What would it take for you to stop watching AFL?

Remove this Banner Ad

carloss said:
Interesting comment by veteran recruiter Matthew Rendell

www.theage.com.au

Collingwood's 'stuff up' overlooking Cripps led to change

Decorated recruiter Matthew Rendell says the Pies "stuffed up'' by missing Carlton gun Patrick Cripps and it led to change.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au

Clubs and coaches should "stop being selfish" and encourage a more entertaining and attacking style of game, or risk losing millennials. "Stop being so bloody selfish, everyone in the business, and playing for their survival, and start worrying about the people who care [the members]," Rendell said. "We had the lowest scoring year since 1966 last year. That is a fair dinkum joke with the talent they've got on display. The millennials don't want to go and watch it and when us baby boomers all pass away, the game is going to be in real trouble unless they do something about it."
Click to expand...


Will never happen whilst their jobs live and die by wins.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Agree wholeheartedly with the last 4 posts. Only way game changes is if people speak with their wallets and stop buying memberships and attending games.

I reckon the one way people could send a message would be if someone organised a 1 round boycott/ protest to change some rules etc to force the game to be more attacking. Could get enough scale but also be short term enough for the die hards who love going week in week out.
 
NoobPie said:
This post deserves a response. It is classic doe-eyed nonsense that just assumes something is superior because it happens in europe



Yep, this is correct. The uneven draw is rubbish





It is not a "wildcard system" it is finals system that has pretty much been in place since the VFL split from the VFA in 1897

A finals system identifies the best team as the team that beats the other best teams at the "business end" of the season. A first past the post system like in most soccer leagues identifies the best team as the that team that accumulates the most points over the season.

You can make a case for either however I much prefer the finals system for football. Soccer lends itself to the latter due to it being a little bit more of a crapshoot given the low scoring.




So *ingg what? Both of the big US pro leagues also use a draft system. Due to the small densely populated countries it is dominant in, soccer has evolved a pro/rel system. Again, the assumption that one is objectively better than the other is nonsense



A very marginal benefit of having a non-equalised competition with pro-rel




So fricken what? The Australian football has always operated as "closed shops" at the elite level. Again, the assumption that one is superior to the other is freaking nonsense

In terms of "plastic clubs" how the fck does having "open shops" matter? Both Chelsea and Man City had a burst of success purely based on being brought out by kleptocrats who used stolen wealth to buy success. This is more meritorious? Really?




What a dimwitted comment. Calling an equalised sporting competition a "socialist system" is ridiculously superficial and actually just demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a "socialist system" actually is.

Again, the idea that unrestrained spending is more meritorious and objectively preferable than competitions that ensure competiting clubs / franchises operate from the same budget is nonsense.




The AFL
-has about the same average attendances as the EPL despite a much smaller population
-plays out of, on average, high quality stadia than the EPL

The reason that the EPL is played in (mostly) full stadiums is the privately owned soccer clubs:
-want to restrict supply so they can gouge more money from their supporters
-for the most part cannot afford to make investments in upgrading their stadia because they need hand over all their money to massively over paid players






More doe-eyed nonsense. The EPL has nothing like a reach of 3 billion people. It would have a potential reach of 3 billion perhaps. The AFL would have a potential reach of several hundred million

According to this, the EPL has a cummulative global audience of 3 billion with a cumulative live audience of 1.35 billion (not clear whether this is based on average, reach or peaks figures)

www.sportspromedia.com

Premier League global audience climbs to 3.2bn for 2018/19 season - SportsPro

English soccer’s top flight credits growth to FTA coverage in Brazil and South Africa. [...]Read More... from Premier League global audience climbs to 3.2bn for 2018/19 season
www.sportspromedia.com www.sportspromedia.com

The AFL, in Australia, has a cumulative audience of over 100 million based on averages of 9 3 hour games a weekend





No, it really sucks to be you

A cultural cringing fawning for a competition that you have disturb your circadian rythyms to follow and you think you are better off than people whose favourite sport is actually in the place and timezone they actually live?

I'm afraid the fact you favourite competition is bigger globally doesn't make you a bigger person, nor does it make your appendage bigger than it actually is
Click to expand...


"This post deserves a response. It is classic doe-eyed nonsense that just assumes something is superior because it happens in europe"

Wrong. Not Europe. The world, in fact. And wrong again, I don’t think something is superior because it happens in Europe. Look at the numbers FFS, they don’t lie. One is watched the world over, the other isn’t even watched in its native land the nation over. Honestly you sound like a fat pudgy ugly girl whinging about all the hot girls in her college class. Maybe that’s a bad analogy but there is no argument, the Premier League is far far far superior to the AFL in terms of competition format and in popularity.


