Why is the AFL never going to be truly equal?

[madmug]

North and the Saints have their timing wrong.

Saints spent a while called the southern saints

Play 'southern' out of Hobart and North out of Launceston.


Ron Alexander follows his job description and made a populist comment with no facts to back it up and suddenly anyone who asks for details is "blinded by the vfl light"...sure.

He wants International rules? hmm...Last home series aside (when they were promoting the game on gold coast so played Melb and Metricon), the previous 3 were all split between Melbourne and Perth. Clearly they're missing out. I'm sure he really meant to say Perth should have fewer games and their games should have been split with Adelaide. I suppose they could have moved the Melbourne game, but given the choice, they kept the higher drawing game... How unreasonable.

All up, games hosted has been..
Vic 8
WA 5
SA 2
QLD 1
ACT 1

You know, QLD & ACT aside, that's not too far off matching the populations (at least, of AFL fans), indeed, WA is probably over represented...Damn those parocial Victorians.


Anyone else want to make an unenlightened bitch and be beaten down by facts?





* NB, I edited the state game figures to add the 86 & 90 series that I had missed...Didn't really change much except adding canberra.

North and the Saints have their timing wrong.

Saints spent a while called the southern saints

Play 'southern' out of Hobart and North out of Launceston.


Ron Alexander follows his job description and made a populist comment with no facts to back it up and suddenly anyone who asks for details is "blinded by the vfl light"...sure.

He wants International rules? hmm...Last home series aside (when they were promoting the game on gold coast so played Melb and Metricon), the previous 3 were all split between Melbourne and Perth. Clearly they're missing out. I'm sure he really meant to say Perth should have fewer games and their games should have been split with Adelaide. I suppose they could have moved the Melbourne game, but given the choice, they kept the higher drawing game... How unreasonable.

All up, games hosted has been..
Vic 8
WA 5
SA 2
QLD 1
ACT 1

You know, QLD & ACT aside, that's not too far off matching the populations (at least, of AFL fans), indeed, WA is probably over represented...Damn those parocial Victorians.


Anyone else want to make an unenlightened bitch and be beaten down by facts?





* NB, I edited the state game figures to add the 86 & 90 series that I had missed...Didn't really change much except adding canberra.

Oh Dear???
'Wrong timing'? What does that mean????
The FACT that we have so many VicAFL clubs looking at harvesting in Tasmania absolutely shows their are too many teams in Melbourne who have to look at playing elsewhere to make some cash.
The Ron Alexander article hardly mentioned the international games so I dont know why you've gone off about it.
Inequity & inequality. Its mainly the fault of the historic structure of the competition. Desperate clubs exporting games shows it. THATS A FACT.

 

[The_Wookie]

Oh Dear???
'Wrong timing'? What does that mean????
The FACT that we have so many VicAFL clubs looking at harvesting in Tasmania absolutely shows their are too many teams in Melbourne who have to look at playing elsewhere to make some cash.
The Ron Alexander article hardly mentioned the international games so I dont know why you've gone off about it.
Inequity & inequality. Its mainly the fault of the historic structure of the competition. Desperate clubs exporting games shows it. THATS A FACT.

If your government puts the money up for games - as its been more than willing to in the past, as has the NT and ACT Governments, then clubs are going to take advantage of that money. Thats a fact. Stop offering the money, and they'll stop coming.

 

[madmug]

If your government puts the money up for games - as its been more than willing to in the past, as has the NT and ACT Governments, then clubs are going to take advantage of that money. Thats a fact. Stop offering the money, and they'll stop coming.

Thats NOT the point. The point is that clubs in the crowded Melbourne market are willing to ignore their own members & sell games for money to play interstate. Its the clubs who were or are in financial schtoom.

So what would you think of a Government, seeing the popularity of the National game, was to ignore the publics desire to see games & hopefully add to tourism & economic activity. How would that look?
Also the number of comments made that somehow place like Tassie need to turn out & show support to somehow prove we 'deserve' games. How bloody arrogant is that!!!

You've read it before, if Tassie supports games then it shows they are a captive audience so the AFL dont need to have a team their. BUT if the dont support the games then that shows they dont deserve a team in the AFL.
How do you deal with that sort of shyte?

