On 30/04/2014 at 03:34, Dr. Gonzo said:

If we stop getting home games against 7 of the 8 non-Vic clubs and start getting regular home games against Essendon, Carlton & Richmond we might have a better chance at becoming self-sufficient.

i was just going to say that.

The draw has become a disgrace under Vlad.

Look at the Cats Home draw...8 low clubs!!

as one example $600,000 a game they take in...

  On 30/04/2014 at 03:46, why you little said:

i was just going to say that.

The draw has become a disgrace under Vlad.

Look at the Cats Home draw...8 low clubs!!

as one example $600,000 a game they take in...

Wasn't the draw one of McLachlan's responsibilities?

In an ideal world 'equalisation' would mean every club getting the same number of Saturday night games, blockbusters, interstate games, Sunday twilight games, FTA TV coverage etc. etc.

However, as long as the AFL follows the 'grow the pie' model of revenue maximisation, they are going to schedule and fix all these games to develop 1. the most attendances, and 2. the biggest TV audiences in order to grow income from TV rights.

For clubs like Melbourne, Bulldogs, North etc. they therefore need to 'equalise' incomes to compensate for predominantly being given worse times and less TV exposure. Two games where the attendance is, say, 55,000 and 30,000, is not as much overall revenue as one game of 90,000 and one of 20,000. It may not be ideal, but under AFL 'growth' strategies' it is reality and it won't change. I don't see McLachlan changing that approach much, so we have to make sure we get our fair share of the (expanded) pie

What clubs like Melbourne do with their money is then up to them. They can, and have, made mistakes. But they need to make mistakes on an equal footing, not from the position of already being disadvantaged. If in the future we pull our fingers out and get towards the top end of the ladder with good footy, of course things will change. I'd personally then be happy for the revenue Melbourne helped generate to go to other cellar-dwelling clubs.

  On 30/04/2014 at 03:48, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Wasn't the draw one of McLachlan's responsibilities?

Quite possibly. It aint going to change. The AFL love $$$ i mean they even charge to print the ticket you just bought from your own laptop!! Bastardos...

  On 30/04/2014 at 03:55, mauriesy said:

In an ideal world 'equalisation' would mean every club getting the same number of Saturday night games, blockbusters, interstate games, Sunday twilight games, FTA TV coverage etc. etc.

However, as long as the AFL follows the 'grow the pie' model of revenue maximisation, they are going to schedule and fix all these games to develop 1. the most attendances, and 2. the biggest TV audiences in order to grow income from TV rights.

For clubs like Melbourne, Bulldogs, North etc. they therefore need to 'equalise' incomes to compensate for predominantly being given worse times and less TV exposure. Two games where the attendance is, say, 55,000 and 30,000, is not as much overall revenue as one game of 90,000 and one of 20,000. It may not be ideal, but under AFL 'growth' strategies' it is reality and it won't change. I don't see McLachlan changing that approach much, so we have to make sure we get our fair share of the (expanded) pie

What clubs like Melbourne do with their money is then up to them. They can, and have, made mistakes. But they need to make mistakes on an equal footing, not from the position of already being disadvantaged. If in the future we pull our fingers out and get towards the top end of the ladder with good footy, of course things will change. I'd personally then be happy for the revenue Melbourne helped generate to go to other cellar-dwelling clubs.

In an ideal world, the AFL need to allocate each club an equal number of Friday night games, Saturday night games, home games against big clubs, etc, an even distribution of all the desireable and money generating commodities within football.

Then the AFL, in it's scheduling for instance, must "buy-back" the opportunity for Friday night matches, if it wants to allocate more to a specific team.

Each commodity must be given a dollar value, and that must be reimbursed by the AFL if a team does not receive any of its allocation.

And teams like Collingwood can have more Saturday home games, but they must be required to pay a fee to have any beyond their fair and equitable distribution.

Maybe that would work?

  On 30/04/2014 at 05:06, Machsy said:

In an ideal world, the AFL need to allocate each club an equal number of Friday night games, Saturday night games, home games against big clubs, etc, an even distribution of all the desireable and money generating commodities within football.