I will preface this by reiterating what I have already stated. I love Australian Rules Football. I enjoy a lot of sports, in fact. My gripe is not about the sport of Aussie Rules, it’s about the AFL and how it is run as a competition. It is arguably the most manufactured, artificial and contrived league in the world. It borders on cheating.


"It is not a "wildcard system" it is finals system that has pretty much been in place since the VFL split from the VFA in 1897

A finals system identifies the best team as the team that beats the other best teams at the "business end" of the season. A first past the post system like in most soccer leagues identifies the best team as the that team that accumulates the most points over the season.

You can make a case for either however I much prefer the finals system for football. Soccer lends itself to the latter due to it being a little bit more of a crapshoot given the low scoring"


You can call it what you like, finals, play-offs, business end, whatever, but it IS a wildcard system. What business does 4th have playing 1st for the right to be the first team in the semi final (which the AFL calls preliminary final, stupid name)? None. Team One finishes with say 20 wins and 2 losses yet it has to play Team Four which finishes with say 16 wins and 6 losses. What a crock. Try explaining that nonsense to a competition purist who just wants to see the most deserved team win the league. It’s a wildcard system whether you choose to call it that or not because the whole competition can turn on one game and ignores the 198 games in the season which preceded it.


And then there is the grand final. Always at the MCG irrespective of where the participants finish on the ladder. What a compromise on the competition that is. Believe me, nobody dislikes the Crows as much as I do. But as I sat back watching the 2017 grand final, cheering for the Tigers, I could not help but think that the game being played at the MCG was a total farce. The Crows, who played just 3 games at the MCG all season, finished minor premier, albeit by 2 points (half a game), and there it was playing Richmond, who finished third and played 13 games at the MCG, in front of what was, on the whole, a parochial Richmond crowd. I put it to you that had the game been played at the Crows’ home ground the Crows would have won the flag that year. Two reasons I say that. First, Richmond were not the best travellers that year. Second, earlier in the year the Crows walloped the Tigers 140-64 at AO. You really think the Tigers would have turned that result around had the granny been played in Adelaide? No one will ever know, but I’d hazard to guess, no.


So if you think the AFL’s finals system is the best way to determine the rightful champion then there is serious flaws in your thinking. That’s your opinion of course, but you’ll find you would be in the minority.


Also, this year’s grand final, Richmond vs GWS, WTF was the deal with the Tiger roar being played through the speakers? Peak AFL. Is the MCG supposed to be a neutral venue for the grand final or not? You could have fooled me.


I have seen maybe 50 or 60 different finals and competition formats thrown up by BF members on this site, and they all have their flaws. The only full-proof way to determine the champion is to have every team play every other team twice, home and away, and at the end of all games, the team with the most points is champion. That is the purest and fairest way. Anything else is a compromise on the competition. You would also find that that is the most intense way because every game becomes, in effect, a final. But the AFL will never adopt that format, for two reasons: (1) less money for them and (2)
fans of teams who are out of contention early will lose interest and because there is no replacement customer base to replace those who lose interest, it would be catastrophic for the AFL and a very poor look. There is simply not the interest in the AFL to sustain it under the format seen in most big football leagues around the world.

As a result, the AFL tries to keep as many people interested in its comp for as long as possible, and the finals system is one of the measures they use. Now if we had a group format with less minor round games and a knockout series at the end, that would be something worthwhile. But ATM we’re playing 22 rounds and then right at the end we have a 4 week post season wildcard tournament to decide the winner. Utter nonsense. And who is to say it should be a top 8? Why don’t we have a top 10, or a top 12, a top 6, or top 4? Get my point, it’s a contrived system, it’s man made, we have a top 8 because some decision makers said so. But first past the post is the purest and fairest method. If we had a 34 round AFL with first past the post, there can be no argument. A season that long would take into account injuries, travel, everything gets thrown into the mix. It would also mean that each game takes on more importance. But under the current system, get a serious injury to a key player in the prelim final, or a suspension over something silly, and that team’s chances take a huge dive. It’s pot luck FFS.


"So *ingg what? Both of the big US pro leagues also use a draft system. Due to the small densely populated countries it is dominant in, soccer has evolved a pro/rel system. Again, the assumption that one is objectively better than the other is nonsense"


You’re a bit of a numnut, aren’t you? Read the OP’s question again. One of MY reasons is the nonsense policy of giving the bottom teams priory picks in the draft. And that’s all in an attempt to equalise the competition, again, contrived, to keep people interested. In the Premier League, teams scrap, play desperate and use any legal means in the book to survive the drop zone because it is their survival at stake. Yet in the AFL, look at Carlton and Melbourne. And yet all you can say is "so what". You’re a knob. The NFL is also a closed shop. Go figure.


