Equalisation

[Lucifers Hero 39,941]

From MFC website "...Jackson argues that the conversation on revenue sharing should focus on identifying the total revenue earned from each match − gate, membership (discounted entry), catering, reserved seating – and how that might be shared among clubs, given each club plays a part in maximising the overall revenue.

He suggested revenue earned through merchandising, fundraising and sponsorship should not be shared..."

These are the most sensible comments I've heard from anyone in AFL or Clubs: Share 'match-day' revenue but let clubs keep what they have worked really hard to earn from their own initiatives/from their own members. Great way to get some equality but to not kill off creativity and motivation to maximise revenues out in clubland!

Edited February 26, 2014 by Lucifer's Hero

[Sir Why You Little 37,049]

Free to air games need to be divided equally too (I know this is a bit off topic). But I believe that kids/people are more likely to support a team that they are watching on tv. Ie they see the team lots and then end up members.

there are teams that you could go for a whole year without seeing on free to air if you have a social life, whereas you might see the hawks/pies on tv 7 or 8 times.

Ch7 want to maximize advertising revenue to pay for the $1.3Bill deal. They cannot afford to show the "B" games. I understand your point but the only way your ifea would work is if the ABC was able to broadcast again.

The only way a viewing audience is going to see the MFC is when we start winning.

I want this to happen. What other clubs do is out of my control.

[whatwhat say what 22,783]

i actually don't think fixture or broadcast schedule should be divvied up equally.

let the big players and the successful clubs have their rewards - but split the revenues equally.

they already do that for broadcast agreements, there's nothing to stop them doing it for all game day revenues.

[DeeSpencer 25,721]

Ch7 want to maximize advertising revenue to pay for the $1.3Bill deal. They cannot afford to show the "B" games. I understand your point but the only way your ifea would work is if the ABC was able to broadcast again.

The only way a viewing audience is going to see the MFC is when we start winning.

I want this to happen. What other clubs do is out of my control.

Well what you do if you discount the price of the broadcast deal! If 7 get 25% less big games then you charge them 25% less.

You then cut the cost of the AFL CEO's wage and the rest of the executive. Cut the costs clubs are spending on salary caps and cut the costs of football departments and over the top spending on all sorts of coaches and training programs.

Maybe then you might have to dial back the way games are played without all this additional coaching and fitness and we might get 90's footy back.

At the moment Demetriou and the commission keep pushing us in to bigger is better in terms of broadcast deals and dollars in the game. I don't agree with that. Yes we need a big broadcast deal but the game should be judged by the strength of the competition between teams and by attendance at all games not just big block buster games.

At the moment the natural order of things just promotes the bigger clubs. Which in turn makes them even bigger which in turn gives them more of the blockbuster games. It's a vicious cycle.

For Melbourne to win games we will have to dip in to debt to spend enough to match the bigger clubs and only then can we get profits to pay off the debts. It's the entire reason why we tanked and tried new coaches and things like that.

[Pennant St Dee 13,235]

Happy for us to give up the Queen's Birthday clash with Collingwood?

I don't like the way Collingwood try and hold that over us, they get Anzac Day and a lot of prime time and we allowed that to happen many years ago when we were a good side and they weren't exactly flash. I'm referring to Friday Night footy not Anzac day here.

That all comes down to the way both clubs were run off the field

I don't want to rely on QB to keep us afloat and I would rather see our board making smart long term moves when we have a decent side again which people want to watch.

We will never be a strong club if we rely on QB, next time Collingwood try and throw it in our faces call their bluff, pretty sure Richmond or the Blues would not mind another day where they are focus of attention

[DeeSpencer 25,721]

i actually don't think fixture or broadcast schedule should be divvied up equally.

let the big players and the successful clubs have their rewards - but split the revenues equally.

they already do that for broadcast agreements, there's nothing to stop them doing it for all game day revenues.

But they don't do it for the broadcast deal. We only get a small amount of compensation for our bad commercial fixture. Which in any one year would be fine but after consecutive years of bad fixtures it will never catch up.

Right now Port and North are the best of the poorer clubs whilst St Kilda, WB and us are down the bottom. That alone should tell you something is wrong. But I bet you Port and North don't get any great rewards with fixturing this year.

When the saints were good they got a few Friday nights and a lot of Saturday nights but they hardly went close to what Collingwood or Essendon got who were lesser sides.

[Sir Why You Little 37,049]

Well what you do if you discount the price of the broadcast deal! If 7 get 25% less big games then you charge them 25% less.

You then cut the cost of the AFL CEO's wage and the rest of the executive. Cut the costs clubs are spending on salary caps and cut the costs of football departments and over the top spending on all sorts of coaches and training programs.

Maybe then you might have to dial back the way games are played without all this additional coaching and fitness and we might get 90's footy back.

