Toast The media....*Nods Head*

[Burningleviathan]

Why does she go after Hawthorn and not North Melbourne? Why should Hawthorn give up its gate receipts to help the Tasmanian local league clubs? Do North give up their receipts? Do Melbourne or the Bullies give up theirs when playing in Darwin?

Hawthorn are there to make money like every other club that sells its home game. If anything the people getting a whack are those in charge of running football in Tassie. Clearly there are issues there which require sorting out that were not created by Hawthorn. The idea of throwing more money at a state league and bleeding a club for more cash sounds like a very SANFL mind set.

 

[tribey]

Why does she go after Hawthorn and not North Melbourne? Why should Hawthorn give up its gate receipts to help the Tasmanian local league clubs? Do North give up their receipts? Do Melbourne or the Bullies give up theirs when playing in Darwin?

Hawthorn are there to make money like every other club that sells its home game. If anything the people getting a whack are those in charge of running football in Tassie. Clearly there are issues there which require sorting out that were not created by Hawthorn. The idea of throwing more money at a state league and bleeding a club for more cash sounds like a very SANFL mind set.

I only have a superficial understanding of Taswegian footy (north-south bullshit; their statistically freakish key forward production line with Tim Evans at the vanguard, obviously; that time they beat the SANFL in rep footy because the SANFL is run by ne'er-do-wells), but yeah.

At an organisational level that state is a clown car and has been for some time. Hawthorn's successful pursuit of lebensraum would seem to have very little to do with its woes.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Why does she go after Hawthorn and not North Melbourne? Why should Hawthorn give up its gate receipts to help the Tasmanian local league clubs? Do North give up their receipts? Do Melbourne or the Bullies give up theirs when playing in Darwin?

Hawthorn are there to make money like every other club that sells its home game. If anything the people getting a whack are those in charge of running football in Tassie. Clearly there are issues there which require sorting out that were not created by Hawthorn. The idea of throwing more money at a state league and bleeding a club for more cash sounds like a very SANFL mind set.

Several reasons

1. The deal isn't as big for North. See my previous post above yours for the $$ values there for the Hawks. The Hawks get sponsorship $$ + $$ per game played whereas as North just get $$ per game. North got $1mil per year for 3 games per year in the 2012-16 deal and $300k of that came from the Hobart City Council. They pulled out for the 2017-22 deal. North had signed up 7,000 Tassie members by the end of the 2016 season.

I can't find the value of the 2017-21 3 games a year deal but the Tassie government isn't on their jumper. The Spirit of Tasmania is a 2nd level sponsor and that is a government business but they aren't on the jumper. The Spirit of Tasmania basically took over the Hobart City Council contribution.

2. North have set up their Next Generation Academy in Tassie - the Hawks haven't

3. They have done a deal with Tassie footy re their women's team just like the crows and NT footy so Tassie women will be selected next year in North's AFLW team.

4. North have set up a partnership with AFL Tasmania that will enable Tasmanian State League and Tasmanian State League Women’s players to be eligible for selection in North’s VFL sides.

5. North have to play in Tassie to survive - the Hawks don't.

6. She loves bashing Kennett and Clarko.

 

[Lockhart Road]

A question that’s been nagging at me:

Apart from Hawthorn’s physical AFL presence on the Apple Isle, what does Tasmania get in return for paying quite a lot for its name to appear on the front of the Hawthorn jumper, backboards during pressers, etc.?

Does Hawthorn do anything concrete other than this basic billboarding to promote and benefit Tasmania - as a tourist and/or investment destination or whatever - on the Australian mainland?

REH ? Anyone ?

PS: I only mention Hawthorn here as the subject at hand is Kennett vs Caro.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

A question that’s been nagging at me:

Apart from Hawthorn’s physical AFL presence on the Apple Isle, what does Tasmania get in return for paying quite a lot for its name to appear on the front of the Hawthorn jumper, backboards during pressers, etc.?

