for no purpose. Tasmania gains exposure and Tourism according to successive Tasmanian Governments over the last 10 or more years. The money doesnt go to the League itself - its club sponsorships, not league ones - so money going back to Tasmania is literally coming out of the AFLs pocket.

Malaysia did the same thing with Carlton a couple of years ago, despite having no games there. Canberra literally does the same thing with GWS - for less money (23.5 million over 10 years for a similar number of games to Hawthorn, in both cases the name is on the jumper.)

But, thats only part of the equasion. We need look at the the AFL games & AFL operations. I'm saying the sum total of what the AFL send down here for whatever purpose is outweighed by what AFL memberships for all clubs get & sponsorships & the 2 clubs paid to play games. The overall economic benefit has little benefit for football here. Yes it may benefit the overall economy., But that doesnt equate to paying for football operations in Tasmania.

Anyhow you cant say the AFL pay for football here. Its a non argument. More money for football leaves the state than comes in the other way to support the game. By a fair margin I'd suggest. T

 

[telsor]

That does not set the bar very high, certainly doesn't need to be profitable & I'd back a Tas club against 2 - 3 Melbourne clubs on a $ for $ basis, no extra $s for FIXturing, equalisation, stadium deals. Tas would be profitable early on, not still haemorraging after 150 years.

Rebuilding a traditional nursery has merit as does pruning the heartland to revitalise it.

Trouble is, the stadium deals play a part in the contribution those clubs make to the AFL.

Docklands will be owned by the AFL off the back of the clubs that are forced to play there. A Tas team wouldn't contribute the same way.

Having 20K crowds in Tas (max/capacity) rather than an average of 23.5K crowds (WB, not adjusting for games in Cairns(?) which draw even lower) is not 'growing' the game.


As for 'still' hemorrhaging...These clubs haven't been 'haemorraging' for their entire lives, and if you look at growth projections, in 30-50 years, Tas will be bleeding far, far worse than any existing club.

 

[telsor]

...Up to 30,000 Adelaide fans are expected to travel to Melbourne to watch the semi final..... 2-3,000 North fans are expected to make the trip to Sydney.

a) How does that relate to Tasmania?

b) How many more North fans would get into the SCG? Unlike the MCG, capacity & seat availability needs to be considered. (I'd also suggest 30K Adelaide fans is optimistic).

 

[Papa G]

a) How does that relate to Tasmania?

b) How many more North fans would get into the SCG? Unlike the MCG, capacity & seat availability needs to be considered. (I'd also suggest 30K Adelaide fans is optimistic).

a) Just shows what the 10th bestest Vic team actually bring to the table.

b) Every single North supporter alive or dead in the world would fit into Homebush tomorrow night.

 

[telsor]

a) Just shows what the 10th bestest Vic team actually bring to the table.

b) Every single North supporter alive or dead in the world would fit into Homebush tomorrow night.

They're playing there? No wonder nobody's going. Even Sydney supporters wont turn up to that place.


10th bestest team perhaps (I'd have them higher), but that doesn't mean Tas would do better.

 

[Papa G]

They're playing there? No wonder nobody's going. Even Sydney supporters wont turn up to that place.


10th bestest team perhaps (I'd have them higher), but that doesn't mean Tas would do better.

Who's the 10th bestest?

Melbourne? Well yes, I rate them the most useless, but apparently because they were the first club, the apparently invented game, they are named after the Sporting Capital of the western hemisphere, and they have wealthy people who call themselves Dees supporters, they are somehow exempt from being put down.

St Kilda? I don't know, there's something about the Saints. Their shitness is legendary, but they are atleast capable of a bandwagon once a decade.

Footscray? Well yes, pathetic organisation, but they do at least represent a significant geographical part of the Sporting Capital.

I don't know Tels, what do you reckon? I'm sure you think that Coburg Under 13's offer more than a Tasmanian side, but in Victorian context, who do you think is the 10th bestest, or first least worthy?

 

[Redeye Rambler]

Whenever I hear a figure that "this event" will generate "x" million dollars for the economy, I often have a cynical snort. It's always put forward by an organisation for whom it paints a golden light. i.e. governments, tourism or hospitality sectors.

It doesn't "generate" any money if it is locals spending their money on the event. It is just an event where money changes hands and that cash flows around the economy a bit. The government love this type of thing because they get a portion of the money whenever it changes hands.

