The AFL are trying to kill Melbourne

[Adam The God 30,260]

That's more Channel 7's call than the AFL's though - they want Carlton, Essendon & Collingwood on prime time because they know they will draw regardless of their performance. The $1b+ rights deal comes at a price.

Yeah, the broadcasters would go for the big Melbourne clubs every time. I'm not sure how much say they have in fixturing, but I'd be surprised if they only had a small amount of involvement.

[Whispering_Jack 30,155]

I'm over this stuff about fixtures and financial viability.

We have a new coach who's being paid handsomely. We're turning over a goodly percentage of the list again this year and, with the new faces, the return of a few players whose seasons were limited by injury in 2013 and the potential for dramatic improvement from many of our younger players, why should we rule out the possibility of a dream start to 2014 just as Port Adelaide had in 2013 or Adelaide (2012) and West Coast (2011) before them?

If we come out in round 1 against the Saints with Tyson and Vince dominating the middle, Toumpas and Viney showing natural improvement and Clark, Hogan and Howe marking everything up forward and kicking goals, we'll have bums on seats for our subsequent games - no worries.

Think it's not possible?

The Saints beat us in round 13 by 35 points but the team we had that day was a bit of a rabble, playing with not much confidence or purpose. We were missing Clark, Frawley, Grimes, Jamar, Viney and Dawes got clocked behind play and was subbed off. Trengove, Toumpas and Blease were playing without confidence and despite all that, we had one more visit inside 50 than our opposition. A week later, we beat the Bulldogs after leading by more than seven goals halfway through the last quarter. Sure we slowed to a walk at the end but if that team could perform in that manner after all the turmoil imagine what we can achieve with a new coach, a different team and game plan and a bit of confidence?

Time to start thinking positive (after all it is the off season).

[Tatu 416]

Melbourne sides - number of home games vs Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, HawthornMelbourne: 1Hawthorn: 1 (4 possible)North: 3Carlton: 3 (4 possible)Collingwood: 3 (4 possible)Essendon: 4 (4 possible)Richmond: 3 (4 possible)St Kilda: 3Bulldogs: 3

While I know we as a club don't want to be reliant on opposition supporters for revenue, this is a fair dinkum joke. We simply don't have the supporter base to sustain not getting at least one extra decent home game per season. It's genuinely what will kill the club, and quickly too.

shhhh! Not yet....

Its too confronting for them...

[Macca 16,972]

You are right Macca. But to get close to that fixture the club has to play good footy and win games.

We are still to get there.

In Roos i have faith.

I accept the consequences of being a poorly performed team - we need to get better. What I can't accept is a governing body making it even more difficult for a poorly performed team to extract itself from the quagmire.

Here's the bottom line Wyl ...

1) Poorly performed team gets a fixture where it's darn near impossible to make any real money

2) That team then struggles to stave off posting a substantial loss.

3) That same team needs to cut back on spending in the FD

4) Attracting free agents is off the table as the club is struggling just to get up to paying 95% of the salary cap

5) The club ends up going cap in hand to the AFL so it can pay it's bills

6) If that club performs poorly again, the whole process gets repeated.

I also accept that there is a way out - we win a number of our early games, the fans flock back, membership skyrockets and even the lousy fixtures might become profitable. We then might end up with a better fixture.

Do the big clubs ever get a lousy fixture if they have a poor year? I've had a bit of a look and it doesn't ever appear to happen (well not with the Blues, Dons and Pies anyway - they always seem to get a number of highly profitable home fixtures no matter how badly they're travelling) Remembering that the Blues had that horror stretch from 2002 - 2007 - they still kept getting those prime home fixtures.

[Sir Why You Little 37,039]

I accept the consequences of being a poorly performed team - we need to get better. What I can't accept is a governing body making it even more difficult for a poorly performed team to extract itself from the quagmire.

Here's the bottom line Wyl ...

1) Poorly performed team gets a fixture where it's darn near impossible to make any real money

2) That team then struggles to stave off posting a substantial loss.

