Access to the mark is still relative to how successful you are on the field. It always has been. The AFL is misplaced to grant poor-performing clubs high exposure. In doing so this year with Carlton on Fridays, they have significantly hurt the viability of the timeslot and its appeal to broadcasters and advertisers. The audience doesn't trust the Friday night product anymore.

Carlton was given those Friday nights on the back of the Malthouse and Judd factor. Both were thrown into the AFL's face. Seven obviously requested more Carlton games because of the Malthouse hysteria. That much was evident early in the season. Both Seven and the AFL will (have) learnt their lesson from that. It won't happen again.

We now have a primetime Thursday night slot. Saturday nights weren't relevant until 10 years ago when 10 and 9 demanded it with their broadcasting deal. There are far more opportunities for exposure if you're demanding of it.

I completely acknowledge that the 'big clubs' saved the league, but so did expansion. History is very clear in that if you offer a good product, you will get the exposure. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's chicken and egg scenario: what comes first, on-field success or money? You can't have one without the other.

In Melbourne's case, we have 35,000 members. We have two blockbuster fixtures. We have an easy draw. We sell games to make half-a-million profit on each. Once again the foundations are there. You need to turn the corner and take the next step, take risks. Everything has been handed to this club on a silver platter the last 2 years: draft picks, business minds, Roos, a coaching department. I don't see how giving the club a better fixture is going to help it in its progress.

Granted, we played each of Essendon and Richmond as away games, but we alternate with Richmond now, and get two games against Collingwood which, from a branding perspective, puts us front and center. We play in NT which offsets the away games against big clubs, because had we played Port and WC in Melbourne, we'd have played the match at the MCG and made a loss.

Our destiny is totally in our hands now. We have equal access and the tools in place to rise. I want the club to get their purely on the back of its own hard work from here on in. It's getting there.

But at the same time, I don't want the AFL to fixture crap games in primetime slots for the sake of making it "fair".

We do have a far better deal this year than the many years past, which is a step in the right direction. We don't have anywhere near an equal draw in terms of opportunities to make money, which is an issue.

I hate quoted American examples but I think the NFL have it right, Each team gets an guaranteed number of their equivalent of the Friday or Saturday night games. This is a great long term strategy as you are not constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul. You may not reach the same heights of the massive blockbuster, but you will provide greater consistency of games, each team gets exposure, no one can complain. The current model the AFL use is too short sighted and ignores the long term viability of the clubs and at the end of the day that is the base the comp is built on. The longer each club competes against other clubs the more chance of the other codes going past the AFL. This is an issue of the AFL doing what is best for the comp as a whole in order to compete against the other codes, sacrificing teams sustainability for short term gains is just that, short term!

Access to the mark is still relative to how successful you are on the field. It always has been. The AFL is misplaced to grant poor-performing clubs high exposure. In doing so this year with Carlton on Fridays, they have significantly hurt the viability of the timeslot and its appeal to broadcasters and advertisers. The audience doesn't trust the Friday night product anymore.

Carlton was given those Friday nights on the back of the Malthouse and Judd factor. Both were thrown into the AFL's face. Seven obviously requested more Carlton games because of the Malthouse hysteria. That much was evident early in the season. Both Seven and the AFL will (have) learnt their lesson from that. It won't happen again.

We now have a primetime Thursday night slot. Saturday nights weren't relevant until 10 years ago when 10 and 9 demanded it with their broadcasting deal. There are far more opportunities for exposure if you're demanding of it.

I completely acknowledge that the 'big clubs' saved the league, but so did expansion. History is very clear in that if you offer a good product, you will get the exposure. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's chicken and egg scenario: what comes first, on-field success or money? You can't have one without the other.

In Melbourne's case, we have 35,000 members. We have two blockbuster fixtures. We have an easy draw. We sell games to make half-a-million profit on each. Once again the foundations are there. You need to turn the corner and take the next step, take risks. Everything has been handed to this club on a silver platter the last 2 years: draft picks, business minds, Roos, a coaching department. I don't see how giving the club a better fixture is going to help it in its progress.

Granted, we played each of Essendon and Richmond as away games, but we alternate with Richmond now, and get two games against Collingwood which, from a branding perspective, puts us front and center. We play in NT which offsets the away games against big clubs, because had we played Port and WC in Melbourne, we'd have played the match at the MCG and made a loss.

Our destiny is totally in our hands now. We have equal access and the tools in place to rise. I want the club to get their purely on the back of its own hard work from here on in. It's getting there.

But at the same time, I don't want the AFL to fixture crap games in primetime slots for the sake of making it "fair".