Does Hawthorn do anything concrete other than this basic billboarding to promote and benefit Tasmania - as a tourist and/or investment destination or whatever - on the Australian mainland?

REH ? Anyone ?

PS: I only mention Hawthorn here as the subject at hand is Kennett vs Caro.

This is Hawthorn's page on Tassie and links to what they do.
http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/club/community/tasmania

Here are a couple from North
http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2016-06-03/norths-new-tasmania-deal
and
http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2017-12-07/north-opens-tsl-doors

Its Chalk and Cheese. In the early days the Hawks did a lot down there but now they don't do much. Some have said the AFL is forcing North down to Tassie and that's why they are doing all the community footy stuff and partnerships with TSL/AFLTas.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Lockhart Road I reckon these 2 press releases by the premier says it all with respect to the different approach. Hawthorn are basically a billboard. Since 2007 they have been on the MCG for 5 grand finals and the government sees that to be great value.

7 October 2015
http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/releases/hawks_celebrating_our_winning_partnership

3 June 2016 announcing the 2017-22 North deal
http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/releases/exciting_new_agreement_for_afl_football_in_tasmania

 

[Lockhart Road]

This is Hawthorn's page on Tassie and links to what they do.
http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/club/community/tasmania

Here are a couple from North
http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2016-06-03/norths-new-tasmania-deal
and
http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2017-12-07/north-opens-tsl-doors

Its Chalk and Cheese. In the early days the Hawks did a lot down there but now they don't do much. Some have said the AFL is forcing North down to Tassie and that's why they are doing all the community footy stuff and partnerships with TSL/AFLTas.

I’m not asking what they are doing for Tasmania in Tasmania, I’m asking what are they doing for Tasmania in Victoria and elsewhere on the mainland apart from acting as a billboard.

This may indeed sound silly. But to my way of thinking Hawthorn and Tasmania have a partnership. Hawthorn is the ‘agent’ and Tasmania is the ‘principal’ in the partnership.
Partners are required at all times to look after each other’s best interests, to create new best interests where they don’t already exist. If Hawthorn are doing nothing extra for Tasmania outside of Tasmania then the Tassie Govt should be requiring them to do so and, if this is not part of the current deal, pay extra for it. Otherwise the deal’s benefits are not being maximised.

Why am I making a point of this? Because this is the way that PAFC under KT treat partnerships - maximisation for both parties. No money left on the table by either party.

 

[Lockhart Road]

Lockhart Road I reckon these 2 press releases by the premier says it all with respect to the different approach. Hawthorn are basically a billboard. Since 2007 they have been on the MCG for 5 grand finals and the government sees that to be great value.

7 October 2015
http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/releases/hawks_celebrating_our_winning_partnership

3 June 2016 announcing the 2017-22 North deal
http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/releases/exciting_new_agreement_for_afl_football_in_tasmania

Indeed taking the billboard on to the MCG on Grand Final Day is great value. It’s a bonus, and Hawthorn should be paid extra for it, a lot extra. Perhaps they already have been.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Indeed taking the billboard on to the MCG on Grand Final Day is great value. It’s a bonus, and Hawthorn should be paid extra for it, a lot extra. Perhaps they already have been.

I'm pretty sure each time they won a flag they got at least $300k bonus for it. Not sure what they got in 2012 when they lost the GF.

Since the 2007 jumper sponsorship deal started, the Hawks have only missed playing at the MCG in September in 2009 and 2017.

 

[Duck Farmer]

They will need to wait their turn until after the AFL rewards the traditional football heartlands of North Queensland and New Zealand.

 

[chiwigi]

Indeed taking the billboard on to the MCG on Grand Final Day is great value. It’s a bonus, and Hawthorn should be paid extra for it, a lot extra. Perhaps they already have been.