3) That same team needs to cut back on spending in the FD

4) Attracting free agents is off the table as the club is struggling just to get up to paying 95% of the salary cap

5) The club ends up going cap in hand to the AFL so it can pay it's bills

6) If that club performs poorly again, the whole process gets repeated.

I also accept that there is a way out - we win a number of our early games, the fans flock back, membership skyrockets and even the lousy fixtures might become profitable. We then might end up with a better fixture.

Do the big clubs ever get a lousy fixture if they have a poor year? I've had a bit of a look and it doesn't ever appear to happen (well not with the Blues, Dons and Pies anyway - they always seem to get a number of highly profitable home fixtures no matter how badly they're travelling) Remembering that the Blues had that horror stretch from 2002 - 2007 - they still kept getting those prime home fixtures.

Macca the bottom line is that ch 7 & Foxtel have paid $1.3 bill to show the game for 5 years.

Until we start winning they cannot sell advertising space during our games.

[Macca 16,972]

Macca the bottom line is that ch 7 & Foxtel have paid $1.3 bill to show the game for 5 years.

Until we start winning they cannot sell advertising space during our games.

Yeah, I see your point there.

However, how does one explain Carlton getting to play at least 8 home games against Victorian clubs during that 6 year horror stretch they had? (I've checked the records ) The same rules didn't apply to them. I know Carlton are a bigger club but that's precisely my point.

I'm just a stickler for a reasonable level of fairness (wherever possible)

At some stage next season this whole thing is possibly going to rear it's ugly head. It might be Bartlett or PJ saying something or maybe even Roos (I hope they do say something)

One last point re selling the advertising space ... we do indeed play the Hawks, Tigers, Blues, Bombers and Saints - but we are the away team on every occasion (those games are going to be telecast by Foxtel or ch7 regardless of who is the home team) Could we not play 3 of those 5 as home fixtures and play 3 less 'interstate' teams at the MCG?

Edited October 31, 2013 by Macca

[Sir Why You Little 37,039]

Yeah, I see your point there.

But how does one explain Carlton getting to play at least 8 home games against Victorian clubs during that 6 year horror stretch they had (I've checked the records ) The same rule didn't apply to them. I know Carlton are a bigger club but that's precisely my point.

I'm just a stickler for a reasonable level of fairness (wherever possible)

At some stage next season this whole thing is possibly going to rear it's ugly head. It might be Bartlett or PJ saying something or maybe even Roos (I hope they do say something)

TV became big business in the late 60's just as Carlscum improved. The MFC have been sliding since then.

[angrydee 842]

Yeah, I see your point there.

However, how does one explain Carlton getting to play at least 8 home games against Victorian clubs during that 6 year horror stretch they had? (I've checked the records ) The same rules didn't apply to them. I know Carlton are a bigger club but that's precisely my point.

I'm just a stickler for a reasonable level of fairness (wherever possible)

At some stage next season this whole thing is possibly going to rear it's ugly head. It might be Bartlett or PJ saying something or maybe even Roos (I hope they do say something)

One last point re selling the advertising space ... we do indeed play the Hawks, Tigers, Blues, Bombers and Saints - but we are the away team on every occasion (those games are going to be telecast by Foxtel or ch7 regardless of who is the home team) Could we not play 3 of those 5 as home fixtures and play 3 less 'interstate' teams at the MCG?

Let's postpone whingeing about the FIXture until we have a half decent season and still get screwed.

[DemonFrog 1,354]

Is it the case of Big Uncle Vlad giving us the sweets but sending in the ....

Now is that the way we should be talking about our major sponsor?

Edited October 31, 2013 by TheBigFrog

[Redleg 40,926]

They've deliberately given us a soft draw (especially early) so that we might start winning again. That's what the AFL wants (a competitive Melbourne). And with that the crowds will come. Can't please everyone I guess.