Precisely why the previous CEO of the MFC will never be forgiven for what he did (or didn't do) to my club

Whether PJ can turn it around long term is yet to be seen. We must have a strong finish to the year

Put the club out there as a viable arm of the AFL for next season..

Access to the mark is still relative to how successful you are on the field. It always has been. The AFL is misplaced to grant poor-performing clubs high exposure. In doing so this year with Carlton on Fridays, they have significantly hurt the viability of the timeslot and its appeal to broadcasters and advertisers. The audience doesn't trust the Friday night product anymore.

Carlton was given those Friday nights on the back of the Malthouse and Judd factor. Both were thrown into the AFL's face. Seven obviously requested more Carlton games because of the Malthouse hysteria. That much was evident early in the season. Both Seven and the AFL will (have) learnt their lesson from that. It won't happen again.

We now have a primetime Thursday night slot. Saturday nights weren't relevant until 10 years ago when 10 and 9 demanded it with their broadcasting deal. There are far more opportunities for exposure if you're demanding of it.

I completely acknowledge that the 'big clubs' saved the league, but so did expansion. History is very clear in that if you offer a good product, you will get the exposure. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's chicken and egg scenario: what comes first, on-field success or money? You can't have one without the other.

In Melbourne's case, we have 35,000 members. We have two blockbuster fixtures. We have an easy draw. We sell games to make half-a-million profit on each. Once again the foundations are there. You need to turn the corner and take the next step, take risks. Everything has been handed to this club on a silver platter the last 2 years: draft picks, business minds, Roos, a coaching department. I don't see how giving the club a better fixture is going to help it in its progress.

Granted, we played each of Essendon and Richmond as away games, but we alternate with Richmond now, and get two games against Collingwood which, from a branding perspective, puts us front and center. We play in NT which offsets the away games against big clubs, because had we played Port and WC in Melbourne, we'd have played the match at the MCG and made a loss.

Our destiny is totally in our hands now. We have equal access and the tools in place to rise. I want the club to get their purely on the back of its own hard work from here on in. It's getting there.

But at the same time, I don't want the AFL to fixture crap games in primetime slots for the sake of making it "fair".

'praha', 'macca' has written good posts on this subject before and I hope he chimes in again.

He, and I hope I have it right here was saying something along the lines of performance has not guaranteed Friday night games (good fixture) in the past and there is no reason to believe it will going forward.

Whilst I would be first in line (fighting with a few others) to say the management of our club has been appalling and we have made our own bed, I think there are other things that need to be addressed if the AFL is to survive as the number 1 sport going forward.

Equalisation is a big part of this and Grant Thomas raised some good points.

There are many things the AFL can do to 'equalise'.

But they seem to favour the bigger Vic clubs at every opportunity.

This year the AFL introduced a lot more 'old fashioned' time slots (ie 2.10pm start).

Well take a look at which teams got most of them, as their home games no less!

Given that we (and) others have been banished from the lucrative Fri night here was was a golden opportunity for the AFL to give us a bit of a leg up with lot of 2.10pm times. They didn't. It would have cost them nothing. They just don't give a damn.

Next year there will be a lot of stand-alone Thursday night games (as well as the Friday night ones).

No prizes for guessing which teams will get those prime spots!

Not good enough, AFL!

Edited July 22, 20159 yr by Lucifer's Hero

There are many things the AFL can do to 'equalise'.

But they seem to favour the bigger Vic clubs at every opportunity.

This year the AFL introduced a lot more 'old fashioned' time slots (ie 2.10pm start).

Well take a look at which teams got most of them, as their home games no less!

Given that we (and) others have been banished from the lucrative Fri night here was was a golden opportunity for the AFL to give us a bit of a leg up with lot of 2.10pm times. They didn't. It would have cost them nothing. They just don't give a damn.

Next year there will be a lot of stand-alone Thursday night games (as well as the Friday night ones).

No prizes for guessing which teams will get those prime spots!

Not good enough, AFL!

When the MFC can beat decent teams and we pull 50-60,000 to a home game we will get some primo scheduling...

When the MFC can beat decent teams and we pull 50-60,000 to a home game we will get some primo scheduling...

Don't you get the chicken and egg scenario? Granty is saying exactly that.

West Coast and Coll spend $300k A WEEK more on their footy departments than Melbourne. Where do you think they get that money? Good fixturing, Stadium deals, decent performance and smart business practices. The first two are critical and until we getlevel on this grounds we are battling to get competitive on field.

When the MFC can beat decent teams and we pull 50-60,000 to a home game we will get some primo scheduling...

Didn't help in 2001. We had made the granny, got two Fridays (one as home game), a few Saturdays, and heaps of Sunday games.

