Time to abandon GWS & Gold Coast

[JimmyBeerCans]

The two biggest contributors to the massive AFL TV rights deals are guaranteed weekly games in the northern states and 3-5 games a week in Victoria because Victoria always has been and always will be the biggest state for footy. As unfair as it is, 8-9 Victorian clubs would always be the right amount so that the league got big TV deals (and in return, more money for the clubs). It's also a big reason why people who make threads saying GC and GWS are irrelevant have absolutely NFI.

And if we're going to argue perfect balance, I'd say Tassie and Canberra would be more important in that discussion anyway.

5 clubs in Melbourne plus Geelong is the perfect balance & you'll never convince me otherwise the TV dollars would still be huge & less clubs at the trough.

 

[bomberclifford]

Why not 16 balls?

Multiball!

 

[Established1870]

5 clubs in Melbourne plus Geelong is the perfect balance & you'll never convince me otherwise the TV dollars would still be huge & less clubs at the trough.

You wouldn't get huge TV deals if the AFL could only guarantee 2 games a week in Victoria compared to 4. Same argument as to why GC and GWS are so important for the AFL. Like I said, Victoria is by far the biggest footy state in the country with a population bigger then WA, SA, Tasmania and NT combined so the audience (and money) on offer by having more Victorian clubs is too important which is why even 6 clubs wouldn't be enough. In reality, 8 clubs in Victoria would be the best if it means guaranteeing 4 games a week in the state.

Keeping clubs like the Bulldogs and St Kilda around is important too for where they are located and keeping soccer from growing more in Melbourne. The western suburbs in Melbourne are going to have a population increase bigger then SA in the coming decade so if the Dogs aren't completely useless then they actually might become a fairly strong club because of it. St Kilda are going to be battlers forever but without a footy team in South Melbourne it'd be like giving the FFA free reign there and the AFL probably wouldn't want that happening.

In saying all, North are still irrelevant and should GTFO.

 

[Papa G]

The idea that GWS and Gold Coast and having 9 games is massively important for TV rights (currently and in the near term) is incredibly over stated IMO.

 

[El Zorro]

The idea that GWS and Gold Coast and having 9 games is massively important for TV rights (currently and in the near term) is incredibly over stated IMO.

What do you think is the fair value of that 9th game?

 

[El Zorro]

A possibly overly-simplistic but probably not entirely wrong financial model:

The current TV deal is for $418M/year. That's for 9 games per weekend, cut that to 8 and you could argue the value decreases by one 9th, or $46.44M. The AFL spends $45.6/year supporting GWS and GC. Without taking into consideration additional revenue (merchandise, other media, etc), they are break-even at this stage.

RussellEbertHandball ?

 

[Duckimus Prime]

St Kilda are going to be battlers forever but without a footy team in South Melbourne it'd be like giving the FFA free reign there and the AFL probably wouldn't want that happening.

You'd think that but the FFA won't.

Any southern suburbs Melbourne based side will fail unless its the South Melbourne Football that currently exists. And the FFA won't let that former-NSL club in to the A League.

 

[Established1870]

A possibly overly-simplistic but probably not entirely wrong financial model:

The current TV deal is for $418M/year. That's for 9 games per weekend, cut that to 8 and you could argue the value decreases by one 9th, or $46.44M. The AFL spends $45.6/year supporting GWS and GC. Without taking into consideration additional revenue (merchandise, other media, etc), they are break-even at this stage.

RussellEbertHandball ?

It's not about the number of games per week it's about having a guaranteed game a week in NSW and QLD. Bring it back to 1 team each in the northern states and there's no chance of getting another billion dollar TV deal and that's without coronavirus. The AFL make most of their money with the TV rights deal so factoring that in they'd probably kill us or Freo before getting rid of the Suns or Giants.

 

[Established1870]

You'd think that but the FFA won't.

Any southern suburbs Melbourne based side will fail unless its the South Melbourne Football that currently exists. And the FFA won't let that former-NSL club in to the A League.

I seriously doubt the A-League will be around much longer if Foxtel rip up the contract so if someone comes in and makes a new league then they'd be absolute morons not to include South Melbourne who are the biggest state league club in the country and probably bigger then some (if not most) A-League sides. I think the FFA are absolute morons for admitting City into the League over SM in the first place (even with some of the issues surrounding them).

And when I talk about soccer overtaking footy in South Melbourne, I'm talking about the grassroots level which long term would be a lot more important then just having a new national soccer team there.

 

[Papa G]

It's not about the number of games per week it's about having a guaranteed game a week in NSW and QLD. Bring it back to 1 team each in the northern states and there's no chance of getting another billion dollar TV deal and that's without coronavirus. The AFL make most of their money with the TV rights deal so factoring that in they'd probably kill us or Freo before getting rid of the Suns or Giants.

If nobody is watching, why is it of value?

 

[tribey]

If nobody is watching, why is it of value?

A few people in Adelaide and Melbourne will watch Suns vs Crows and Giants vs Tigers, etc.