I can’t see the billboard being great value though, advertising a state at the GF has minimal value, it’s not as if people don’t know it’s there.
The negative publicity of being a ‘backwater’ that cant afford its own club etc. outweighs it surely. There is value in the games played there with some extra interstate visitors for sure, but billboard value...I’m sceptical.

 

[1954]

Tassie was a free recruiting area for the then VFL clubs for decades, some of the games greatest players have come from there, eg Baldock, Hudson, Hart, and Howell, who all played in at least one flag for their VFL teams, and there were numerous players a level below them who were also very good footballers.
I believe Hart was identified in early high school by Richmond and they paid for him to finish his schooling in Melbourne, and his parents were probably given the ubiquitous `brown paper bag' to make it happen.

As others have already touched on, there was a rift between the various comps in Tasmania, that although the then VFL honchos didn't create, it could be strongly argued they didn't do anything to help heal either, possibly due to their own self interests.

Re Hawthorn and their Tassie connection, like no doubt many it is difficult to not be extremely cynical about the reasoning behind it.

 

[Duck Farmer]

Tassie was a free recruiting area for the then VFL clubs for decades, some of the games greatest players have come from there, eg Baldock, Hudson, Hart, and Howell, who all played in at least one flag for their VFL teams, and there were numerous players a level below them who were also very good footballers.
I believe Hart was identified in early high school by Richmond and they paid for him to finish his schooling in Melbourne, and his parents were probably given the ubiquitous `brown paper bag' to make it happen.

As others have already touched on, there was a rift between the various comps in Tasmania, that although the then VFL honchos didn't create, it could be strongly argued they didn't do anything to help heal either, possibly due to their own self interests.

Re Hawthorn and their Tassie connection, like no doubt many it is difficult to not be extremely cynical about the reasoning behind it.

If the AFL can broker a truce between the SANFL and the SACA they can get the Tasmanian Union and Confederates together (once they've sorted out the Israelis and Palestinians).

 

[Byrons Firen]

As for Tasmanian football prospects, a common hurdle was the old North (Launceston) South (Hobart) divide.
Visiting there albeit 15yrs ago it was real. To me the answer is a no brainer

Launceston: population of 86,188
Hobart: population of 236,627

Both with similar growth rates of 2.5%.
Outside of whether an area is a 'swinging' seat of Federal politics (not to be under-estimated think Geelong in the seat of Corangamite)
Hobart is more likely to be where the public purse funds end up.

 

[Hellgood]

Whilst I agree the Hawthorn-Tasmania is more of a transactional relationship approach than say with us and China, GWS & Canberra and arguably North & Tassie, I think some of the criticism levelled at Hawthorn is overblown. You have to consider the context in which the deal was originally set up in times where clubs like North were selling games left right and centre jumping to a better deal and new destination every two years or so (Canberra, Sydney, Gold Coast), St Kilda established an early but very businesslike (and unpopular with the fans) relationship with Tassie and jumped out at the first chance, the Dogs up to Darwin etc. Even in recent times look at the Dogs in Cairns and Melbourne in the NT at lukewarm attempts to dip their toe into the water.

Hawthorn seemed to make the move a lot smoother and more palatable than any other "synergy" we've seen, perhaps in part due to their relatively perilous financial situation at the time and the clear benefits of the move in that regard, but on a more cultural level Melbourne based supporters saw the strong crowds of predominantly brown and gold turning up at Launceston and the team seemed to develop a record of consistently strong performances there in front of a passionate crowd making the loss of home games far easier to cop. I think the team even flew down there the day after the 2008 grand final to parade the cup.

Some of this shine has started to wane and I do agree they need to get with the times and work on developing deeper links to the community, but I think they are just a convenient punching bag for those lamenting the lack of a Tasmanian team. I'd like to see it happen, but there are a lot of obstacles and constraints - could a split game arrangement of between Hobart/Launceston work? I don't think so - would struggle to sell that to players so you'd need to pick one and as a result you start to slice the already small pie!