I agree. Just win games, they will come.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,219]

1. It doesn't have the MCC. For MCC members you have to pay GA or otherwise to go.

2. It's soul less. One big concrete mess. No members wing or southern stand or punt road end

3. The staff are consistently rude and incompetent

4. We often play North and the bulldogs there and their fans make the staff look pleasant

5. From the Eastern suburbs that extra 10 minutes on the train is a real pain - ok I'm precious but deal with it

6. The ticket prices and seating change at a whim and therefor for non regular attendees there is no familiarity

7. The food seems even more expensive and the beer even more watered down

And most of all

8. We never win there!

You are right above all it is the players/team. If we had a good record then I'm sure I'd go watch more games. If we were top 4 playing a top 8 Brisbane side then I'd be there. But right now I don't know how long it's been since we've won a game there and that's a huge turn off.

Weak as [censored].

[Dr. Gonzo 24,219]

Yeah, the broadcasters would go for the big Melbourne clubs every time. I'm not sure how much say they have in fixturing, but I'd be surprised if they only had a small amount of involvement.

They are heavily consulted.

[jumbo returns 6,741]

Yeah, I see your point there.

However, how does one explain Carlton getting to play at least 8 home games against Victorian clubs during that 6 year horror stretch they had? (I've checked the records ) The same rules didn't apply to them. I know Carlton are a bigger club but that's precisely my point.

I'm just a stickler for a reasonable level of fairness (wherever possible)

At some stage next season this whole thing is possibly going to rear it's ugly head. It might be Bartlett or PJ saying something or maybe even Roos (I hope they do say something)

One last point re selling the advertising space ... we do indeed play the Hawks, Tigers, Blues, Bombers and Saints - but we are the away team on every occasion (those games are going to be telecast by Foxtel or ch7 regardless of who is the home team) Could we not play 3 of those 5 as home fixtures and play 3 less 'interstate' teams at the MCG?

I see where you're coming from Macca, but the egalitarian chant falls on deaf ears in the AFL.

Orwell had the whole idea wrapped up in a nutshell. Some are more equal than others.

[spirit of norm smith 16,460]

discussed with a mate who barracks for the hawks

they have 10/11 profitable home games, and this is before memberships, sponsors & merchandise

MFC has profitable games against Cats and Magpies. Agree with Port and Freo in NT. Home games agst Suns & Giants are financial killers. Lions at Etihad has financial loss IMO.

[Macca 16,972]

Let's postpone whingeing about the FIXture until we have a half decent season and still get screwed.

Ha! - yeah, I'm whinging all right. And with good reason 'ad'

If you remember, back when we were playing finals, we were bemoaning the fact that we weren't receiving enough Friday night games and we were always a team that travelled interstate a lot (as opposed to the Pies for instance)

But back then we probably weren't as concerned at our revenue making opportunities (we should have been)

So the truth is we've been receiving these types of fixtures for quite some time. It just stifles opportunity and we're continually under pressure.

I get the "Let's just win games and it all comes good" people. I don't reckon it necessarily works that way.

[Guest]

Ha! - yeah, I'm whinging all right. And with good reason 'ad'

If you remember, back when we were playing finals, we were bemoaning the fact that we weren't receiving enough Friday night games and we were always a team that travelled interstate a lot (as opposed to the Pies for instance)

But back then we probably weren't as concerned at our revenue making opportunities (we should have been)

So the truth is we've been receiving these types of fixtures for quite some time. It just stifles opportunity and we're continually under pressure.

I get the "Let's just win games and it all comes good" people. I don't reckon it necessarily works that way.

I think both arguments will coalesce around 2016 Macca if we come good. The AFL in good conscience could not give us those slots because based on past form, they would be broadcasting a fiasco. We need to show something in the next couple of years to get into the running for the plum slots.

However, your argument will be unimpeachable if we are a finals team in 3 years time and the AFL is still sending us to the boondocks to play. It will be beyond a joke.

[The Reverend 1,736]

I'm over this stuff about fixtures and financial viability.