"A very marginal benefit of having a non-equalised competition with pro-rel"


I repeat, you’re a knob. Stamping out tanking, even the appearance of tanking, is a marginal benefit, you think. What confidence does the average Joe Blow have that a team which is anchored to the bottom of the AFL table is giving its all late in the season? I have none, zero confidence, and not because of what has happened in the past, but because I know that more losses means better prospects for better players in the future. There is an old rule in auditing, an auditor has to be independent of the client it is auditing both in fact and in appearance. Even if the auditor is independent in fact, if he is not independent in appearance, then the regulations state he is not independent because shareholders will lose confidence because of the appearance that he is not independent. Same thing goes with this. How can I have confidence in in this system that a bottom team is giving its best knowing that there is fruits to be had if they just keep losing? I have f.u.c.k all confidence.


"So fricken what? The Australian football has always operated as "closed shops" at the elite level. Again, the assumption that one is superior to the other is freaking nonsense

In terms of "plastic clubs" how the fck does having "open shops" matter? Both Chelsea and Man City had a burst of success purely based on being brought out by kleptocrats who used stolen wealth to buy success. This is more meritorious? Really?"


Again, read the OP’s question. I was giving my reasons. A closed shop means it’s the same teams year in year out. It becomes boring after a while. I bet there are many clubs out there who could do as good if not better than half the clubs in the AFL ATM, if given a chance. But they have no chance because the AFL is a closed shop. In England, you can form a club with aspirations of one day being the champions of England, the champions of Europe and the champions of the world. Won’t happen in the AFL, it’s f.u.c.k.i.n.g closed. The only prospect of getting in is when the AFL decides it needs more TV money and calls for expressions of interest haha, honestly what a crock. And not only that, it hand picks where those clubs will be. Again, contrived. As for Chelsea and City, sure, I think they have become plastic but they have been around for years and under the Premier League rules, if they have a bad enough year, they will be relegated. Simple as that. No club in the Premier League has an entitlement to be in the Premier League, they have to earn their right to be in that league. Not so in the AFL, have a bad year and you get rewarded, seriously, it’s a joke. It’s actually quite sad that you can’t see that.


"What a dimwitted comment. Calling an equalised sporting competition a "socialist system" is ridiculously superficial and actually just demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a "socialist system" actually is.

Again, the idea that unrestrained spending is more meritorious and objectively preferable than competitions that ensure competiting clubs / franchises operate from the same budget is nonsense."


Equalised equals contrived. Why should a club who has the most fans, most sponsors, most bums on seats at its games not be able to flex its financial muscle by spending the most for top players? I’ll tell you why. Because in the eyes of the AFL, that will reduce the interest in the competition if a club goes on some crazy dynasty or does the exact opposite of a dynasty. Again, the AFL attempts to keep as many people interested in its competition for as long as possible because a drop off in interest could spell doom for the league and some of its clubs because there’s not the replacement fans to replace those who have lost interest. As a Port fan who has lived in Melbourne for 20 years, I have been to many Collingwood v Port games at the MCG, and I’m telling you, 45,000 people in a stadium that holds circa 95,000 people means a lot of empty seats. If Collingwood was in the doldrums, the crowds would be less because you haven’t got another 50,000 going anyway. So equalisation is an attempt to keep as many people interested in the AFL for as long as possible. Sure you will get your event goers to ANZAC Day, Queens Birthday etc, but week in week out Collingwood’s crowds would drop more and more if it was out of contention early under a first past the post system. Hence why we have finals.


"The AFL
-has about the same average attendances as the EPL despite a much smaller population
-plays out of, on average, high quality stadia than the EPL

The reason that the EPL is played in (mostly) full stadiums is the privately owned soccer clubs:
-want to restrict supply so they can gouge more money from their supporters
-for the most part cannot afford to make investments in upgrading their stadia because they need hand over all their money to massively over paid players"





Same average you reckon? Restrict supply so they can gouge more money you reckon? You really are a simpleton. Do you realise that there are more English Premier League fans outside of England than there are in England? If money was no object and travel was not an issue for every person in the world who follows a Premier League club, there would be no stadium that is legally and logistically big enough to hold every willing and able fan who would want to attend to watch their Premier League team. Take Liverpool, a city of what, 1 to 2 million people with a cross town rival in Everton. It is estimated that there is 771 million Liverpool fans around the world. I read these stats two years ago and it would not surprise me in the least if that number eventually hits 1 billion in the future. Liverpool, a city of 1 to 2 million, yet Liverpool Football Club has around 32 million Facebook followers. Collingwood has about 200K FB followers and can’t fill out a home game against the Suns, GWS, Port Adelaide, Freo, etc etc.