The exception is football tourism where fans travel interstate to go to a game. While it doesn't "generate" money, it does move money from one state to another.

 

[The_Wookie]

But, thats only part of the equasion. We need look at the the AFL games & AFL operations. I'm saying the sum total of what the AFL send down here for whatever purpose is outweighed by what AFL memberships for all clubs get & sponsorships & the 2 clubs paid to play games. The overall economic benefit has little benefit for football here. Yes it may benefit the overall economy., But that doesnt equate to paying for football operations in Tasmania.

Anyhow you cant say the AFL pay for football here. Its a non argument. More money for football leaves the state than comes in the other way to support the game. By a fair margin I'd suggest. T

Club sponsorship isnt AFL income. Club membership money isnt AFL income. These are club incomes and sponsorships negotiated with those entities, not the league - and occasionally in spite of the league. The league and clubs are not the same, the League - as a separate entity - DOES, whether you like it or not, pay for football in Tasmania out of consolidated league revenues - just as it does in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the Northern Territory - all of which have state leagues that are owned by the AFL - as well as whatever it pays WA and SA.

 

[telsor]

Whenever I hear a figure that "this event" will generate "x" million dollars for the economy, I often have a cynical snort. It's always put forward by an organisation for whom it paints a golden light. i.e. governments, tourism or hospitality sectors.

It doesn't "generate" any money if it is locals spending their money on the event. It is just an event where money changes hands and that cash flows around the economy a bit. The government love this type of thing because they get a portion of the money whenever it changes hands.

The exception is football tourism where fans travel interstate to go to a game. While it doesn't "generate" money, it does move money from one state to another.

In Economic theory, the idea is that even if it's not 'creating' money, getting that money to circulate is beneficial...So better to have those people spending than saving, but yeah, the numbers tend to be 'optimistic'. As you say, these reports tend to reflect what those who commission them want them to say.

 

[telsor]

Who's the 10th bestest?

Melbourne? Well yes, I rate them the most useless, but apparently because they were the first club, the apparently invented game, they are named after the Sporting Capital of the western hemisphere, and they have wealthy people who call themselves Dees supporters, they are somehow exempt from being put down.

St Kilda? I don't know, there's something about the Saints. Their shitness is legendary, but they are atleast capable of a bandwagon once a decade.

Footscray? Well yes, pathetic organisation, but they do at least represent a significant geographical part of the Sporting Capital.

I don't know Tels, what do you reckon? I'm sure you think that Coburg Under 13's offer more than a Tasmanian side, but in Victorian context, who do you think is the 10th bestest, or first least worthy?

No, I don't.

I'm willing to see a Vic club go, after it's been given a fair shot (look at Port's recent experience with stadium deals and tell me they don't matter), if the replacement would CLEARLY be better and there is an agreed/good reason not to add more teams (or to reduce overall numbers if that's the goal).

For example, I imagine a 3rd WA side would meet that criteria for replacement (likely to be clearly better). Tas wouldn't.

As for which is the worst...Give them all a fair run for, say, 5 years and mark them on clear, pre-agreed criteria (finances, crowds, memberships, etc).

BTW, I'd also be looking at the whole league, not just Victoria for which club(s) to cut.

 

[Papa G]

A fair shot at what? Play North Melbourne at the MCG and their crowds would still be s**t and they'd still be the least considered club in the Vic market. 140 years in the VFA/VFL/AFL has not changed that fact.

As for cutting clubs, I've said along 8,2,2,1,1,1. is the best league and most representative league in terms of actual interest and viability, with perhaps WA still slightly under represented, but I don't feel a huge ground swell of support for a 3rd WA club.

 

[Kwality]

Trouble is, the stadium deals play a part in the contribution those clubs make to the AFL.

Docklands will be owned by the AFL off the back of the clubs that are forced to play there. A Tas team wouldn't contribute the same way.

Having 20K crowds in Tas (max/capacity) rather than an average of 23.5K crowds (WB, not adjusting for games in Cairns(?) which draw even lower) is not 'growing' the game.


As for 'still' hemorrhaging...These clubs haven't been 'haemorraging' for their entire lives, and if you look at growth projections, in 30-50 years, Tas will be bleeding far, far worse than any existing club.

take off your rose coloured glasses.