We have a new coach who's being paid handsomely. We're turning over a goodly percentage of the list again this year and, with the new faces, the return of a few players whose seasons were limited by injury in 2013 and the potential for dramatic improvement from many of our younger players, why should we rule out the possibility of a dream start to 2014 just as Port Adelaide had in 2013 or Adelaide (2012) and West Coast (2011) before them?

If we come out in round 1 against the Saints with Tyson and Vince dominating the middle, Toumpas and Viney showing natural improvement and Clark, Hogan and Howe marking everything up forward and kicking goals, we'll have bums on seats for our subsequent games - no worries.

Think it's not possible?

The Saints beat us in round 13 by 35 points but the team we had that day was a bit of a rabble, playing with not much confidence or purpose. We were missing Clark, Frawley, Grimes, Jamar, Viney and Dawes got clocked behind play and was subbed off. Trengove, Toumpas and Blease were playing without confidence and despite all that, we had one more visit inside 50 than our opposition. A week later, we beat the Bulldogs after leading by more than seven goals halfway through the last quarter. Sure we slowed to a walk at the end but if that team could perform in that manner after all the turmoil imagine what we can achieve with a new coach, a different team and game plan and a bit of confidence?

Time to start thinking positive (after all it is the off season).

Way to go WJ!

There are so many reasons for optimism at this time of year. The best thing any of us can do is to get along to games and support with everything we've got. It's all about positive energy.

Let's all commit to being generators of hope rather than prophets of doom. It will make a difference.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,219]

Let's postpone whingeing about the FIXture until we have a half decent season and still get screwed.

That's the whole point though - the FIXture should have no connection to the performance of a team especially in regards to who you play home and away. The fact people have been conditioned to think this is fine is a disgrace. Is this a sports competition or WWF?

[Guest]

That's the whole point though - the FIXture should have no connection to the performance of a team especially in regards to who you play home and away. The fact people have been conditioned to think this is fine is a disgrace. Is this a sports competition or WWF?

You don't know how spot on you are with that comparison Gonzo. Alas, if this were the WWF (WWE since the conservation group sued Vince McMahon and forced him to change his promotion's name), the MFC would be considered the jobbers/curtain jerkers. Like the WWE, those who politic and lobby behind the scenes get the prime spots regardless of how good they actually are. Carlton in this case are the AFL's equivalent of Hulk Hogan at Wrestlemania 9.

[Carrot Top 947]

That's the whole point though - the FIXture should have no connection to the performance of a team especially in regards to who you play home and away. The fact people have been conditioned to think this is fine is a disgrace. Is this a sports competition or WWF?

WWF, and has been since the mid eighties. You can pull your hair out or howl at the moon about it all you want, but it is what it is, and it's not going to change any time soon. The only thing we have in our power to change is whether we want to be viewed as Hulk Hogan or The Masked Schmuck who is slapped around for the crowds entertainment. And we all know that there is only one way to decide that.

[Guest]

WWF, and has been since the mid eighties. You can pull your hair out or howl at the moon about it all you want, but it is what it is, and it's not going to change any time soon. The only thing we have in our power to change is whether we want to be viewed as Hulk Hogan or The Masked Schmuck who is slapped around for the crowds entertainment. And we all know that there is only one way to decide that.

I believe we would be Frank Williams, not the Masked Schmuck... Hawthorn would be our Roddy Piper.

[Fat Tony 5,231]

The AFL and AFLPA are greedy in wanting to maximise TV revenue and it gives the TV broadcaster too big say in who plays when. It means the big clubs play in prime time and leads to huge inequality in revenues between the clubs. At the same time, the rich clubs are up in arms at the prospects of greater revenue sharing and the AFL has introduced free agency at the behest of the AFLPA. The current path will see clubs like Melbourne will become feeder clubs to the big clubs and eventually cease to exist in the current form unless we are exceptionally well managed.