And then to add to this, the Premier League is also in competition for market share with La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, Ligue 1 and other leagues around the world. What’s the AFL competing with? The SANFL? And spare me the "oh but Australian Rules is a provincial sport" baloney. There is nothing stopping the AFL selling its product to the world and making Aussie Rules the most watched sport in the world. Nothing at all. Let them have a go. See how they go. Remember, Association Football was once a provincial sport in England.





The AFL has what, 10 stadiums or thereabouts? And they are shared. One day Richmond is the home team vs Collingwood at the MCG, the next time they play, they swap. What a farce, and again, it’s so damn contrived. But I get it, without private backing, there is not the money for an AFL club to own its own stadium outright. Not sure if Geelong do. But it goes to show, no money usually means lack of strong demand. If the AFL was pumping and AFL clubs were raking it in, I think you would see more AFL clubs own their own stadium. But in the present climate ie before COVID-19), it’s not sustainable. The Premier League has many stadiums, most are owned by the clubs. And the quality of the stadiums is improving. Arsenal built its new stadium 10 years ago, Spurs just built its new stadium which is arguably the best in the world, Liverpool is forever expanding Anfield, Everton and Chelsea have plans for new stadiums and West Ham plays at the London Olympics Stadium. If you think the Premier League lacks quality stadiums, you are mistaken. Throw in Wembley Stadium as well, albeit it is not used for Premier League games.


"More doe-eyed nonsense. The EPL has nothing like a reach of 3 billion people. It would have a potential reach of 3 billion perhaps. The AFL would have a potential reach of several hundred million

According to this, the EPL has a cummulative global audience of 3 billion with a cumulative live audience of 1.35 billion (not clear whether this is based on average, reach or peaks figures)



http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/premier-league-audience-figures-global-2018-19-season



The AFL, in Australia, has a cumulative audience of over 100 million based on averages of 9 3 hour games a weekend"


Didn’t even bother to read this part in all of its context. There’s no comparison in terms of popularity. None. Again, you sound like a fat pudgy ugly girl whinging about all the hot girls in her college class.


"No, it really sucks to be you

A cultural cringing fawning for a competition that you have disturb your circadian rythyms to follow and you think you are better off than people whose favourite sport is actually in the place and timezone they actually live?

I'm afraid the fact you favourite competition is bigger globally doesn't make you a bigger person, nor does it make your appendage bigger than it actually is"


What are you on about? I don’t think that being a Premier League fan makes me any bigger or better than you. Again, I was addressing the OP’s question and then responded to some bollocks from another BF member.


Again, this is not about the sport of Aussie Rules, but the AFL as a competition. I love Australian Rules, followed it almost as long as I have followed Association Football. I am also an avid Melbourne Victory fan and member, which is in my time zone. But nothing compares to the buzz and excitement of the Premier League. There is a reason why Optus spent a shitload of money buying the Premier League rights for Australian viewers. It’s called demand and supply. And just to demonstrate that I am not a Eurosnob, I can’t stand La Liga, probably the most corrupt league in the world, where it is geared towards Real Madrid and Barcelona succeeding due to the uneven distribution of TV money. Honestly, that in itself reminds me of the AFL.


And one final point I will add. The AFL draws most of its talent from a pool comprising three states in Australia, Victoria, SA and WA. The Premier League can and does draw its talent from any where in the world. Thus, we are seeing better quality in the Premier League than what we see in the AFL. Who is to say that the most naturally gifted Aussie Rules footballers are not African, Asian, American or European? All we see in the AFL is the best that Australia has to offer. What we see in the Premier League is what the world has to offer, bar Messi and Ronaldo. My point is, the Premier League talent pool is far bigger than the AFL talent pool and thus the Premier League has better quality to show for it.
 
used to watch a lot of footy, most free to air games, but over the last few years interest has dwindled. only watch the saints and the occasional finals game and gf. so if the saints left so would i.
found the clash with rugby union world cup and afl finals interesting - the rugby was a far better spectacle to me, and i'd watch that over the footy.
 
Steven Gerrard said:
"This post deserves a response. It is classic doe-eyed nonsense that just assumes something is superior because it happens in europe"

Wrong. Not Europe. The world, in fact. And wrong again, I don’t think something is superior because it happens in Europe. Look at the numbers FFS, they don’t lie. One is watched the world over, the other isn’t even watched in its native land the nation over. Honestly you sound like a fat pudgy ugly girl whinging about all the hot girls in her college class. Maybe that’s a bad analogy but there is no argument, the Premier League is far far far superior to the AFL in terms of competition format and in popularity.