Its pretty obvious to me & others that the structural inequity in the system is deliberate & is nicely designed to benefit the Victorian economy & support the comfy arrangement the AFL has with the Victorian government.

 

[telsor]

Oh Dear???
'Wrong timing'? What does that mean????
The FACT that we have so many VicAFL clubs looking at harvesting in Tasmania absolutely shows their are too many teams in Melbourne who have to look at playing elsewhere to make some cash.
The Ron Alexander article hardly mentioned the international games so I dont know why you've gone off about it.
Inequity & inequality. Its mainly the fault of the historic structure of the competition. Desperate clubs exporting games shows it. THATS A FACT.

He mentioned special events within the AFL...There aren't many of them now interstate matches are gone, so if you have other events you'd like added to these calculation, please do.

Vic clubs selling games interstate is a seperate matter, but really, how else are you going to service markets that aren't big enough to support teams by themselves? Fix the unfairness and inequity of the ground arangements and the need to do it as a financial measure would diminish significantly.

Of, and if Vic is too small a market to support 10 teams (@560K population per team) then how is Tas big enough for even one (512K total)? Your argument about closing Vic clubs just takes Tas further out of the running. Your only hope is expansion, not redistribution of teams.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

He mentioned special events within the AFL...There aren't many of them now interstate matches are gone, so if you have other events you'd like added to these calculation, please do.

Vic clubs selling games interstate is a seperate matter, but really, how else are you going to service markets that aren't big enough to support teams by themselves? Fix the unfairness and inequity of the ground arangements and the need to do it as a financial measure would diminish significantly.

Of, and if Vic is too small a market to support 10 teams (@560K population per team) then how is Tas big enough for even one (512K total)? Your argument about closing Vic clubs just takes Tas further out of the running. Your only hope is expansion, not redistribution of teams.

What % of this figure you actually think actively watch and attend AFL games? The amount of people who actually attend an AFL game outside 300km from the Melbourne CBD would be very tiny.
There are 9 teams in the Melbourne metropoliton area basically, or at least within 30km. 1 in Geelong.

 

[telsor]

What % of this figure you actually think actively watch and attend AFL games? The amount of people who actually attend an AFL game outside 300km from the Melbourne CBD would be very tiny.
There are 9 teams in the Melbourne metropoliton area basically, or at least within 30km. 1 in Geelong.

True, but really, if you want to go purely on population within a short commute of the ground(s), Tassie comes out even worse by comparison. Melbourne is about 70% of the state population (4Million), Hobart is about 40% of Tassies (215K).

As for attendances...A quick look at some random rounds from this year, roughly 250K attend in Vic each round (6% of melbourne), or about 50K/game. For tas to do that for one game, they'd need 20% of the whole state, or somehwere between 30-50% of the 'local' crowd (of course, they don't have a groudn big enough, but that's not really the point).

The only way Tas is more viable is because the grounds there are cheaper...So the argument is that they'll make more money by getting *fewer* supporters....and this is supposedly an argument for the growth of the game?

The other argument for closing Vic clubs and opening one in Tas is that it's a football state, and we're supporting our roots and traditions...by killing 100+ year old clubs...

 

[Papa G]

It ain't like each of the 10 Vic teams have 10% of the support either. Your argument falls down here. Collingwood/Richmond might have 3 or 4 times the supporter base that Melbourne/North has.

 

[telsor]

It ain't like each of the 10 Vic teams have 10% of the support either. Your argument falls down here. Collingwood/Richmond might have 3 or 4 times the supporter base that Melbourne/North has.

Not like everyone in Tas will support 'their' team either. Lets face it, they're traditionally fractured and every attempt at state football there (league, team, etc) has been ripped apart by such dissent. Are we supposed to believe they'll miraculously change that if give an AFL team?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

True, but really, if you want to go purely on population within a short commute of the ground(s), Tassie comes out even worse by comparison. Melbourne is about 70% of the state population (4Million), Hobart is about 40% of Tassies (215K).