At the moment Demetriou and the commission keep pushing us in to bigger is better in terms of broadcast deals and dollars in the game. I don't agree with that. Yes we need a big broadcast deal but the game should be judged by the strength of the competition between teams and by attendance at all games not just big block buster games.

At the moment the natural order of things just promotes the bigger clubs. Which in turn makes them even bigger which in turn gives them more of the blockbuster games. It's a vicious cycle.

For Melbourne to win games we will have to dip in to debt to spend enough to match the bigger clubs and only then can we get profits to pay off the debts. It's the entire reason why we tanked and tried new coaches and things like that.

Be it right or wrong, when does the human race regress.

What your saying has some merit. But it just won't happen wages and salary caps will keep going up.

The MFC has to become a better operator.

PJ is well aware of it.

[rpfc 28,526]

Share match day revenues.

It's not a hard sell (to the masses), we already share TV money equally.

It is essentially the same idea.

[Redleg 40,948]

Share match day revenues.

It's not a hard sell (to the masses), we already share TV money equally.

It is essentially the same idea.

What would be even easier than taxing some clubs, is to divvy up the TV rights money differently.

[Bring Back Barassi 552]

We were once the most financially powerful team in the league… by a long way. When we rise again, the Silvertail Army will don their top hats and swarm to the Long Room. Then our coffers will overflow once more.

[chookrat 4,257]

Well what you do if you discount the price of the broadcast deal! If 7 get 25% less big games then you charge them 25% less.

You then cut the cost of the AFL CEO's wage and the rest of the executive. Cut the costs clubs are spending on salary caps and cut the costs of football departments and over the top spending on all sorts of coaches and training programs.

Maybe then you might have to dial back the way games are played without all this additional coaching and fitness and we might get 90's footy back.

At the moment Demetriou and the commission keep pushing us in to bigger is better in terms of broadcast deals and dollars in the game. I don't agree with that. Yes we need a big broadcast deal but the game should be judged by the strength of the competition between teams and by attendance at all games not just big block buster games.

At the moment the natural order of things just promotes the bigger clubs. Which in turn makes them even bigger which in turn gives them more of the blockbuster games. It's a vicious cycle.

For Melbourne to win games we will have to dip in to debt to spend enough to match the bigger clubs and only then can we get profits to pay off the debts. It's the entire reason why we tanked and tried new coaches and things like that.

I eat because I am unhappy and I am unhappy because I eat. Its a viscious cycle.

[rpfc 28,526]

We were once the most financially powerful team in the league… by a long way. When we rise again, the Silvertail Army will don their top hats and swarm to the Long Room. Then our coffers will overflow once more.

I just hope they guilt their children and grandchildren into following the Dees before they die.

Was that too blunt?

[Dr. Gonzo 24,227]

Happy for us to give up the Queen's Birthday clash with Collingwood?

If it meant a fair draw instead of an unequal FIXture then yes, absolutely.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,227]

Ch7 want to maximize advertising revenue to pay for the $1.3Bill deal. They cannot afford to show the "B" games. I understand your point but the only way your ifea would work is if the ABC was able to broadcast again.

The only way a viewing audience is going to see the MFC is when we start winning.

I want this to happen. What other clubs do is out of my control.

The thing is that often those "B" games end up being better from a neutral perspective than the ones involving the "blockbuster" clubs. However Channel 7/the AFL go the "safe" option and fixture the bigger clubs in prime time/FTA slots as they have the larger supporter bases and due to the fixture being finalised in October it is impossible to say which matches will be the best ones the following year.

The other issue is that the ratings figures do not seem to support the notion that Carl/Coll/Ess games in prime time/FTA draw bigger ratings but what it does give these clubs is exposure on a much larger scale to be able to grow/reinforce their supporter base and sell sponsorship at a much higher cost.

The AFL needs to put in the effort to provide Channel 7 with the evidence that scheduling the same clubs each week does nothing to improve their ratings and may actually hinder them in the long run as 1) neutral supporters get "blockbuster fatigue" and sick of watching the same teams each week and 2) it is in their best interests to promote a healthy competition and the "Any Given Sunday" mentality of the NFL so that viewers will want to watch games regardless of who is playing due to the nature of the contest.

They should also be told none-too-subtly that no-one gives a stuff about which players girlfriend is dating which other player, who the WAGs in the stands are and the contrived puns of the commentary team and would prefer genuine commentary and analysis. They are clearly doing this to appeal to the female demographic but it just makes them sound stupid and out of touch and the majority of females I know watch the footy for the game and not for all the other rubbish.

The other issue in regards to this equalisation strategy is that it is not "tax" as the rich clubs would prefer to frame it but rather "compensation" due to years of getting shafted by league decisions.