It is a nice theory, but it is just that, a theory. Reality looks a whole lot different.

Didn't help in 2001. We had made the granny, got two Fridays (one as home game), a few Saturdays, and heaps of Sunday games.

It is a nice theory, but it is just that, a theory. Reality looks a whole lot different.

No Wrong....In 2001 the MFC lost far too many and didn't make the finals...because the Players weren't mentally tough enough

Stop making excuses...2001 was a disgrace...

A strong dynasty is made over several years not one season

This is a problem for the modern generations...they expect instant gratification.

There is the problem....Dill CEO is one of them.

Carlton got so many Friday night games this year because traditionally they bring the biggest tv ratings. It's no coincidence they have all these Friday night games just as the afl sits down to negotiate a new broadcast deal. Unfortunately for the afl this plan has absolutely backfired as Carlton have been nothing short of rubbish.

Don't you get the chicken and egg scenario? Granty is saying exactly that.

West Coast and Coll spend $300k A WEEK more on their footy departments than Melbourne. Where do you think they get that money? Good fixturing, Stadium deals, decent performance and smart business practices. The first two are critical and until we getlevel on this grounds we are battling to get competitive on field.

$$$ doesn't have to have anything to do with attitude

PJ leaned down the entire club when he walked in...To prove beyond doubt the utter incompetence of his predecessor

As i said before our home ground has 100,000 seats...We should be maximizing this favourable situation..

Carlton got so many Friday night games this year because traditionally they bring the biggest tv ratings. It's no coincidence they have all these Friday night games just as the afl sits down to negotiate a new broadcast deal. Unfortunately for the afl this plan has absolutely backfired as Carlton have been nothing short of rubbish.

oh yes Ch 7 have lost a lot this year....

No Wrong....In 2001 the MFC lost far too many and didn't make the finals...because the Players weren't mentally tough enough

Stop making excuses...2001 was a disgrace...

A strong dynasty is made over several years not one season

This is a problem for the modern generations...they expect instant gratification.

There is the problem....Dill CEO is one of them.

In your enthusiasm to again say it is all our fault you have missed the point entirely. The TV scheduling for 2001 was done BEFORE we 'lost too many games' and 'weren't mentally tough enough'. As a grand-finalist in 2000 and an apparently young and improving team, as Chris said we should have had better exposure. Why didn't we?

Edited July 22, 20159 yr by sue

No Wrong....In 2001 the MFC lost far too many and didn't make the finals...because the Players weren't mentally tough enough

Stop making excuses...2001 was a disgrace...

A strong dynasty is made over several years not one season

This is a problem for the modern generations...they expect instant gratification.

There is the problem....Dill CEO is one of them.

Missed the point by a mile there SWYL. The post was in reply to a post saying that if we win we will get a good draw and highly visible time slots. we made the granny in 2000 yet in 2001 we played mainly on Sundays. Kind of destroys the argument and shows what reality brings.

Our performance in 2001 is irrelevant, I am not sure what I was making excuses for, and maybe, just maybe, read the post that someone is replying to before going of on an illogical rant.

In your enthusiasm to again say it is all our fault you have missed the point entirely. The TV scheduling for 2001 was done BEFORE we 'lost too many games' and 'weren't mentally tough enough'. As a grand-finalist in 2000 and an apparently young and improving team, as Chris said we should have had better exposure. Why didn't we?

Glad someone else can see it!

Missed the point by a mile there SWYL. The post was in reply to a post saying that if we win we will get a good draw and highly visible time slots. we made the granny in 2000 yet in 2001 we played mainly on Sundays. Kind of destroys the argument and shows what reality brings.

Our performance in 2001 is irrelevant, I am not sure what I was making excuses for, and maybe, just maybe, read the post that someone is replying to before going of on an illogical rant.

No i didn't miss the point...as i said a position of power is built over multiple years

The MFC has not been consistent since John Northey (when we did get an excellent run on the idiot box)

Glad someone else can see it!

And where were we in 97 and 99.....?

To me this is the real problem...

Quoting Grant, "I understand AFL executives are paid bonuses on attendances and growth"

I think it would be better if they were paid bonuses based on the health of the game. Maybe there could be a set of KPI's set to measure this rather than the current simplistic measure.

Easy.

Bonuses for the following KPIs:

- The number of AFL clubs making a profit each financial year.

- The number of different teams playing preliminary finals in an X year block (3 years?).

- The number of different teams finishing bottom 4 in an X year block (3 years?).

- Increases in the median club membership (not the average membership)

Not hard is it?