 

[Grave Danger]

A possibly overly-simplistic but probably not entirely wrong financial model:

The current TV deal is for $418M/year. That's for 9 games per weekend, cut that to 8 and you could argue the value decreases by one 9th, or $46.44M. The AFL spends $45.6/year supporting GWS and GC. Without taking into consideration additional revenue (merchandise, other media, etc), they are break-even at this stage.

RussellEbertHandball ?

With the way the AFL prioritise 'blockbuster' games over a fairer draw you'd think that TV ratings are just as important as the nine games.

 

[Andre]

The idea that GWS and Gold Coast and having 9 games is massively important for TV rights (currently and in the near term) is incredibly over stated IMO.

It's not 9 games, it's two teams in those states for TV. If you went to 16 teams, by two less Vic teams you could increase the season to get around the same number of games, so TV and other rights don't need to go down. Added bonus is they could piss off the Sunday evening slot that 0.01% of fans like to go live.

 

[tribey]

1 premiership. 27(!) spoons. It's a monumental record of failure not even close to being matched by any other club. The Saints are the Donald Bradman of being s**t.

Remember when they were in Tasmania at a time when they were entering a sustained period of contention off the back of Riewoldt, Hayes and co?

Their enlightened CEO didn’t see the value in it, and graciously ceded a vacuum for Clarko’s young Hawks to fill, who were battling away down there since 2001.

Whoops.

 

[Established1870]

If nobody is watching, why is it of value?

The TV networks and the AFL don't expect GWS or GC to pop massive ratings in the immediate future, it's about potential growth and really neither are a letdown in that area. It's a testament to the Suns who have been more useless on the field then a double legged amputee that they've grown the game so much all over QLD in the grassroots levels which is the important thing for the AFL.

If 10,000 people watch the Suns every week but more and more kids grow up preferring the Suns over the Titans (who are an even bigger s**t show), then those kids will go to games and watch the Suns on TV which is where the growth will come from. It's not about getting the rusted on rugby fans to watch footy, it's about getting their kids to watch. And the numbers definitely say that it's working.

 

[TeeKray]

Remember when they were in Tasmania at a time when they were entering a sustained period of contention off the back of Riewoldt, Hayes and co?

Their enlightened CEO didn’t see the value in it, and graciously ceded a vacuum for Clarko’s young Hawks to fill, who were battling away down there since 2001.

Whoops.

It's almost like their president at the time was an unstable alcoholic and drug addict.

 

[tribey]

It's almost like their president at the time was an unstable alcoholic and drug addict.

If only we could point to such an easy smoking gun...

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

A possibly overly-simplistic but probably not entirely wrong financial model:

The current TV deal is for $418M/year. That's for 9 games per weekend, cut that to 8 and you could argue the value decreases by one 9th, or $46.44M. The AFL spends $45.6/year supporting GWS and GC. Without taking into consideration additional revenue (merchandise, other media, etc), they are break-even at this stage.

RussellEbertHandball ?

At a very simplistic level that sounds about right.

But then you dig a bit and you see they are in a bigger negative.

the $418m average includes $200mil of non cash advertising contra which means average cash per year from media rights is $2,308mil / 6 = $385mil.

If AFL didn't get $200m of advertising contras, but $200m extra cash, how much cash would they be prepared to pay for advertising?? The broadcasters paid an advertising contra before the 2 expansion clubs came in so I will take that non cash component off and only look at average cash of $385mil.

There are 9 games a week x 22 = 198 games and 9 finals. The finals would be worth more. The 4 QFs and 2 SF's are probably all equal value and probably worth double to triple what a minor round game is worth, the 2 PF's probably double the first 6 finals and the GF probably three times a PF.

Eddie who is on the 8 people panel managing the situation, 4 club presidents and 4 from the AFL - the chair, ceo and 2 executives said last Wednesday on Footy Classified said that each game was worth between $1.3 to $1.5m to the AFL to receive from the broadcasters, so lets use that as a base and go with $1.5m

$1.5mx198 = $297m + $4mx6 + $8mx2 + $24mx1 = $361m
You could argue that the preseason, brownlow, rising star, MVP, All Australian and any other events are worth $24m giving total of $385m.

So you could then argue the 2 clubs bring in $1.5m x 22 = $33m as the finals and all the other stuff would be worth about the same without them.

The distribution to the 2 expansion clubs since the 2017-22 TV deal started have been as follows. The AFL last year decided to lump into one amount the way they reported the distribution.

Everyone gets the base payment. Variable is different for all clubs depending on what they submit to the AFL for assistance with funding.

Total variable amount to the 18 clubs in each year was 2017 $72.6m, 2018 $72.0m, 2019 $71.5m

The other distributions include many items and some clubs don't show some items as reimbursements rather than as revenue. The AFL made the following other distributions to the clubs throughout the 2017/18/19 seasons, including but not limited to;
AFLW,
Travel subsidies,
Prizemoney,
AFL membership-related distributions - AFL Member Club Support approx $160 per adult member. Coll have 12k of 58k
AFL commercial partner payments,
Finals allowances
AFL-facilitated stadium payments and
Licensing distributions.



You could then get more detailed. How many extra Vic team v Vic team games does the extra game a week allow and what is the value of that? What is the actual value of GC and GWS in their home markets to the TV broadcaster etc?