I see the standard A-League chestnut fantasy is being rolled out again... The AFL has been ahead of the A-League in every strategic move for a long, long time. And then even for the things that soccer could have argued being a pioneer like women's sport, the AFL come along and do it better. I'd trust AFL house making the right decision more than their counterparts.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

Whilst I agree the Hawthorn-Tasmania is more of a transactional relationship approach than say with us and China, GWS & Canberra and arguably North & Tassie, I think some of the criticism levelled at Hawthorn is overblown. You have to consider the context in which the deal was originally set up in times where clubs like North were selling games left right and centre jumping to a better deal and new destination every two years or so (Canberra, Sydney, Gold Coast), St Kilda established an early but very businesslike (and unpopular with the fans) relationship with Tassie and jumped out at the first chance, the Dogs up to Darwin etc. Even in recent times look at the Dogs in Cairns and Melbourne in the NT at lukewarm attempts to dip their toe into the water.

Hawthorn seemed to make the move a lot smoother and more palatable than any other "synergy" we've seen, perhaps in part due to their relatively perilous financial situation at the time and the clear benefits of the move in that regard, but on a more cultural level Melbourne based supporters saw the strong crowds of predominantly brown and gold turning up at Launceston and the team seemed to develop a record of consistently strong performances there in front of a passionate crowd making the loss of home games far easier to cop. I think the team even flew down there the day after the 2008 grand final to parade the cup.

Some of this shine has started to wane and I do agree they need to get with the times and work on developing deeper links to the community, but I think they are just a convenient punching bag for those lamenting the lack of a Tasmanian team. I'd like to see it happen, but there are a lot of obstacles and constraints - could a split game arrangement of between Hobart/Launceston work? I don't think so - would struggle to sell that to players so you'd need to pick one and as a result you start to slice the already small pie!

I see the standard A-League chestnut fantasy is being rolled out again... The AFL has been ahead of the A-League in every strategic move for a long, long time. And then even for the things that soccer could have argued being a pioneer like women's sport, the AFL come along and do it better. I'd trust AFL house making the right decision more than their counterparts.

I'm not so sure that the AFL have "been ahead of the A-League in every strategic move for a long, long time" or even ahead of the NRL or ARU strategy wise.

The AFL has a truckload more money so when they **** up, and they have, they just pump more dollars in which the other codes can't afford to do.

There aren't any geniuses at AFL House.

 

[Hellgood]

I'm not so sure that the AFL have "been ahead of the A-League in every strategic move for a long, long time" or even ahead of the NRL or ARU strategy wise.

The AFL has a truckload more money so when they **** up, and they have, they just pump more dollars in which the other codes can't afford to do.

There aren't any geniuses at AFL House.

Do pray tell where exactly the A League has outsmarted the other codes? Domestic cricket and womens football are caning them through the pivotal holiday season where they once thought they had clear space.

Obviously with the NRL there is a degree of envy of State of Origin, but at the end of the day it comes down to the clubs accepting it's intrusion into the season. Which means the fans have to commit to backing it in too - something to be honest I feel is very unlikely going by the level of insularity of footy fans putting their club before the state or the overall code of Australian football. This not necessarily a bad thing, it's just what the culture of our sport has evolved into that we prioritise the success of our club above all else in the sport. NRL is different and that is cool. But with that they've had their own problems with genuine discontent at club land and attendance wise they fail to attract the fans week in week out. It's an interesting case study of the strategies of decentralisation vs centralisation and to be honest I feel the AFL on the whole have done a better job of it and will reap the rewards of growth in the future. In a way I admire the NRL for sticking to their guns and focusing on the homeland, but I think they would have done a lot better if given the expansion period of the late 90's a bit more room to run.

And lol at even mentioning the ARU, what a debacle they've been for the past 15 years.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

Do pray tell where exactly the A League has outsmarted the other codes? Domestic cricket and womens football are caning them through the pivotal holiday season where they once thought they had clear space.