Then the AFL, in it's scheduling for instance, must "buy-back" the opportunity for Friday night matches, if it wants to allocate more to a specific team.

Each commodity must be given a dollar value, and that must be reimbursed by the AFL if a team does not receive any of its allocation.

And teams like Collingwood can have more Saturday home games, but they must be required to pay a fee to have any beyond their fair and equitable distribution.

Maybe that would work?

This isn't a bad idea, but it also requires an even distribution of games vs Victorian clubs etc and this is made difficult due to a 22 game / 18 club fixture.

Also, there really needs to be a safety net in place because fans are so loyal to their clubs and won't change in the event one dies. You cannot have a draft/salary cap system if the future of weaker clubs looks tenuous. It would just lead to a Colts/Elway situation and the whole system could be brought down.

Guys you are all forgetting an important element.

TV

The broadcasters get screwed for the Max. cash so they have agreed on the basis that they get a number of fixturing items.

That is the games ( i.e. teams ) that rate the most on the best audience times.

Unless the AFL agree to take less money next time around nothing major is going to change.

GM will only be fiddling at the edges on this subject.

Lets not imagine that the AFL give Essendon and Collingwood Anzac day for any other reason than the TV requirement for the best ratings.

  On 30/04/2014 at 05:06, Machsy said:

In an ideal world, the AFL need to allocate each club an equal number of Friday night games, Saturday night games, home games against big clubs, etc, an even distribution of all the desireable and money generating commodities within football.

Then the AFL, in it's scheduling for instance, must "buy-back" the opportunity for Friday night matches, if it wants to allocate more to a specific team.

Each commodity must be given a dollar value, and that must be reimbursed by the AFL if a team does not receive any of its allocation.

And teams like Collingwood can have more Saturday home games, but they must be required to pay a fee to have any beyond their fair and equitable distribution.

Maybe that would work?

i have been thinking along the same lines lately

allocate fri nights, sat daytime sat nights, public holidays etc equitably prior to final fixture

then rich clubs can bid to exchange time slots plus money with poorer clubs

then final fixture can be drawn up with the re-distributed time slots

seems fairer to me

can't see tv execs liking losing control though

certainly can't see mc.chins et al approving either

Surely any game involving Collingwood,Essendon,Hawthorn Geelong,Richmond and Carlton would draw just as big TV audiences on Anzac day.

The AFL give Anzac day to Collingwood and Essendon because they don't want the Eddie generated angst giving it to someone else would draw.

  On 30/04/2014 at 09:13, old dee said:

Guys you are all forgetting an important element.

TV

The broadcasters get screwed for the Max. cash so they have agreed on the basis that they get a number of fixturing items.

That is the games ( i.e. teams ) that rate the most on the best audience times.

Unless the AFL agree to take less money next time around nothing major is going to change.

GM will only be fiddling at the edges on this subject.

Lets not imagine that the AFL give Essendon and Collingwood Anzac day for any other reason than the TV requirement for the best ratings.

Great point.

Combined ticket sales from all 18 clubs across all games gets divided by 18 at years end. The Geelongs of the world still own the catering rights. Clubs need to become competitive to get the "exposure games" but all money is shared.

Will never happen.

  On 30/04/2014 at 09:33, T-34 said:

Surely any game involving Collingwood,Essendon,Hawthorn Geelong,Richmond and Carlton would draw just as big TV audiences on Anzac day.

The AFL give Anzac day to Collingwood and Essendon because they don't want the Eddie generated angst giving it to someone else would draw.

Don't disagree with you T-34

North, Bulldogs, Melbourne will never be involved because TV industry says no.

He reminds me of Gerry Gee!

If he played polo I hate his guts already.

Him and his fwit bro.

Grandfathered into the job.

Cool down guys. As Caro (over whom I have fantasies) pointed out the other day, Eddie Everywhere is the main man. He calls the shots and everyone else falls into line. Forget this goose.

  On 30/04/2014 at 09:48, Biffen said:

If he played polo I hate his guts already.

Him and his fwit bro.

