Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No s**t. Now explain how not selling home games helps on-field performance, keeping in mind there's a fairly strong case that Hawthorn and North Melbourne's win-loss column has been helped by home games in Tasmania.Big rich clubs don't need to sell games to Tassie to get by.
80,000 members not enough for youThe advantages may not be all that of themselves, but add up to quite a bit. It probably largely applies to Vic clubs, non-Vic clubs have their own markets for exploiting sponsors and media. Even then a West Coast player probably has more opportunity than a Fremantle player of similar stature within the respective clubs.
The "out of cap" income players can earn, through the coterie groups and whatever is not small.
The difference in media demand could be significant, the #4 player at Collingwood could get a much better media deal than the #1 player at North or St Kilda - assuming all teams are roughly equal on performance. A truly standout personality or superstar might subvert that in the short term (but a big club player is more likely to be built by media into a superstar anyway).
Essendon get guaranteed MCG games despite being a Docklands tenant. They will never go into a final at the MCG hosting a non-Vic who has more recent experience with the venue. The downside is they will never get a true home game against another large club, but they play enough MCG games that home or away are basically neutral there. Whenever Carlton come competitive, the same will be true of them - if they are still a largish club by that point.
I'm sure a lot of spending on facilities, consulting, etc, is outside the football department cap.
When was the last time a big club was scheduled to do back-to-back travel involving Perth? (COVID broke the schedules a bit, but in the original fixture. Small clubs don't get looked after like that.) Back when Richmond were trash they did get back-to-back travel a couple of times, but I don't think Brisbane or Perth were in there.
Hire better lawyers?Essendon's planned upgrade to Windy Hill uses the same model as the Dogs and North have used/are using to get the Western Oval and Arden Street upgraded.
Leverage community links/access and the AFLW team for a major injection of taxpayer funds.
Which begs the question as to what real competitive advantage big rich clubs have over the smaller clubs now.
The days of Essendon/West Coast/Hawthorn being able to afford world class training facilities while smaller clubs had portables or used uni gyms and the like are long gone.
The footy department soft cap brought the heat out of the arms race there and the AFL used COVID spending cuts to cement in the equalisation.
It looks like the real competitive advantages are with clubs that can offer lifestyle and cultural benefits.
Geelong benefits massively from its location and the associated lifestyle. Brisbane has done very well in building a culture that players want to come to and/or not leave. GWS have rapidly built a strong culture that allows them to keep players they want and attract talent too.
Has footy's equalisation mechanism - and associated political/cultural factors like teams working out they can use W to squeeze taxpayers for cash - finally reached its goal where richer clubs don't actually get any tangible onfield advantage from their cash?
This is true. Flying interstate is a massive competitive advantage IMO and the added travel is massive for both Hawthorn and North Melbourne.There's a fairly strong case that Hawthorn and North Melbourne's win-loss column has been helped by home games in Tasmania.
"Added travel" is pretty vague.This is true. Flying interstate is a massive competitive advantage IMO and the added travel is massive for both Hawthorn and North Melbourne.
Good topic and post.Essendon's planned upgrade to Windy Hill uses the same model as the Dogs and North have used/are using to get the Western Oval and Arden Street upgraded.
Leverage community links/access and the AFLW team for a major injection of taxpayer funds.
Which begs the question as to what real competitive advantage big rich clubs have over the smaller clubs now.
The days of Essendon/West Coast/Hawthorn being able to afford world class training facilities while smaller clubs had portables or used uni gyms and the like are long gone.
The footy department soft cap brought the heat out of the arms race there and the AFL used COVID spending cuts to cement in the equalisation.
It looks like the real competitive advantages are with clubs that can offer lifestyle and cultural benefits.
Geelong benefits massively from its location and the associated lifestyle. Brisbane has done very well in building a culture that players want to come to and/or not leave. GWS have rapidly built a strong culture that allows them to keep players they want and attract talent too.
Has footy's equalisation mechanism - and associated political/cultural factors like teams working out they can use W to squeeze taxpayers for cash - finally reached its goal where richer clubs don't actually get any tangible onfield advantage from their cash?
One benefit is not being like North Melbourne desperately trying and failing to attract free agents and recruits every year
If what are you are saying is true, the single best thing about it will be that West Coast will be the most impacted. I look forward to them accepting that loss of privilege with grace and equanimity..
Big rich clubs don't need to sell games to Tassie to get by.
They get an advantage with the fixturing in certain cases.
When there is situations where some of the big clubs haven’t played at certain grounds for 5/10/15 year periods then that needs to be addressed.