I will preface this by reiterating what I have already stated. I love Australian Rules Football. I enjoy a lot of sports, in fact. My gripe is not about the sport of Aussie Rules, it’s about the AFL and how it is run as a competition. It is arguably the most manufactured, artificial and contrived league in the world. It borders on cheating.


"It is not a "wildcard system" it is finals system that has pretty much been in place since the VFL split from the VFA in 1897

A finals system identifies the best team as the team that beats the other best teams at the "business end" of the season. A first past the post system like in most soccer leagues identifies the best team as the that team that accumulates the most points over the season.

You can make a case for either however I much prefer the finals system for football. Soccer lends itself to the latter due to it being a little bit more of a crapshoot given the low scoring"


You can call it what you like, finals, play-offs, business end, whatever, but it IS a wildcard system. What business does 4th have playing 1st for the right to be the first team in the semi final (which the AFL calls preliminary final, stupid name)? None. Team One finishes with say 20 wins and 2 losses yet it has to play Team Four which finishes with say 16 wins and 6 losses. What a crock. Try explaining that nonsense to a competition purist who just wants to see the most deserved team win the league. It’s a wildcard system whether you choose to call it that or not because the whole competition can turn on one game and ignores the 198 games in the season which preceded it.


And then there is the grand final. Always at the MCG irrespective of where the participants finish on the ladder. What a compromise on the competition that is. Believe me, nobody dislikes the Crows as much as I do. But as I sat back watching the 2017 grand final, cheering for the Tigers, I could not help but think that the game being played at the MCG was a total farce. The Crows, who played just 3 games at the MCG all season, finished minor premier, albeit by 2 points (half a game), and there it was playing Richmond, who finished third and played 13 games at the MCG, in front of what was, on the whole, a parochial Richmond crowd. I put it to you that had the game been played at the Crows’ home ground the Crows would have won the flag that year. Two reasons I say that. First, Richmond were not the best travellers that year. Second, earlier in the year the Crows walloped the Tigers 140-64 at AO. You really think the Tigers would have turned that result around had the granny been played in Adelaide? No one will ever know, but I’d hazard to guess, no.


So if you think the AFL’s finals system is the best way to determine the rightful champion then there is serious flaws in your thinking. That’s your opinion of course, but you’ll find you would be in the minority.


Also, this year’s grand final, Richmond vs GWS, WTF was the deal with the Tiger roar being played through the speakers? Peak AFL. Is the MCG supposed to be a neutral venue for the grand final or not? You could have fooled me.


I have seen maybe 50 or 60 different finals and competition formats thrown up by BF members on this site, and they all have their flaws. The only full-proof way to determine the champion is to have every team play every other team twice, home and away, and at the end of all games, the team with the most points is champion. That is the purest and fairest way. Anything else is a compromise on the competition. You would also find that that is the most intense way because every game becomes, in effect, a final. But the AFL will never adopt that format, for two reasons: (1) less money for them and (2)
fans of teams who are out of contention early will lose interest and because there is no replacement customer base to replace those who lose interest, it would be catastrophic for the AFL and a very poor look. There is simply not the interest in the AFL to sustain it under the format seen in most big football leagues around the world.

As a result, the AFL tries to keep as many people interested in its comp for as long as possible, and the finals system is one of the measures they use. Now if we had a group format with less minor round games and a knockout series at the end, that would be something worthwhile. But ATM we’re playing 22 rounds and then right at the end we have a 4 week post season wildcard tournament to decide the winner. Utter nonsense. And who is to say it should be a top 8? Why don’t we have a top 10, or a top 12, a top 6, or top 4? Get my point, it’s a contrived system, it’s man made, we have a top 8 because some decision makers said so. But first past the post is the purest and fairest method. If we had a 34 round AFL with first past the post, there can be no argument. A season that long would take into account injuries, travel, everything gets thrown into the mix. It would also mean that each game takes on more importance. But under the current system, get a serious injury to a key player in the prelim final, or a suspension over something silly, and that team’s chances take a huge dive. It’s pot luck FFS.


"So *ingg what? Both of the big US pro leagues also use a draft system. Due to the small densely populated countries it is dominant in, soccer has evolved a pro/rel system. Again, the assumption that one is objectively better than the other is nonsense"


You’re a bit of a numnut, aren’t you? Read the OP’s question again. One of MY reasons is the nonsense policy of giving the bottom teams priory picks in the draft. And that’s all in an attempt to equalise the competition, again, contrived, to keep people interested. In the Premier League, teams scrap, play desperate and use any legal means in the book to survive the drop zone because it is their survival at stake. Yet in the AFL, look at Carlton and Melbourne. And yet all you can say is "so what". You’re a knob. The NFL is also a closed shop. Go figure.