As for attendances...A quick look at some random rounds from this year, roughly 250K attend in Vic each round (6% of melbourne), or about 50K/game. For tas to do that for one game, they'd need 20% of the whole state, or somehwere between 30-50% of the 'local' crowd (of course, they don't have a groudn big enough, but that's not really the point).

The only way Tas is more viable is because the grounds there are cheaper...So the argument is that they'll make more money by getting *fewer* supporters....and this is supposedly an argument for the growth of the game?

The other argument for closing Vic clubs and opening one in Tas is that it's a football state, and we're supporting our roots and traditions...by killing 100+ year old clubs...

Well I am not in favour of killing clubs off mate.
I am however very much in favour of all clubs must be able to stand on their own and be all given equal rights in broadcasting, blockbusters etc. That is difficult as per the current situation.
Should Tassie have a side? Yes they of course should as it is supposed to be a truly national comp.
Tassie have themselves to blame though, they keep giving Hawthorn all this money every year when they should withdraw that offer until a side is started or relocated there. What purpose is sponsoring Hawthorn helping them get a side long term?

Because of the way the AFL evolved these problems will always be there. Let Tassie have a side, even if they lose 2 million a year they can just be bailed out like a few other clubs every year.

 

[Rob]

If the WACA and AFL got together and decided that the WACA would spend spend $400M on grandstands, and the AFL would play 22 games a year there, then told your clubs to do the negotiating for ground access (and indirectly, paying off the loans), what sort of deal would you get? We can't all have our hands held by our major shareholders.

I'm not suggesting Vic clubs have it great. They might do - after all they have the best stadia in the country. By a distance. And certainly the deal the AFL has with the MCC re: finals would almost certainly make MCG tenants better off.

That some clubs aren't making money with paltry crowds at bargain basement prices doesn't say much about the stadium arrangements though.

You want the AFL out of the stadium game? Cut the umbilical with the WAFL and pay commercial rents.

You think I can do that? They have 100% control of West Coast and majority control of Freo. I'd love it more than anyone if the licences were handed back to the clubs.

BTW, are you suggesting that the AFL clubs pay below commercial rent for Patersons? Given what is charged to arms length users of the ground (rugby union for example), the evidence suggests that the AFL clubs pay significantly above market value. About double. The ARU was charged about $150k for the most recent game they played there.

$20 a seat on the wing? Tell me, where is this? You've clearly never been to the MCG, and massively overrate the difference in costs. For $20 you get standing room and some (less desirable) parts of the nosebleed section. The wings are reserved for AFL/MCG members, and premium seating (like my $1025/year ticket) gets you one deck up on the flank.

I've been to games at Docklands where i've walked up, paid my $20 and sat on the wing. MCG i've been on the half forward flank about 3 rows from the front of the GSS top deck. Great view.

You might want to check a seating chart someday...Might also show you how much of the ground is taken up by reserved seats which cost considerably more than $20.

Well, of course. But only a small minority of most Vic clubs' members have a reserved seat. Essendon would probably have the highest % because they have the entire ground as reserved seats. Funny, you don't hear them whinge about stadium deals.

BTW if you think rent is paid by AFL/MCG members you're way off track.

AFL pay rent to the MCC for the AFL Members reserve. Not sure why the MCC would pay rent to itself using MCC membership subscriptions.....

 

[madmug]

True, but really, if you want to go purely on population within a short commute of the ground(s), Tassie comes out even worse by comparison. Melbourne is about 70% of the state population (4Million), Hobart is about 40% of Tassies (215K).

As for attendances...A quick look at some random rounds from this year, roughly 250K attend in Vic each round (6% of melbourne), or about 50K/game. For tas to do that for one game, they'd need 20% of the whole state, or somehwere between 30-50% of the 'local' crowd (of course, they don't have a groudn big enough, but that's not really the point).

The only way Tas is more viable is because the grounds there are cheaper...So the argument is that they'll make more money by getting *fewer* supporters....and this is supposedly an argument for the growth of the game?

The other argument for closing Vic clubs and opening one in Tas is that it's a football state, and we're supporting our roots and traditions...by killing 100+ year old clubs...

Excuse me for stating the bleeding obvious but we have two stadiums, one in Launy & one in Hobart. That caters for almost the whole state within a reasonable drive. Indeed it caters for about 80% within an hours drive & 90%+ within 90 minutes.