No i didn't miss the point...as i said a position of power is built over multiple years

The MFC has not been consistent since John Northey (when we did get an excellent run on the idiot box)

And where were we in 97 and 99.....?

Come off it. In 2000 we made the GF with a young and apparently upcoming team. Now you are desperately dredging up other years to bolster your argument. How did those TV schedulers know that we would not go on to be a great team 'over multiple years' at the end of 2000. I should have consulted them for betting advice in 2001 apparently.

You may be correct about this issue more broadly (I don't personally think so) but you are on a loser trying to shoot down Chris's particular counter point to your position.

Edited July 22, 20159 yr by sue

Come off it. In 2000 we made the GF with a young and apparently upcoming team. Now you are desperately dredging up other years to bolster your argument. How did those TV schedulers know that we would not go on to be a great team 'over multiple years' at the end of 2000. I should have consulted them for betting advice in 2001 apparently.

You may be correct about this issue more broadly (I don't personally think so) but you are on a loser trying to shoot down Chris's particular counter point to your position.

During the 90's post Northey we were a side you could not trust... up and down,.... who said i am dredging up anything?...it is fact...When the MFC consistently win and can fill the 'G we will get coverage

And i assure you after the Carlton fiasco of this year The Broadcasters will have more say in the fixture in coming years..

It is not a charity event as some on here would wish it to be...

Easy.

Bonuses for the following KPIs:

- The number of AFL clubs making a profit each financial year.

- The number of different teams playing preliminary finals in an X year block (3 years?).

- The number of different teams finishing bottom 4 in an X year block (3 years?).

- Increases in the median club membership (not the average membership)

Not hard is it?

I like it...

I really like it...

Now all we need is a commission that does not exist on self interest to bring something like this in for senior management.

...or for the media to get out of the AFL's pocket and start pushing things like this that would really benefit the game.

Maybe we could also put participation rates in community footy into the KPI's as well.

No i didn't miss the point...as i said a position of power is built over multiple years

The MFC has not been consistent since John Northey (when we did get an excellent run on the idiot box)

And where were we in 97 and 99.....?

Yes you did. Otherwise you wouldn't have bought up our performance in 01.

If making a flag doesn't get you a good run then what does, 2 years in finals, 3,4?

During the 90's post Northey we were a side you could not trust... up and down,.... who said i am dredging up anything?...it is fact...When the MFC consistently win and can fill the 'G we will get coverage

And i assure you after the Carlton fiasco of this year The Broadcasters will have more say in the fixture in coming years..

It is not a charity event as some on here would wish it to be...

For the long term health of the comp the broadcasters need less say. The health of all teams is paramount to the survival of the league, the broadcasters don't care about that one iota.

For the long term health of the comp the broadcasters need less say. The health of all teams is paramount to the survival of the league, the broadcasters don't care about that one iota.

Not disagreeing with you...But when they are made to pay $1.3 Bill they will have a say..

Yes you did. Otherwise you wouldn't have bought up our performance in 01.

If making a flag doesn't get you a good run then what does, 2 years in finals, 3,4?

No i didn't....i am looking at a bigger picture than you are

You do not take into account 97 and 99

Grant Thomas' views are correct and pretty insightful.

Sure to be ignored.

A price bidding system for timeslots for home games.

Bear with me...

Every club can either bid to acquire the top timeslots for exposure/commerce, or choose instead to reserve money for other club development activities. E.g. "We're utter gobshite this year, not much point paying premium for top exposure, let's keep some of the cash and use it to strengthen our footy dept and to build our connection with the core fans who will still show up".

Given that the supply of premium slots is limited, the prices for those top slots will be pushed up by the handful of clubs targeting top exposure, resulting in a price curve kind of like for top players - 2 or even three 'good' players/fixtures would cost about the same as one 'top' player. You might end up with just a few clubs dominating the absolute best slots, but then the price curve will be dramatic, making decent exposure (e.g. the saturday afternoon slot) affordable.

This has the effect of making the richest clubs compete with eachother directly, on financial terms at least, while the poorer clubs can still afford to 'eat' well because there are plenty of the good slots still available. It also allows clubs to maximise their exposure when performing well. Y'know, like Carlton did this year!

The AFL can be happy with it because it is also a mechanism for maximising attendance. Each club is making choices designed to maximise its own exposure at the right times.

The fans can be comfortable enough with it because it restores a sense of control back to clubs and actually makes valid the idea that 'when we improve, we'll get our run at exposure', which at the moment is just a tragic legacy of a past lie.

Yes, there are a lot of problems an residual inequalities in this model, BUT, it gets them out in the open and removes one aspect of the "cash and prizes for political connections" which is the proverbial drop of arsenic in football's teapot.