"A very marginal benefit of having a non-equalised competition with pro-rel"


I repeat, you’re a knob. Stamping out tanking, even the appearance of tanking, is a marginal benefit, you think. What confidence does the average Joe Blow have that a team which is anchored to the bottom of the AFL table is giving its all late in the season? I have none, zero confidence, and not because of what has happened in the past, but because I know that more losses means better prospects for better players in the future. There is an old rule in auditing, an auditor has to be independent of the client it is auditing both in fact and in appearance. Even if the auditor is independent in fact, if he is not independent in appearance, then the regulations state he is not independent because shareholders will lose confidence because of the appearance that he is not independent. Same thing goes with this. How can I have confidence in in this system that a bottom team is giving its best knowing that there is fruits to be had if they just keep losing? I have f.u.c.k all confidence.


"So fricken what? The Australian football has always operated as "closed shops" at the elite level. Again, the assumption that one is superior to the other is freaking nonsense

In terms of "plastic clubs" how the fck does having "open shops" matter? Both Chelsea and Man City had a burst of success purely based on being brought out by kleptocrats who used stolen wealth to buy success. This is more meritorious? Really?"


Again, read the OP’s question. I was giving my reasons. A closed shop means it’s the same teams year in year out. It becomes boring after a while. I bet there are many clubs out there who could do as good if not better than half the clubs in the AFL ATM, if given a chance. But they have no chance because the AFL is a closed shop. In England, you can form a club with aspirations of one day being the champions of England, the champions of Europe and the champions of the world. Won’t happen in the AFL, it’s f.u.c.k.i.n.g closed. The only prospect of getting in is when the AFL decides it needs more TV money and calls for expressions of interest haha, honestly what a crock. And not only that, it hand picks where those clubs will be. Again, contrived. As for Chelsea and City, sure, I think they have become plastic but they have been around for years and under the Premier League rules, if they have a bad enough year, they will be relegated. Simple as that. No club in the Premier League has an entitlement to be in the Premier League, they have to earn their right to be in that league. Not so in the AFL, have a bad year and you get rewarded, seriously, it’s a joke. It’s actually quite sad that you can’t see that.


"What a dimwitted comment. Calling an equalised sporting competition a "socialist system" is ridiculously superficial and actually just demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a "socialist system" actually is.

Again, the idea that unrestrained spending is more meritorious and objectively preferable than competitions that ensure competiting clubs / franchises operate from the same budget is nonsense."


Equalised equals contrived. Why should a club who has the most fans, most sponsors, most bums on seats at its games not be able to flex its financial muscle by spending the most for top players? I’ll tell you why. Because in the eyes of the AFL, that will reduce the interest in the competition if a club goes on some crazy dynasty or does the exact opposite of a dynasty. Again, the AFL attempts to keep as many people interested in its competition for as long as possible because a drop off in interest could spell doom for the league and some of its clubs because there’s not the replacement fans to replace those who have lost interest. As a Port fan who has lived in Melbourne for 20 years, I have been to many Collingwood v Port games at the MCG, and I’m telling you, 45,000 people in a stadium that holds circa 95,000 people means a lot of empty seats. If Collingwood was in the doldrums, the crowds would be less because you haven’t got another 50,000 going anyway. So equalisation is an attempt to keep as many people interested in the AFL for as long as possible. Sure you will get your event goers to ANZAC Day, Queens Birthday etc, but week in week out Collingwood’s crowds would drop more and more if it was out of contention early under a first past the post system. Hence why we have finals.


"The AFL
-has about the same average attendances as the EPL despite a much smaller population
-plays out of, on average, high quality stadia than the EPL

The reason that the EPL is played in (mostly) full stadiums is the privately owned soccer clubs:
-want to restrict supply so they can gouge more money from their supporters
-for the most part cannot afford to make investments in upgrading their stadia because they need hand over all their money to massively over paid players"





Same average you reckon? Restrict supply so they can gouge more money you reckon? You really are a simpleton. Do you realise that there are more English Premier League fans outside of England than there are in England? If money was no object and travel was not an issue for every person in the world who follows a Premier League club, there would be no stadium that is legally and logistically big enough to hold every willing and able fan who would want to attend to watch their Premier League team. Take Liverpool, a city of what, 1 to 2 million people with a cross town rival in Everton. It is estimated that there is 771 million Liverpool fans around the world. I read these stats two years ago and it would not surprise me in the least if that number eventually hits 1 billion in the future. Liverpool, a city of 1 to 2 million, yet Liverpool Football Club has around 32 million Facebook followers. Collingwood has about 200K FB followers and can’t fill out a home game against the Suns, GWS, Port Adelaide, Freo, etc etc.