Making more money per bum on seat in cheaper stadiums may not be in your argument for the growth of the game, it is certainly a statement about the viability of a Tassie team, it was shown in a reputable study, its affordable. Big stadiums always have big fixed costs. You dont always get big crowds. I mean what is the break even for the MCG & Etihad? The bottom end clubs are in real trouble to ensure survival. Indeed its POKER machines that are really keeping some of them afloat right now, also selling games out of Melbourne.

And once again its sacrilege to close a Vic club but stuff everyone elses 100+ history in the game. Oh & I suppose it was ok to permanently shift South Melbourne & Fitzroy!!!!! As if anyone in Sydney really gives a toss about South's footy & suburban history, or Brisbane with Fitzroy for that matter.

Inconvenient truths are a bugger

 

[Kwality]

About people whinging about things when the facts don't back them up?

Seems pretty realistic to me.

Amen:Seems pretty realistic to me

 

[Kwality]

If your government puts the money up for games - as its been more than willing to in the past, as has the NT and ACT Governments, then clubs are going to take advantage of that money. Thats a fact. Stop offering the money, and they'll stop coming.

Sadly, this how it is - the current AFL administration have been reluctant to recognise Taswegians & their footy as cash cows. Obviously the beneficiaries of that cash want it to continue, need it to continue.
I'd understand madmug thinking Tassie has been equalised already.

 

[Kwality]

True, but really, if you want to go purely on population within a short commute of the ground(s), Tassie comes out even worse by comparison. Melbourne is about 70% of the state population (4Million), Hobart is about 40% of Tassies (215K).

As for attendances...A quick look at some random rounds from this year, roughly 250K attend in Vic each round (6% of melbourne), or about 50K/game. For tas to do that for one game, they'd need 20% of the whole state, or somehwere between 30-50% of the 'local' crowd (of course, they don't have a groudn big enough, but that's not really the point).

The only way Tas is more viable is because the grounds there are cheaper...So the argument is that they'll make more money by getting *fewer* supporters....and this is supposedly an argument for the growth of the game?

The other argument for closing Vic clubs and opening one in Tas is that it's a football state, and we're supporting our roots and traditions...by killing 100+ year old clubs...

These mobs have been around for 100+ years , dont have a viable supporter base, can only make a profit IF sufficient opposition fans attends to tip them over break even, are not attractive to big dollar sponsors, and cant pull a TV audience.
Sure the disgraceful stadium management deals in Melbourne are a factor, but the AFL is part of that problem not part of the solution.

 

[The_Wookie]

I

AFL pay rent to the MCC for the AFL Members reserve. Not sure why the MCC would pay rent to itself using MCC membership subscriptions.....

The AFL pay 5.2 million per year which was for the Northern Stand rebuild and AFL members expansion, and is separate to stadium rental agreements. They paid another amount that I cant recall for the Southern Stand development.

Ive said it before, but I believe the AFl should be playing the rental fees for all grounds it uses for matches. it eliminates the returns issue entirely. All clubs will still get the same back in distributions, should actually cut back on the amount given for equalisation.

 

[Kwality]

The AFL pay 5.2 million per year which was for the Northern Stand rebuild and AFL members expansion, and is separate to stadium rental agreements. They paid another amount that I cant recall for the Southern Stand development.

Ive said it before, but I believe the AFl should be playing the rental fees for all grounds it uses for matches. it eliminates the returns issue entirely. All clubs will still get the same back in distributions, should actually cut back on the amount given for equalisation.

Commercially niave.

 

[Rob]

The AFL pay 5.2 million per year which was for the Northern Stand rebuild and AFL members expansion, and is separate to stadium rental agreements. They paid another amount that I cant recall for the Southern Stand development.

Ive said it before, but I believe the AFl should be playing the rental fees for all grounds it uses for matches. it eliminates the returns issue entirely. All clubs will still get the same back in distributions, should actually cut back on the amount given for equalisation.

What do you mean? Negotiate clean stadium agreements with every venue and then just pass them onto clubs for free?

 

[The_Wookie]

Commercially niave.