Would Telstra still have paid $300m cash (and included in the $385mil cash per year figure above) if there were 16 teams not 18? If not, what is that lower figure?

 

[JoondalupJ]

The AFL lacked balls to move Victorian clubs. Now we are stuck as it is which is pathetic, just an expanded VFL still.

They should have moved 2 from Melbourne up north and 1 down to Tassie for a total of 3 removed from the 1 market.

16 team comp, nice and fair for all.

And...
I'm all for the new teams up north as you need to have a long vision to enable expansion into non-traditional markets.

The idea of moved Melbourne clubs is almost the only way, GC17 and GWS were manufactured, you need established clubs with players to offer and perhaps some money, its why Footascray should have gone to Western Sydney, and why North should have gone to Gold Cost or Canberra preferably.
In fact, Gold Coast is a failure for a team there, why I'm not sure , but it just has been. So Canberra full time.

And I know what you'll say , sorry for North and Footscray what about Hawthorn? well here goes , we could move to Tassie if the situation financially was on the slide.
But already in strife, clubs like St Kilda and North Melbourne would have to think on it, and perhaps out of the three clubs that use Tasmania now , would have to fight over who has the money to stay at home in Melbourne, but others might have to look at themselves too, BECAUSE WE CAN'T HAVE 18 CLUBS! ITS ABOUT POPULATION, believe it , too many is the ruin of!!!!!

Let 's not forget the Federal Government is throwing money everywhere now and the nation needs it.
The clubs you can bet will be on their own, when this coronavirus eases and some sport can be taken up again.
Handouts won't be there, and can you imagine the war between 16 clubs, if GC17 and GWS are squealing for more back up, I reckon those days are gone?

So it'll be a no-choice situation either you are either viable or you need to go. Because GWS and Gold Coast are not.
And fill our other footy state with a football team, then begs the question? Canberra can maybe afford a club because it is a national seat of Government and could, or probably would for a clubs sake help out a bit.
But for Gold Coast that hasn't been a good place for footy weirdly enough, maybe a real club there might change things, North is established and entered the VFL in 1925 , along with the Hawks and Footscray, so maybe a real club would turn the place in a Aussie Footy big crowd bigger money place for footy.

But if not, then where do they go, or do they go at all, Western Sydney will never be a footy zone but it might have money there for soccer??
Solve the Tassie and Canberra thing, and leave in Melbourne 7 clubs and one in Geelong.

One thing is every AFL club will lose revenue this season and they will only be as good as they can with what they got left, after this . And you can bet with the membership argument going at the moment and with the business world slowing , that the fees will rise and things maybe dearer for the followers , so really, unless this corona stuff we hear every second on every news channel in the country, is an exaggerated load , then Football will be in dire straights, and we might all be back to the VFL/WAFL/SANFL/TFL/NT/QFL/NSWFL???????????????????????????????????????? EVERYTHING ROLLS ON LIKE A SNOWBALL.
You have to think of the worst-case if the nation is in recession or depression heaven help us!
The footy will be second priority, kill or be killed. We should have a plan now and GWS and GC17 were bad ideas from the start!

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

It looks like I'm with most others in advocating for the continuation of GC and GWS. I feel the league would be best served by demonstrating its commitment in these markets when all others are retracting.
I don't feel as though relocating a club to these establishing teams is the answer - they are forging their own identity and any transplanting of another team into this dynamic would reek of insincerity, much like the Brisbane 'Fitzroy' identity.
For the same reason I think Tasmania should have its own team with its own identity. I also think the NT should have its own team. A boutique 20k stadium in each territory owned by the respective clubs would see them financially secure in a generation. I don't think it matters that it is hot in Darwin - it is cold in Tassie and a game was played in the snow last season.
Some of the Melbourne based clubs may see a natural extinction - it is not unreasonable for a Port Adelaide person to state this. Our troubles were manufactured and forced upon us by a petty and vindictive state league and a succubus of a 'national' competition wanting to put an 'uppity' suburban club in its place. The Melbourne clubs problems are more natural - the clubs need money to function and smaller clubs with closed markets and little room to grow from within its core market will fail to thrive. The Melbourne model should have allowed for radial corridors of support rather than hedging some clubs in and allowing others unfettered growth.

 

[DaTBird187]

I still think the Hawthorn supporter base is a myth

They disappear into the night at the slightest whiff of mediocrity.

 

[Power Raid]

Will canberra ever get a stand alone side?

 

[Guju]

They disappear into the night at the slightest whiff of mediocrity.

I'll admit that Hawthorn supporters are fairweathered. If we are winning then 40K plus hawkers turn up to games, but if we lose then 20K or under show up.

I guess Hawthorn supporters have been spoilt, hence they tend to pick and choose when and who they turn up against.

We may be fairweathered, but our supporter base is pretty big throughout the country.

 

[sobrave]

Will canberra ever get a stand alone side?

Bendigo-ballarat would be a better side than Canberra

 

[GremioPower]

Bendigo-ballarat would be a better side than Canberra

The Bendigo-Ballarat Bears!