The economics of footy tourism & finals

[The_Wookie]

Income whether to the AFL Organisation OR clubs is money going OUT of Tasmania. The AFL put money into Tasmania to run its affairs. The AFL run the TSL. The TSL is 80% financed by the clubs own operations. Even so, the financial flow OUT of the state, exceeds the flow in.

Simple.

The TSL is not run 80% by the clubs own operations unless theres a drastic change since its last annual report (2013). Large parts of it are generated by AFL talent fees paid for rookies and drafties, general afl funding (which isnt revealed, but which the Annual report claims AFL Tasmania requires to surivie), $500,000 a year from the Tasmanian government, sponsorship of AFL Tasmania and other AFL Tasmania business arrangements and whatevers left comes from the clubs.

And the money going to the clubs is literally a sponsorship designed to bring in tourist dollars - and according to the government that amount exceeds the sponsored amount. In which case, while money is leaving, the AFL is also bringing money back - and if you cant separate the Tourism sponsorship, then you can separate the income it brings either.

 

[madmug]

The TSL is not run 80% by the clubs own operations unless theres a drastic change since its last annual report (2013). Large parts of it are generated by AFL talent fees paid for rookies and drafties, general afl funding (which isnt revealed, but which the Annual report claims AFL Tasmania requires to surivie), $500,000 a year from the Tasmanian government, sponsorship of AFL Tasmania and other AFL Tasmania business arrangements and whatevers left comes from the clubs.

And the money going to the clubs is literally a sponsorship designed to bring in tourist dollars - and according to the government that amount exceeds the sponsored amount. In which case, while money is leaving, the AFL is also bringing money back - and if you cant separate the Tourism sponsorship, then you can separate the income it brings either.

TSL- You dont have a competition without clubs. They generate some 80% of their own funds. Without that, they dont exist. The vast majority of AFL funding goes to pay for the development of draft players etc. That has very little benefit for the clubs. So the investment is overwhelmingly spent by & for the AFL & its own clubs benefit. That is, For the benefit of football OUTSIDE of Tasmania, NOT for the benefit of clubs or our football WITHIN Tasmania.

Sure the money spent by Gument to generate economic activity through AFL games benefits the state, they could spend it on almost anything else to do the same job. Festivals, Tourism advertising, Conventions etc etc, but none of that alters the fact that more money goes out to the AFL & its clubs than comes in.

 

[The_Wookie]

Sure the money spent by Gument to generate economic activity through AFL games benefits the state, they could spend it on almost anything else to do the same job. Festivals, Tourism advertising, Conventions etc etc, but none of that alters the fact that more money goes out to the AFL & its clubs than comes in.

Thats not supported by the tourism tasmania reports that say that tourism income greatly exceeds the investment in sponsorship. Tourism advertising? Thats what sponsorship is ffs.

 

[madmug]

Thats not supported by the tourism tasmania reports that say that tourism income greatly exceeds the investment in sponsorship. Tourism advertising? Thats what sponsorship is ffs.

Yes, so what ffs?, & whether you see it or not, the sum of money going to the AFL & its minions, exceeds what the put into the state by the AFL & its minions.

The economic benefit derived from AFL games can be applied to most anything the Gument invest in or sponsor. Thats not the issue.

 

[telsor]

You cant be dinkum .... those are not my views & you know it .... up to the old tricks telsor.

I'm not suggesting those are your views...I'm pointing out that the views you're expressing here are inconsistent.

 

[telsor]

Yes, so what ffs?, & whether you see it or not, the sum of money going to the AFL & its minions, exceeds what the put into the state by the AFL & its minions.

The economic benefit derived from AFL games can be applied to most anything the Gument invest in or sponsor. Thats not the issue.

So your argument is basically that tourism generated by the games and sponsorship isn't money 'put into the state by the AFL & its minions'.


That's a very narrow view that practically no economist would agree with, but you stick with it. Views like that are what make the Tasmanian economy the robust dynamo it is today.



BTW. It's spelt 'Government', making words up in some kind of childish show of disrespect doesn't do you or your argument any good.

 

[Kwality]

I'm not suggesting those are your views...I'm pointing out that the views you're expressing here are inconsistent.

Rubbish, what you purport to be my views are your own motherhood statements rooted in your own very narrow pro Vic bias (given I'm regularly slagged for expressing views that PC types regard as anti Vic, anything criticising Vic is 'anti Vic' regardless for some).

 

[The_Wookie]

Rubbish, what you purport to be my views are your own motherhood statements rooted in your own very narrow pro Vic bias (given I'm regularly slagged for expressing views that PC types regard as anti Vic, anything criticising Vic is 'anti Vic' regardless for some).