Obviously with the NRL there is a degree of envy of State of Origin, but at the end of the day it comes down to the clubs accepting it's intrusion into the season. Which means the fans have to commit to backing it in too - something to be honest I feel is very unlikely going by the level of insularity of footy fans putting their club before the state or the overall code of Australian football. This not necessarily a bad thing, it's just what the culture of our sport has evolved into that we prioritise the success of our club above all else in the sport. NRL is different and that is cool. But with that they've had their own problems with genuine discontent at club land and attendance wise they fail to attract the fans week in week out. It's an interesting case study of the strategies of decentralisation vs centralisation and to be honest I feel the AFL on the whole have done a better job of it and will reap the rewards of growth in the future. In a way I admire the NRL for sticking to their guns and focusing on the homeland, but I think they would have done a lot better if given the expansion period of the late 90's a bit more room to run.

And lol at even mentioning the ARU, what a debacle they've been for the past 15 years.

Re-read my post.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I only have a superficial understanding of Taswegian footy (north-south bullshit; their statistically freakish key forward production line with Tim Evans at the vanguard, obviously; that time they beat the SANFL in rep footy because the SANFL is run by ne'er-do-wells), but yeah.

At an organisational level that state is a clown car and has been for some time. Hawthorn's successful pursuit of lebensraum would seem to have very little to do with its woes.

Just on that key forward production line tribey, how about my lookalike?

You know, that Hudson guy.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I'm not so sure that the AFL have "been ahead of the A-League in every strategic move for a long, long time" or even ahead of the NRL or ARU strategy wise.

The AFL has a truckload more money so when they **** up, and they have, they just pump more dollars in which the other codes can't afford to do.

There aren't any geniuses at AFL House.

The fact Andrew Demitriou went on a 6 week holiday mid season in 2012 to watch the Olympics and other big sports in Europe showed the AFL was on cruise control. It was probably his swan song until the Essendon s**t hit the fan 6-7 months later and he realized he had to stick around to try and resolve it, to protect his legacy. Sure go to the Olympics and learn from the biggest sports event, but to take 6 week extended leave mid season shows how easy he must have thought it all was.

As you say ED the AFL has the money to fix up some of its * ups for longer than the others not because they are geniuses. Their biggest 2 achievements, post expansion in the 1990's, have been the growing value of TV rights and getting government $$ for stadiums.

But that is straight out of the play book of ex NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who in 17 years in charge between 1989-2006 oversaw 17 new stadiums or major stadium upgrades and negotiated with local and state governments to make significant or majority funding contributions. Plus he oversaw the explosion in TV rights $$$ of an indigenous game that was the largest sport in the nation. The AFL regularly spoke with Tagliabue under both Wayne Jackson and Demetriou's time as CEO and then his successor Roger Goodell.

And how much did the AFL appreciate Tagliabue's assistance? Well in 2008 Australian Football celebrated 150 years and the AFL called an industry conference which brought together more than 240 people from all sections of the game and was the final event of the year. The conference was titled Play On – The Future of Australian Football in Focus. The Keynote speaker was Tagliabue and part of his speech was in the annual report. As Pablo Picaso and Steve Jobs used to say, good artists copy, great artists steal. The AFL aren't great.

The clubs have done a lot of the heavy lifting. Its the clubs lead by some great CEO's and boards that have got off their arse and doubled, trebled and in some case quadrupled membership even allowing for the AFL changing definitions of what it counts. Its the clubs that have gone out and extended their community reach and increased their relevance. Its the clubs that gone off and found new revenue streams. It was Port that succeeded in China after Melbourne's AFL backed attempt failed and the AFL's failure to get the game up and running in South Africa when they invested heavily had put 20,000 kids thru Oz kick and Mandela said he wants to find a sport all South African's can play and not seen as a white sport or black sport. Then they abandoned it because they wanted to expand in NSW and Qld.