Grandfathered into the job.

How could you possibly hate a polo playing, regular on the social scene from Hawthorn Biffen? I'm a little surprised.

Why on earth did Demetriou make a negative pronouncement less than seven days ago about our proposal to play an Anzac Eve game if he's out of the chair virtually from now on?

  On 30/04/2014 at 09:56, Whispering_Jack said:

Why on earth did Demetriou make a negative pronouncement less than seven days ago about our proposal to play an Anzac Eve game if he's out of the chair virtually from now on?

It has not dawned on him yet that he won't be around to make the decision.

Equalisation:

Surely as it always takes two teams to play a match, and especially as no Victorian team other than Geelong actually have a "home ground" of their own, then after deducting the actual costs of putting on the show, the gate revenues should be split 50-50 between the competing teams. I know we benefit by being the "home" team on QB, but likewise we always seem to be the "away" team vs EssUndone regardless of where it is played.

It takes two to tango. Why should the"big name teams" who get far more "blockbuster" games skim the cream as a result.

Or to sound even more socialistic - and I can assure you that I am not a socialist - why not have the AFL put up the costs of staging the ame from a common pool of revenue, then split the nett revenue between the competing teams.

  On 30/04/2014 at 09:55, Return to Glory said:

How could you possibly hate a polo playing, regular on the social scene from Hawthorn Biffen? I'm a little surprised.

Biffen is very vindictive RTG. He actually sniped an invite to a posh polo even at Werribee Mansions. Unfortunately, he cut loose on the free pizz, groped a couple of socialites and got turfed out. He has managed to transfer the blame for this sordid affair onto polo players in general.

  On 30/04/2014 at 09:56, Whispering_Jack said:

Why on earth did Demetriou make a negative pronouncement less than seven days ago about our proposal to play an Anzac Eve game if he's out of the chair virtually from now on?

Eddie got in his ear WJ.

  On 30/04/2014 at 10:01, Bitter but optimistic said:

Biffen is very vindictive RTG. He actually sniped an invite to a posh polo even at Werribee Mansions. Unfortunately, he cut loose on the free pizz, groped a couple of socialites and got turfed out. He has managed to transfer the blame for this sordid affair onto polo players in general.

I'm aware of the incident BBO. Apparently Captain Peter Janson still talks about being accosted.

  On 30/04/2014 at 09:52, Bitter but optimistic said:

Cool down guys. As Caro (over whom I have fantasies) pointed out the other day, Eddie Everywhere is the main man. He calls the shots and everyone else falls into line. Forget this goose.

Are you suggesting, Bbo, that Eddie has his hand up on McLachlan where puppeteers tend to put them ? (Just as Thompson had his hand up the same spot in Golden Boy before the latter left in disgrace).

  On 30/04/2014 at 09:56, Whispering_Jack said:

Why on earth did Demetriou make a negative pronouncement less than seven days ago about our proposal to play an Anzac Eve game if he's out of the chair virtually from now on?

Parting shot?

  On 30/04/2014 at 09:32, daisycutter said:

i have been thinking along the same lines lately

allocate fri nights, sat daytime sat nights, public holidays etc equitably prior to final fixture

then rich clubs can bid to exchange time slots plus money with poorer clubs

then final fixture can be drawn up with the re-distributed time slots

seems fairer to me

can't see tv execs liking losing control though

certainly can't see mc.chins et al approving either

I don't think the AFL or TV stations have to lose control.

They can maintain it, but the payout is commensurate to the matches you have "won" or "lost" by virtue of the fixture.

  On 30/04/2014 at 10:03, Return to Glory said:

I'm aware of the incident BBO. Apparently Captain Peter Janson still talks about being accosted.

Best leave it at that RTG. It is, however, a salutary example of what happens when people try to rise above their social station.

  On 30/04/2014 at 10:04, monoccular said:

Are you suggesting, Bbo, that Eddie has his hand up on McLachlan where puppeteers tend to put them ? (Just as Thompson had his hand up the same spot in Golden Boy before the latter left in disgrace).

They don't call him Eddie everywhere for nothing.