You play the exact same game, in reverse.

 

[Kwality]

You play the exact same game, in reverse.

the difference being telsor put words in others mouths, see the Mugster above.

Remain amused how my criticism is anti Vic, there arent many of us who dont see everything as beyond criticism.

 

[The_Wookie]

the difference being telsor put words in others mouths, see the Mugster above.

Remain amused how my criticism is anti Vic, there arent many of us who dont see everything as beyond criticism.

Is it putting words in others mouths or is it his interpretation? Even if its wrong - its his perception of whats being said.

And its easy to percieve your criticism as anti vic, if one takes even a cursory look at your posting history.

 

[madmug]

Is it putting words in others mouths or is it his interpretation? Even if its wrong - its his perception of whats being said.

And its easy to percieve your criticism as anti vic, if one takes even a cursory look at your posting history.

One could say the same for your stated 'pro' Tasmanian sentiment regards being in the AFL. Your posts seem quite opposed to that.

 

[Kwality]

Is it putting words in others mouths or is it his interpretation? Even if its wrong - its his perception of whats being said.

And its easy to percieve your criticism as anti vic, if one takes even a cursory look at your posting history.

Would you characterise yourself as pro AFL & pro Vic?
I am critical of Vic centric views of our national game, IF that is beyond question, so be it.

 

[The_Wookie]

One could say the same for your stated 'pro' Tasmanian sentiment regards being in the AFL. Your posts seem quite opposed to that.

Actually I have REPEATEDLY indicated I support a Tasmanian side as a concept, however 1) I dont believe its viable without government and AFL support - i think it would fail on secondary and tertiary sponsors - and 2) I dont believe it should be at the expense of a victorian side with equivelant or greater financial capacity when artifically restrained by the sports governing body. None of which precludes me supporting a Tasmanian side.

Would you characterise yourself as pro AFL & pro Vic?
I am critical of Vic centric views of our national game, IF that is beyond question, so be it.

I wouldnt characterise myself as pro vic, I characterise myself as playing the devils advocate a lot though. I wouldnt say Im pro-vic so much as I am anti removing clubs that are artifically held down by league policies and negotiations they had and have no say in. As long as Victoria as a whole continues to make money for the league - and it does by a BIG margin - and as long as the league is offering comparable support to other teams in the league - which it very much is, then I believe the vic sides should stay. This isnt the 90s, the league has plenty of funding to go around, and not every club is going to be huge.

Its easy to paint views as being vic centric, but when every other thread about expansion, tasmania, or what if the league was like this, or started like that, or what would you change about that thread turns up - the answer is inevitable - there MUST be too many vic teams, and its always from the same people. Its a position I disagree with for a wide variety of financial and legal reasons.

Would I prefer that we had gone a different way in the 80s? Absolutely. I think Elliot had the right idea.

Theres nothing wrong with criticising vic centric policy, certainly. But it cant just be becaise they are victorian.

 

[madmug]

Actually I have REPEATEDLY indicated I support a Tasmanian side as a concept, however 1) I dont believe its viable without government and AFL support - i think it would fail on secondary and tertiary sponsors - and 2) I dont believe it should be at the expense of a victorian side with equivelant or greater financial capacity when artifically restrained by the sports governing body. None of which precludes me supporting a Tasmanian side.



I wouldnt characterise myself as pro vic, I characterise myself as playing the devils advocate a lot though. I wouldnt say Im pro-vic so much as I am anti removing clubs that are artifically held down by league policies and negotiations they had and have no say in. As long as Victoria as a whole continues to make money for the league - and it does by a BIG margin - and as long as the league is offering comparable support to other teams in the league - which it very much is, then I believe the vic sides should stay. This isnt the 90s, the league has plenty of funding to go around, and not every club is going to be huge.

Its easy to paint views as being vic centric, but when every other thread about expansion, tasmania, or what if the league was like this, or started like that, or what would you change about that thread turns up - the answer is inevitable - there MUST be too many vic teams, and its always from the same people. Its a position I disagree with for a wide variety of financial and legal reasons.

Would I prefer that we had gone a different way in the 80s? Absolutely. I think Elliot had the right idea.

Theres nothing wrong with criticising vic centric policy, certainly. But it cant just be becaise they are victorian.

It wouldnt matter if they were Greek or Penguins, bias & self interest are bias & self interest. Neither are in the long term interest. Blaming AFL policy for keeping clubs down? Geez its AFL policy which keeps them alive.

 

[The_Wookie]

It wouldnt matter if they were Greek or Penguins, bias & self interest are bias & self interest. Neither are in the long term interest. Blaming AFL policy for keeping clubs down? Geez its AFL policy which keeps them alive.