Any product has to go thru and R&D + Q&M phase to succeed. The 2 new AFL products we can see the AFL are more worried spin and marketing. For every $25 they put into marketing, they put about 45 cents into Quality control and about 13 cents into R&D.

 

[Hong-Kong Phooey]

Yeah but if you can capture a tiny market share of Western Sydney (population: ~2 million) then surely that is a win? I think GWS can become a strong and independent boutique club ala Geelong if the AFL stick with it for a few decades as they will.

Gold Coast I'm less optimistic about.

im not sure how much time you've spent out there in western sydney, but there certainly isnt a lot of aussies out there. I know that yo dont need to be aussie to like aussie rules, but it does certainly increase your chances. In saying that, i do think there is more chance of a GWS success than a GCS.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

In a way I admire the NRL for sticking to their guns and focusing on the homeland, but I think they would have done a lot better if given the expansion period of the late 90's a bit more room to run.....

Have you forgotten the Super League War?? In 1994 the NSWRL/ARL was leaving the AFL in its wake re expanding their respective games and marketing their games to a wider audience.

In the AFL Sydney and Brisbane were financial basket cases as well as hopeless on the field, WCE had to be bailed out with support of the WA government propping up the WAFC and indirectly supporting the WCE, because despite great on field success, the way they were set up in 1987 was a financial disaster. And there were plenty of Vic based teams teetering on financial disaster.

The AFL was so professional in mid 1993 it sent its 2IC to save the Swans and he died in a hotel room after consuming drugs and using a hooker within a couple of months being asked to help save them.

Then in 1994 Australia's 2 biggest media mogul billionaires ripped the game open because of a battle for TV rights, the new Pay TV industry in Oz and as the battle went on the new internet media rights implication.

It was the biggest free kick the AFL ever got and probably will ever get. The Super League War was plain dumb luck for the AFL. And just like draft concessions can have an impact lasting for 12-15 years, 20 years later the AFL is still benefiting from the war relative to the NRL.

The NRL (in 1998 to 2012 a JV between ARL and News Ltd) was in no position to expand in the late 1990's. It had to repair a massive wound left by the war and Murdoch having veto rights over everything and trying to recoup the $560m News Ltd lost during the war, was in no mood to allow expansion and discretionary expenditure.

So when the AFL sign a big Pay TV deal in 2001, Murdoch and Packer make sure its signed with Foxtel so when they make a huge loss for 2002-06 period, Telstra cover 50% of that and Murdoch 25% and Packer 25%.

But when NRL director from News Ltd with the veto rights approves their TV deal, its with Fox Sports (whom that same director of NRL is also a director of Fox Sports) not Foxtel, and Fox Sports is owned 50% by Murdoch and 50% by Packer, and the approved pay TV deal value is unders because News Ltd wants it lowest possible, so unlike Foxtel's Fox Footy Channel which lost $120m+ in 2002-06 years and then was scrapped for 2007-11 years, Fox Sports makes nice fat profits and the NRL miss out.

Once again plain dumb luck for the AFL as Murdoch and Packer want to recoup some of their massive Super League War losses. So the AFL get a massive $$ benefit from Murdoch and Packer wanting to break 7's monopoly, they made a bid knowing they would lose money, but lets Telstra pick up the biggest share of the loss. The NRL miss out because of News Ltd's veto power over the value of accepted TV rights. Another big free kick for the AFL that had nothing to do with their management ability.

And who was Murdoch's lackey running the new joint venture NRL protecting his interest?? David Gallop. The A-League and other soccer related issues are going nowhere whilst Gallop is given responsibility to run it.

 

[chickentendies]

Do pray tell where exactly the A League has outsmarted the other codes? Domestic cricket and womens football are caning them through the pivotal holiday season where they once thought they had clear space.