And then to add to this, the Premier League is also in competition for market share with La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, Ligue 1 and other leagues around the world. What’s the AFL competing with? The SANFL? And spare me the "oh but Australian Rules is a provincial sport" baloney. There is nothing stopping the AFL selling its product to the world and making Aussie Rules the most watched sport in the world. Nothing at all. Let them have a go. See how they go. Remember, Association Football was once a provincial sport in England.





The AFL has what, 10 stadiums or thereabouts? And they are shared. One day Richmond is the home team vs Collingwood at the MCG, the next time they play, they swap. What a farce, and again, it’s so damn contrived. But I get it, without private backing, there is not the money for an AFL club to own its own stadium outright. Not sure if Geelong do. But it goes to show, no money usually means lack of strong demand. If the AFL was pumping and AFL clubs were raking it in, I think you would see more AFL clubs own their own stadium. But in the present climate ie before COVID-19), it’s not sustainable. The Premier League has many stadiums, most are owned by the clubs. And the quality of the stadiums is improving. Arsenal built its new stadium 10 years ago, Spurs just built its new stadium which is arguably the best in the world, Liverpool is forever expanding Anfield, Everton and Chelsea have plans for new stadiums and West Ham plays at the London Olympics Stadium. If you think the Premier League lacks quality stadiums, you are mistaken. Throw in Wembley Stadium as well, albeit it is not used for Premier League games.


"More doe-eyed nonsense. The EPL has nothing like a reach of 3 billion people. It would have a potential reach of 3 billion perhaps. The AFL would have a potential reach of several hundred million

According to this, the EPL has a cummulative global audience of 3 billion with a cumulative live audience of 1.35 billion (not clear whether this is based on average, reach or peaks figures)



http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/premier-league-audience-figures-global-2018-19-season



The AFL, in Australia, has a cumulative audience of over 100 million based on averages of 9 3 hour games a weekend"


Didn’t even bother to read this part in all of its context. There’s no comparison in terms of popularity. None. Again, you sound like a fat pudgy ugly girl whinging about all the hot girls in her college class.


"No, it really sucks to be you

A cultural cringing fawning for a competition that you have disturb your circadian rythyms to follow and you think you are better off than people whose favourite sport is actually in the place and timezone they actually live?

I'm afraid the fact you favourite competition is bigger globally doesn't make you a bigger person, nor does it make your appendage bigger than it actually is"


What are you on about? I don’t think that being a Premier League fan makes me any bigger or better than you. Again, I was addressing the OP’s question and then responded to some bollocks from another BF member.


Again, this is not about the sport of Aussie Rules, but the AFL as a competition. I love Australian Rules, followed it almost as long as I have followed Association Football. I am also an avid Melbourne Victory fan and member, which is in my time zone. But nothing compares to the buzz and excitement of the Premier League. There is a reason why Optus spent a shitload of money buying the Premier League rights for Australian viewers. It’s called demand and supply. And just to demonstrate that I am not a Eurosnob, I can’t stand La Liga, probably the most corrupt league in the world, where it is geared towards Real Madrid and Barcelona succeeding due to the uneven distribution of TV money. Honestly, that in itself reminds me of the AFL.


And one final point I will add. The AFL draws most of its talent from a pool comprising three states in Australia, Victoria, SA and WA. The Premier League can and does draw its talent from any where in the world. Thus, we are seeing better quality in the Premier League than what we see in the AFL. Who is to say that the most naturally gifted Aussie Rules footballers are not African, Asian, American or European? All we see in the AFL is the best that Australia has to offer. What we see in the Premier League is what the world has to offer, bar Messi and Ronaldo. My point is, the Premier League talent pool is far bigger than the AFL talent pool and thus the Premier League has better quality to show for it.
Click to expand...
Wow just wow. you've just owned Noobpie with facts and he wont like that.
We all love AF but Noobpie believes everything that's said that comes out of AFL house, everything.
If you query him he calls you a troll. Noobpie is the Donald Trump of these boards he doesn't like facts when it doesn't suit his agenda. He's very thin skinned.
 
Will be interesting to see if this delay of season and “made for TV” product will send people away from the game after Round 2.

16 minute quarters in a non-corona season would test me with the neutral games.

