so, are the afl running a fta tv network system or a game of football

i know you work in the tv world but just how far should the tv industry be allowed to dictate the running of the game (which goes much much further than just prime time allocation)

The AFL sold the rights far over what they should have. It has stretched both 7 & FOX big time.

So you have to expect the networks to extract as much out of each game as they can.

So i put the blame back on Vlad and the players association.

But at the same time i respect the players for wanting to be paid top dollar.

It is them who put on the show.

The AFL sold the rights far over what they should have. It has stretched both 7 & FOX big time.

So you have to expect the networks to extract as much out of each game as they can.

So i put the blame back on Vlad and the players association.

But at the same time i respect the players for wanting to be paid top dollar.

It is them who put on the show.

its not so much what they are extracting out of each game

its much more control than that they are exerting on the afl

i agree though that vlad probably signed a contract giving too much away to the stations for more money

no doubt the fine details of the contract are commercial in confidence so we can only speculate

To go back to my original point...

I don't give a [censored] about primetime. Hell, I agree that unless you're playing good footy you don't deserve it because people won't tune in.

But there is no reason why we can't play North at Etihad away and Richmond at the G at home. None. Swap 'em. The timeslot doesn't matter at all.

The reality is for two years running the Melbourne Football Club has been totally shafted financially by the fixture. 7/11 of our home games are against interstate sides next year. While I do understand that two of those are the NT games, it is still completely ridiculous that we have SEVEN. We already play the most interstate sides in Melbourne of anyone in the comp.

Hosting non-Victorian teams since GC's inclusion in 2011, including 2014. (Kudos to THE EQUALIZER on BF)

27 - Melbourne

25 - Hawthorn

23 - Dogs

20 - North

19 - Richmond

18 - St Kilda

17 - Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong

16 - Carlton

44 home games total. Maximum possible over that period is 27. We are averaging just under 7 home games against interstaters per year in that time - by comparison, Carlton are averaging 4.

And people say 'wait til we've earnt it'. Jesus Christ. It's not like Richmond were all that great in 2011. Or North. Or Essendon.

Could someone please explain this to me as it just seems such an obvious solution that I must be missing something.

Why doesn't the AFL take ALL the gate receipts for the season and then at the end of the year divide the total by 18?

That way clubs are not being financially advantaged/disadvantaged by the draw and the afl can get on with devising a fixture to keep the networks happy.

. The good teams will get the big games and the poor teams will have to put up with the lesser time slots until they get better but at least the poorer clubs will not be financially disadvantaged in the meantime.

It also removes the constant fix turning debate

Could someone please explain this to me as it just seems such an obvious solution that I must be missing something.

Why doesn't the AFL take ALL the gate receipts for the season and then at the end of the year divide the total by 18?

That way clubs are not being financially advantaged/disadvantaged by the draw and the afl can get on with devising a fixture to keep the networks happy.

. The good teams will get the big games and the poor teams will have to put up with the lesser time slots until they get better but at least the poorer clubs will not be financially disadvantaged in the meantime.

It also removes the constant fix turning debate

Because big clubs whinge.

If they are going to maintain their "maximum revenue/attendance" model of FIXturing instead of creating an equal draw then they really need to adopt an NFL revenue-sharing type model.

Another argument in this debate was raised a couple fo years ago by an Essendon supporter on BigFooty. It was a pretty detailed post/thread but in essence his argument came down to the fact that no matter who was playing, attendances would be relatively stable and would vary more on ladder position than on who the clubs were playing. So for instance if you had Melb v North & Coll v Ess you would get roughly the same amount of people through the gate as if you had Melb v Ess & North v Coll. So having the "big clubs" with guaranteed return matches each year and rigging the FIXture to ensure this occurs doesn't really maximise anything except for the amount of money pocketed by the bigger clubs as they get guaranteed home games against each other each year while clubs like us North & Dogs are givent he scraps of hosting clubs like Giants & Suns who no-one would really turn up to watch no matter who was playing them.

I think there have been some good points made above and it's reminded me of the fact that many years ago, there was a fund in place whereby monies were taken out of the takings of every game to be shared around the clubs at the end of the season. In other words, the clubs that attracted the bigger crowds were fundamentally subsidising the weaker clubs that failed to attract the numbers to games.

Back in those days, Melbourne had a successful team and, having the G, attracted the larger crowds so in effect, a proportion of our gate money propped up those clubs, some of which are now among the stronger clubs in the competition. Of course, Hawthorn wouldn't give a rat's about us now but they probably owe their existence to the fact that we accepted that sort of equalisation all those years ago. Now they sneer at us with contempt when we ask for help.

On another aspect of the fixture, I was in London a week ago and there was a NFL game played on the Sunday for points at Wembley Stadium which attracted a crowd of over 80k (in opposition to some better publicised soccer fixtures). The game was between the San Francisco 49ers and the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Kudos to the NFL for ensuring that both clubs have a bye on the weekend after that fixture. I'm not sure whether our club asked and were refused or whether nobody thought about it but I would have thought that if you have a fixture that caters for one or two byes a year, this would have been automatic.

I think there have been some good points made above and it's reminded me of the fact that many years ago, there was a fund in place whereby monies were taken out of the takings of every game to be shared around the clubs at the end of the season. In other words, the clubs that attracted the bigger crowds were fundamentally subsidising the weaker clubs that failed to attract the numbers to games.

Back in those days, Melbourne had a successful team and, having the G, attracted the larger crowds so in effect, a proportion of our gate money propped up those clubs, some of which are now among the stronger clubs in the competition. Of course, Hawthorn wouldn't give a rat's about us now but they probably owe their existence to the fact that we accepted that sort of equalisation all those years ago. Now they sneer at us with contempt when we ask for help.

Let us teach them a lesson in respect in 2014 and beyond