IMO the AFLPA should be willing for the AFL to take less money from the TV rights and commit to a more equitable fixture from both a commercial and football point of view. Otherwise a big chunk of the AFLPA’s members will be out of a job. Moreover, in the interest of fairness, the draw should be set to give each team a roughly even chance of making the finals.

[DeeSpencer 25,713]

The AFL and AFLPA are greedy in wanting to maximise TV revenue and it gives the TV broadcaster too big say in who plays when. It means the big clubs play in prime time and leads to huge inequality in revenues between the clubs. At the same time, the rich clubs are up in arms at the prospects of greater revenue sharing and the AFL has introduced free agency at the behest of the AFLPA. The current path will see clubs like Melbourne will become feeder clubs to the big clubs and eventually cease to exist in the current form unless we are exceptionally well managed.

IMO the AFLPA should be willing for the AFL to take less money from the TV rights and commit to a more equitable fixture from both a commercial and football point of view. Otherwise a big chunk of the AFLPA’s members will be out of a job. Moreover, in the interest of fairness, the draw should be set to give each team a roughly even chance of making the finals.

How do you propose the AFLPA go about influencing the relationship between the AFL and the TV networks? Are you suggesting that at the next CBA they strike on the basis that the AFL sells out too many games and doesn't give them equal exposure. Sounds unlikely to me.

The AFL are committed to 18 teams, the players get looked after fine. It's the clubs who are getting screwed.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

I get the "Let's just win games and it all comes good" people. I don't reckon it necessarily works that way.

What's your solution then?

Put crap clubs in the prime time slots more often? That destroys the AFL's product, with awful, low quality football, and/or beltings, being broadcast nationally/internationally. That's simply not a viable long term option for the AFL.

Give us more home games against big sides? We drew 28,000-odd to our home game against Hawthorn this year. How much does that net us? Not a lot. Yes, it might nominally be better than a 15,000 game against Gold Coast, but drawing those kinds of numbers to home games isn't going to make us financially stable either.

What will make us long-term financially stable? Getting people interested in us. That way, we'll draw bigger sponsorship, we'll pull bigger crowds consistently, and we'll then become a more attractive option to the AFL. How do you get people interested in us? You don't shove us onto the big stage when we're not good enough for it. You get us winning games. Winning starts to bring people back. It shrugs off the pall of doom that presently surrounds us. It makes us less of a joke. If we win 7 or so games this year, then next year we'll maybe get a prime time game and/or one or two more home games against Victorian sides. Then we build from there.

Your solutions are short-term fixes that aren't really fixes at all. They're just complaints.

[jazza 1,323]

1. It doesn't have the MCC. For MCC members you have to pay GA or otherwise to go.

2. It's soul less. One big concrete mess. No members wing or southern stand or punt road end

3. The staff are consistently rude and incompetent

4. We often play North and the bulldogs there and their fans make the staff look pleasant

5. From the Eastern suburbs that extra 10 minutes on the train is a real pain - ok I'm precious but deal with it

6. The ticket prices and seating change at a whim and therefor for non regular attendees there is no familiarity

7. The food seems even more expensive and the beer even more watered down

And most of all

8. We never win there!

You are right above all it is the players/team. If we had a good record then I'm sure I'd go watch more games. If we were top 4 playing a top 8 Brisbane side then I'd be there. But right now I don't know how long it's been since we've won a game there and that's a huge turn off.

coming from western Victoria .the selfish issue for me is the dome makes footy so much easier to watch and get to and from

I agree on the injuries and the surface seems to kill the legs in the 2nd half of the season

the,food beer, and ticket prices are not worth worrying about for me

an extra 10 mins on the train.you poor buggar think of all the dee supporters who DONT live in the eastern suburbs.really

and talking about draws.nth was the first club to be squashed by the afl

they took on Friday night and made it a bonanza for their club

once every other club realised how good this exposure was they all wanted in on the Friday nights

now lets extend this thread by making the suggestion that our club request MONDAY night as our own

like nth sponsors will jump on board

we will have maximum exposure on telly