As exemplified by Essendon not having to travel to Geelong for decades before this year. The big clubs don’t get scheduled to play at the “boutique” stadiums. Instead, they play them play at the G or larger stadiums under the disguise of drawing bigger crowds (which isn’t always the case) and doesn’t justify going years and years never playing at certain grounds.
In the case of playing at GMHBA, then the other “smaller” clubs are left to make up the Cats required home games and in turn, suffer a disadvantage compared to the big clubs who never have too.
Same goes for Ballarat, Tassi, Alice springs, Canberra etc.
Some big clubs are so big, they like to pay for their former players to play at other clubs.
Good topic and post.
I think there’s limited but tangible benefits still. There’s no doubt Essendon has been able to win the race to secure free agents with its blockbuster games, big crowds and to a lesser degree, perceived superior facilities. The fact Essendon hadn’t converted this to onfield success is less about the players attracted and more about years of chronic performance culture failings and scandals.
They also have greater access to industry contacts and opportunities for door openings via more sponsors and stringer coterie groups (Eg: Essendon).
I think the partisan crowd the large clubs draw has a material impact as well. Essendon invariably fill Marvel creating a somewhat imposing prospect for opposition clubs. Just as the big clubs do at the MCG. Essendon’s partisan crowd in Tassie earlier this year was reported by players on both sides as an eye opener and possibly helped drag Essendon over the line in a tight contest against the Hawks. We know home crowds have a big impact on umpiring decisions and home team energy in WA and SA..
Well said and argued. I largely agree. A sensible and pragmatic viewpoint.Agree on the attracting free agents. As owen87 has identified Essendon do seem to have really created a market advantage by using Andrew Welsh and others to provide a post footy career pathway.
Dodoro has been very smart in this. It is what clubs need to do. Essendon doesn't have the go home and live down the coast pull of Geelong so have created a very astute point of difference in the recruiting market.
Sure agreed, but again, its a matter of degrees. It isn't like Essendon/Hawthorn have those things and other clubs don't, black and white. Or the disparity is like Essendon training out of world class facilities while other use portables.
As discussed above, I reckon the Bombers have realised they need to polish that advantage to make it really pay off, which they've done very well.
Big powerful cotorie groups are also a double edged sword, as Carlton and Collingwood are still struggling with, and Essendon had real issues with in the earlier part of last decade.
But overall agree.
Hard agree on all this, and the Tassie point is especially well made. But the crowd size/power thing is also not set in stone.
The Dees were the powerful club in the land from the start of the game (literally) until they dropped off in the 60s and spiralled all the way down to near death experiences in the 00s.
I suspect a major Dees resurgence and shift a la Hawthorn into big/power club with crowds to match and associated onfield advantage via fixturing/noise of affirmation is happening before our eyes.
Well said and argued. I largely agree. A sensible and pragmatic viewpoint.
Collingwood are fascinating. There’s the genuine possibility it will have the lowest membership of the ‘Big 4’ in 2022. And there’s no reason why it should given Carlton and Essendon have underperformed Vs Collingwood for over 10 years now.It is amazing how successful equalisation has been.
In 1998 Pagan and Sheeds would both use the clear and undeniable difference in facilities in the clubs as motivation - "You have the best facilities in the land and you get beaten by a bunch of blokes training in portable v our weights as just as heavy as theirs."
But then there's no doubt whatsoever North's crap facilities and finances held us back and took a decade or more of work to allow us to get back to equalish footing. The soft cap was huge in that, and so to his credit was Brad Scott.
But if you took the last five years as your reference point, the Dogs are likely second only to the Tigs in terms of relative improvement on and off field.
Dogs are debt free, revenue rising steadily (COVID notwithstanding), they've got/are getting their home ground done up to be broadcast industry leading standard for W, they can attract big name players and keep the blokes they want to, they've got one of the most marketable players in the game with Bont.
Over the last five years in that regard, the Dogs are a classic Big Club - flag and GF appearances to match.
Yet Collingwood have done the complete opposite.
They're a mismanaged rabble who are sinking onfield, shedding talented players and never really in the hunt for big name free agents.
Even within the cycle of footy, being a big rich club provides them precious little onfield advantage I can see, beyond the blockbusters that are a pre-equalisation legacy thing.
To your point, there’s been a degree of mediocrity about the Pies the last 3-5 years off field. Certainly the last 2-3 years anyway. New leadership at Collingwood have work to do to restore its preeminence as the leading club in the AFL. Something Richmond and West Coast currently own, with Essendon and Collingwood obvious challengers perhaps finally emerging to topple these two current beasts.
And there’s no reason why it should