Theres so much pot calling the kettle black in this one statement its unbelievable.

 

[The_Wookie]

What do you mean? Negotiate clean stadium agreements with every venue and then just pass them onto clubs for free?

I mean the AFL should take the rental agreements out of the hands of the clubs and pay them removing the stadium returns issue once and for all. This would work if done in tandem with a fair split of the gate receipts from each match.

 

[Rob]

I mean the AFL should take the rental agreements out of the hands of the clubs and pay them removing the stadium returns issue once and for all. This would work if done in tandem with a fair split of the gate receipts from each match.

How will it do that though? You're still going to have clubs getting $2-3 million gross per game and others getting $500k or less.

As well as the inequality of some clubs having first class stadia and others having a rubbish tip.

 

[The_Wookie]

How will it do that though? You're still going to have clubs getting $2-3 million gross per game and others getting $500k or less.

As well as the inequality of some clubs having first class stadia and others having a rubbish tip.

How would it affect stadia at all? As far as Im aware all clubs are playing in practically state of the art stadiums or will be by the time perth gets built.

 

[Rob]

How would it affect stadia at all? As far as Im aware all clubs are playing in practically state of the art stadiums or will be by the time perth gets built.

Bit of a difference between, say, Metricon and the MCG.

I'd need to see exactly what you're proposing before I would agree or disagree with it. But the problem with the AFL taking over all stadiums is that all stadiums aren't equal. Not just size and quality, but also the variances in stadium memberships, corporate facilities, signage rights, pourage and catering rights, public access, operating costs, public transport arrangements (i.e where some teams pay for public transport to be included in the price of the ticket) - and most importantly it completely removes the incentive for clubs to keep costs down. The AFL would almost be obliged to have the same arrangements everywhere, even though they may not be warranted across every venue.

As far as I know, no professional sporting league anywhere in the world has anything even remotely similar, and there are probably good reasons as to why that is the case.

 

[telsor]

These mobs have been around for 100+ years , dont have a viable supporter base, can only make a profit IF sufficient opposition fans attends to tip them over break even, are not attractive to big dollar sponsors, and cant pull a TV audience.
Sure the disgraceful stadium management deals in Melbourne are a factor, but the AFL is part of that problem not part of the solution.

So, why not solve the problem and see if the symptoms are still there.

As for opposition supporters contributing to profits...You accused wookie of being economically naive, so I assume you're aware of the concept of economies of scale. Most commercial endeavours consider this to be a good thing.


Most of what you, Rob & madmug suggest here is merely a combination of your vested interest, occasionally working together in the collective spirit of 'kick a vic'. The scary part is that you seem so myopic that I fear you genuinely do see this as 'fair'.

Just for something different, try and present an idea for fairness that doesn't involve your team, or bringing down Victorian teams. It'd make a novel change from any of you.

 

[madmug]

So, why not solve the problem and see if the symptoms are still there.

As for opposition supporters contributing to profits...You accused wookie of being economically naive, so I assume you're aware of the concept of economies of scale. Most commercial endeavours consider this to be a good thing.


Most of what you, Rob & madmug suggest here is merely a combination of your vested interest, occasionally working together in the collective spirit of 'kick a vic'. The scary part is that you seem so myopic that I fear you genuinely do see this as 'fair'.

Just for something different, try and present an idea for fairness that doesn't involve your team, or bringing down Victorian teams. It'd make a novel change from any of you.

Vested interest? Its you & your ilk that has a vested interest in continuing the current situation of keeping your struggling VFL clubs where they are despite their obvious problems trying to survive in the one market place.

So maybe it is kick a Vic. I guess that is a reaction to the VicAFLs deliberate structure which promotes inequity & inequality all with the aim of protecting Victorian interests.

How about you come up with something which gives us a share of fairness & equity in the AFL. We have given as much to the national game as anybody, & for all that we have received a lot less out of it then anyone else. In fact we pay above the odds for what we do get.

 

[Rob]

So, why not solve the problem and see if the symptoms are still there.

I think the issue is that you probably have a different opinion as to what the problem is.

I'd suggest playing in by far the 2 best stadiums in Australia is an advantage, not a problem. But go on calling it Vic-bashing.