Except for the key policies that prevent them keeping themselves properly alive. Its well known that the difference between a profitable club and not profitable club is often its stadium deal, and the lowest melbourne clubs are in awful stadium deals compared to the rest of the competition - especially compared to perth and tasmania, and even the MCG and Adelaide Oval. Only Brisbanes is worse apparently.

Then theres the fixture. And broadcast scheduling whcih means these teams frequently arent sighted on FTA television, even in their home state, and playing at a stadium which is demonstrably less favoured by victorian football fans than the other major stadium in the city. This hampers both sponsor approaches and attendances, and thereby gate reciepts.

Yes AFL policy is largely to blame - the inability to negotiate your own stadium deals in Victoria any more, but still having to meet match quotas negotatiated by the league - the MCG and Docklands wont even bother talking to the smaller clubs now, so theres little competitive tension to be wrought from negotiations.

 

[telsor]

Rubbish, what you purport to be my views are your own motherhood statements rooted in your own very narrow pro Vic bias (given I'm regularly slagged for expressing views that PC types regard as anti Vic, anything criticising Vic is 'anti Vic' regardless for some).

OK, let me ask you something.

Point out to me one time where, when a Vic club and a non-Vic club do different things, that you've agreed that the way the Vic club does things is superior.

 

[telsor]

the difference being telsor put words in others mouths, see the Mugster above.

Remain amused how my criticism is anti Vic, there arent many of us who dont see everything as beyond criticism.

I might paraphrase your position, but I hardly make massive leaps.

Maybe you should explain yourself better if you keep getting misinterpreted.

 

[telsor]

It wouldnt matter if they were Greek or Penguins, bias & self interest are bias & self interest. Neither are in the long term interest. Blaming AFL policy for keeping clubs down? Geez its AFL policy which keeps them alive.

AFL plays ~1000 games at Etihad, and in return gets a stadium that will be worth at the very least $500Million.

That's roughly $500K/game.

Tell me, from an AFL perspective, what Vic team doesn't make more money for them than it costs to support them?


Feel free to mention how a Tasmania club would contribute more to the AFL than that while you're at it.



Of course, you wont actually answer the question, and will complain about me 'putting words in your mouth' when I try and work out what you mean.

 

[telsor]

the difference being telsor put words in others mouths, see the Mugster above.

Remain amused how my criticism is anti Vic, there arent many of us who dont see everything as beyond criticism.

Which post are you referring to?

 

[Kwality]

OK, let me ask you something.

Point out to me one time where, when a Vic club and a non-Vic club do different things, that you've agreed that the way the Vic club does things is superior.

For instance?

 

[Kwality]

I might paraphrase your position, but I hardly make massive leaps.

Maybe you should explain yourself better if you keep getting misinterpreted.

Only reinterpreted by your good self such that I suggest you have little comprehension powers. Compre the difference between reinterpreted & misinterpreted.

 

[telsor]

Only reinterpreted by your good self such that I suggest you have little comprehension powers. Compre the difference between reinterpreted & misinterpreted.

As I said, you should learn to express yourself in such a way that leaves less room for interpretation if you get misinterpreted so often.

 

[telsor]

For instance?

I ask you to point out a single example of something, and once again you dodge the question.

Strange how you can never point to examples of my supposed 'misdeeds' though.


You know, including details would make it a lot harder to misinterpret what you say. Of course, it would also mean you'd have to defend your positions rather than pretend that wasn't what you meant.

 

[Kwality]

As I said, you should learn to express yourself in such a way that leaves less room for interpretation if you get misinterpreted so often.

Your inability to comprehend the written word/context is your problem, its you who does it, not me.

 

[Kwality]

I ask you to point out a single example of something, and once again you dodge the question.

Strange how you can never point to examples of my supposed 'misdeeds' though.


You know, including details would make it a lot harder to misinterpret what you say. Of course, it would also mean you'd have to defend your positions rather than pretend that wasn't what you meant.

You asked:
OK, let me ask you something.

Point out to me one time where, when a Vic club and a non-Vic club do different things, that you've agreed that the way the Vic club does things is superior.

... & you cant back up your question - did you have something in mind?

OK, I'll try, given your inability - take the Hawks in Tas, the Hawks have a done a great job with their sponsorship even though I support a Tas team in the AFL, and only IF its not an extra team, & its a Melbourne team that needs to be stripped of its licence & given to Tas. Is this inconsistent in the erratic world that is telsortown?
Hawks do a great job with their Tas sponsorship. is that giving credit where credit is due?