This season will definitely test how much fans love football for the game, and how much people actually love football for the socialising, event, atmosphere etc.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

carloss said:
Interesting comment by veteran recruiter Matthew Rendell

www.theage.com.au

Collingwood's 'stuff up' overlooking Cripps led to change

Decorated recruiter Matthew Rendell says the Pies "stuffed up'' by missing Carlton gun Patrick Cripps and it led to change.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au

Clubs and coaches should "stop being selfish" and encourage a more entertaining and attacking style of game, or risk losing millennials. "Stop being so bloody selfish, everyone in the business, and playing for their survival, and start worrying about the people who care [the members]," Rendell said. "We had the lowest scoring year since 1966 last year. That is a fair dinkum joke with the talent they've got on display. The millennials don't want to go and watch it and when us baby boomers all pass away, the game is going to be in real trouble unless they do something about it."
Click to expand...
I have never been happier with West Coast's style of play. I think it is the most aesthetically pleasing in our history.
 
james Dean said:
Probably a girlfriend.. So realistically nothing
Click to expand...
When you have got a girl you watch more football because you stop going out with your mates at night.

get a cool chick and she is even willing to schedule sex at half time breaks. And once the two of you become synchronised qtr time breaks is all you need.
 
I definitely think I'll be watching less neutral games now. I'll probably watch Carlton games and maybe the odd 20 mins - 30 mins of a game if I've got nothing else to do

The combination of shorter qtrs and no crowds gives the game a very amateur feel.
 
Filthy Sanchez said:
Will be interesting to see if this delay of season and “made for TV” product will send people away from the game after Round 2.

16 minute quarters in a non-corona season would test me with the neutral games.

This season will definitely test how much fans love football for the game, and how much people actually love football for the socialising, event, atmosphere etc.
Click to expand...
Footy just seems pointless given the past few months. I might have it on at times mostly out of habit, I might not. I doubt I'll be caring.
 
Howard Littlejohn said:
Footy just seems pointless given the past few months. I might have it on at times mostly out of habit, I might not. I doubt I'll be caring.
Click to expand...
Agree

According to the AFL media talking point flogfest the "community" needs footy for morale.

Just embarrassing how conceited these dickheads are.
 
Yeah dont think I'll stop watching but last few years Ive done a lot more of.... get half excited to watch a game... watch for 5-10 mins... get bored/annoyed with commentary/game... switch channels/turn off tv.

Check result later and if its a good finish watch the highlights on youtube.

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Those posters suggesting a format akin to soccer over in europe aka the premier league, with the champion declared purely from the h&a games are overlooking some very important elements that are not comparable here.
Those competitions have some enormous extra incentives:

Qualification to two big money competitions for teams that finish near the top. Top four all go into the Champions League, fifth goes into the Europa League.
Those European comps run during the h&a season - fans get to see their teams engaged in both the league and in Europe during the season, contributing to interest.
Extra cup tournaments - the FA and League Cups - both winners also awarded entry to the Europa League.
Promotion/Relegation - massive interest for teams fighting for survival at the end of the season.

If the only prize in the EPL was the league championship the format would die a quick death and they would quickly change the format to finish with a knockout system such as the world cup, or every other international competition.

It is simply not a realistic alternative for the AFL.
But yes, our current h&a and finals format need changing.
 
underthestars said:
Those posters suggesting a format akin to soccer over in europe aka the premier league, with the champion declared purely from the h&a games are overlooking some very important elements that are not comparable here.
Those competitions have some enormous extra incentives:

Qualification to two big money competitions for teams that finish near the top. Top four all go into the Champions League, fifth goes into the Europa League.
Those European comps run during the h&a season - fans get to see their teams engaged in both the league and in Europe during the season, contributing to interest.
Extra cup tournaments - the FA and League Cups - both winners also awarded entry to the Europa League.
Promotion/Relegation - massive interest for teams fighting for survival at the end of the season.

If the only prize in the EPL was the league championship the format would die a quick death and they would quickly change the format to finish with a knockout system such as the world cup, or every other international competition.

It is simply not a realistic alternative for the AFL.
But yes, our current h&a and finals format need changing.
Click to expand...
Up until the 1950's and the European competitions coming into to play the old English first division was very successful with the home and away format and it's a fair way to judge who is the best team. For me home and away is the best way to go, but it wont happen, as in my opinion the AFL likes to manipulate the comp for obvious reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CakeEater
Whom would you take from Norths List?
2
Replies
46
Views
1K
The acurate one
The acurate one
S
What would you trade for inevitable North Melbourne Priority Pick (2024)?
Replies
12
Views
317
Ash1337
A
The Victorian
AFL to take the NRL's lead and take a game to the US?
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
223
Views
5K
sprucemoooose
S
bzparkes
Opinion Teams you actively avoid watching?
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
2K
Engimal v3
Engimal v3
Lingsface
Who would you take?
Replies
13
Views
551
Lingsface
Lingsface
PowerfulPies2023
If you could draft one opposition player into your team, who would it be?
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
4K
Milanista28
Milanista28
BigVic
If you could change one result from the past, what would be?
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
3K
VinnieB
VinnieB

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top