Obviously with the NRL there is a degree of envy of State of Origin, but at the end of the day it comes down to the clubs accepting it's intrusion into the season. Which means the fans have to commit to backing it in too - something to be honest I feel is very unlikely going by the level of insularity of footy fans putting their club before the state or the overall code of Australian football. This not necessarily a bad thing, it's just what the culture of our sport has evolved into that we prioritise the success of our club above all else in the sport. NRL is different and that is cool. But with that they've had their own problems with genuine discontent at club land and attendance wise they fail to attract the fans week in week out. It's an interesting case study of the strategies of decentralisation vs centralisation and to be honest I feel the AFL on the whole have done a better job of it and will reap the rewards of growth in the future. In a way I admire the NRL for sticking to their guns and focusing on the homeland, but I think they would have done a lot better if given the expansion period of the late 90's a bit more room to run.

And lol at even mentioning the ARU, what a debacle they've been for the past 15 years.

Little leagues.

 

[Hellgood]

Have you forgotten the Super League War?? In 1994 the NSWRL/ARL was leaving the AFL in its wake re expanding their respective games and marketing their games to a wider audience.

In the AFL Sydney and Brisbane were financial basket cases as well as hopeless on the field, WCE had to be bailed out with support of the WA government propping up the WAFC and indirectly supporting the WCE, because despite great on field success, the way they were set up in 1987 was a financial disaster. And there were plenty of Vic based teams teetering on financial disaster.

The AFL was so professional in mid 1993 it sent its 2IC to save the Swans and he died in a hotel room after consuming drugs and using a hooker within a couple of months being asked to help save them.

Then in 1994 Australia's 2 biggest media mogul billionaires ripped the game open because of a battle for TV rights, the new Pay TV industry in Oz and as the battle went on the new internet media rights implication.

It was the biggest free kick the AFL ever got and probably will ever get. The Super League War was plain dumb luck for the AFL. And just like draft concessions can have an impact lasting for 12-15 years, 20 years later the AFL is still benefiting from the war relative to the NRL.

The NRL (in 1998 to 2012 a JV between ARL and News Ltd) was in no position to expand in the late 1990's. It had to repair a massive wound left by the war and Murdoch having veto rights over everything and trying to recoup the $560m News Ltd lost during the war, was in no mood to allow expansion and discretionary expenditure.

So when the AFL sign a big Pay TV deal in 2001, Murdoch and Packer make sure its signed with Foxtel so when they make a huge loss for 2002-06 period, Telstra cover 50% of that and Murdoch 25% and Packer 25%.

But when NRL director from News Ltd with the veto rights approves their TV deal, its with Fox Sports (whom that same director of NRL is also a director of Fox Sports) not Foxtel, and Fox Sports is owned 50% by Murdoch and 50% by Packer, and the approved pay TV deal value is unders because News Ltd wants it lowest possible, so unlike Foxtel's Fox Footy Channel which lost $120m+ in 2002-06 years and then was scrapped for 2007-11 years, Fox Sports makes nice fat profits and the NRL miss out.

Once again plain dumb luck for the AFL as Murdoch and Packer want to recoup some of their massive Super League War losses. So the AFL get a massive $$ benefit from Murdoch and Packer wanting to break 7's monopoly, they made a bid knowing they would lose money, but lets Telstra pick up the biggest share of the loss. The NRL miss out because of News Ltd's veto power over the value of accepted TV rights. Another big free kick for the AFL that had nothing to do with their management ability.

And who was Murdoch's lackey running the new joint venture NRL protecting his interest?? David Gallop. The A-League and other soccer related issues are going nowhere whilst Gallop is given responsibility to run it.

Fair call as I certainly don't argue their strategy wasn't dictated by the position they were in with Murdoch.

It does seem to me though that some are very quick to point to sheer luck behind everything the AFL has been successful in.

 

[Papa G]

Although more of a shakes head moment, it follows on from this thread re Tasmanian football and confirms, if you didn't know already, that Adam Cooney is a dullard.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/af...l/news-story/1dd785889e8a2cd405a0a63af86e287d