Interesting idea LittleG. I wonder how complicated it would be to fold in that with all the other constraints on the fixture. Some constraints would probably have to go (like QBday and its ilk).

As rjay has said, I agree with the general proposition that you shouldn't expect to get blockbusters and Friday nights etc. if you're not playing well.

However, the fact Carlton finished 6-16 last year playing ho-hum football but got 7 Friday nights this year shows that there are no guarantees that performances are rewarded.

Blockbusters (i.e. timeslots and opponents) to one side, another gripe, and one that is completely fixable without distorting the brand, is the spread of home games each club gets.

There was a thread last year where I had a look at who hosts who - essentially we are continually getting home games against interstate sides and not against the bigger clubs. The bigger clubs all host themselves. That, IMO, is an area that can be improved upon and doesn't necessarily require Melbourne vs Brisbane to be a Friday night game.

Unfortunately we just don't fit the template to get a fair go with the fixture (that's a "fair go" not preferential treatment)

It seems to meet the AFL's criteria to receive a decent fixture a club needs to ...

• Have a large membership
• Have their supporters attend games in large numbers
• Attract a large TV audience
• Be a successful team on the field
• Play an attractive brand of football

However, I'd argue that the above criteria shouldn't be the criteria at all when fixturing games ... prime time TV games aside, all the clubs should be on an equal footing when running a "fair" competition. As a comparison, even the smallest clubs in the EPL always receive home games against all the big EPL clubs (those games become big money spinners for those small clubs too)

The fixture shouldn't favour the bigger and more powerful clubs at all. Considering it has done for 15-20 years now, it's any wonder there's now a bigger gulf between the rich and the poor.

The Bulldogs, Saints are often in the same boat as us and North probably would be if they were struggling on the field. All because of the AFL's manic desire to maximise crowds and TV numbers. Something has to give when that's the goal so the smaller clubs become expendable. Other smaller clubs like GWS & the GCS are "company stores" (so to speak) so they obviously don't face the same financial pressures.

In the end, we continue to receive a fixture that just doesn't bring in enough revenue ... 7 home games against the interstate clubs with 3 of the remaining home games against the other smaller clubs (Bulldogs, Saints & North) has become the norm. That spells disaster when compared to the "other" bigger Victorian clubs who consistently receive up to 5 home games each against the other big Victorian sides.

The same pattern has been in place for quite some time now. Up to 5 big home games for a half a dozen Victorian clubs versus our 1 big home game (QB clash) X multiple years is grossly unfair. Sometimes we're lucky enough to receive 2 decent home fixtures (next year we should be the home team against Richmond on Anzac eve)

The solution (in part) is to drag ourselves up to the middle tier (or above) and hope that Jackson can then get a much better deal for the club. In the meantime, he might want to push for a home game to start the season against one of the other big Victorian teams (Essendon or Geelong?)

The real solution is for the AFL to start acting like proper custodians of the sport. Does anyone honestly believe that can happen?

Unfortunately we just don't fit the template to get a fair go with the fixture (that's a "fair go" not preferential treatment)

It seems to meet the AFL's criteria to receive a decent fixture a club needs to ...

• Have a large membership
• Have their supporters attend games in large numbers
• Attract a large TV audience
• Be a successful team on the field
• Play an attractive brand of football

However, I'd argue that the above criteria shouldn't be the criteria at all when fixturing games ... prime time TV games aside, all the clubs should be on an equal footing when running a "fair" competition. As a comparison, even the smallest clubs in the EPL always receive home games against all the big EPL clubs (those games become big money spinners for those small clubs too)

The fixture shouldn't favour the bigger and more powerful clubs at all. Considering it has done for 15-20 years now, it's any wonder there's now a bigger gulf between the rich and the poor.

The Bulldogs, Saints are often in the same boat as us and North probably would be if they were struggling on the field. All because of the AFL's manic desire to maximise crowds and TV numbers. Something has to give when that's the goal so the smaller clubs become expendable. Other smaller clubs like GWS & the GCS are "company stores" (so to speak) so they obviously don't face the same financial pressures.

In the end, we continue to receive a fixture that just doesn't bring in enough revenue ... 7 home games against the interstate clubs with 3 of the remaining home games against the other smaller clubs (Bulldogs, Saints & North) has become the norm. That spells disaster when compared to the "other" bigger Victorian clubs who consistently receive up to 5 home games each against the other big Victorian sides.

The same pattern has been in place for quite some time now. Up to 5 big home games for a half a dozen Victorian clubs versus our 1 big home game (QB clash) X multiple years is grossly unfair. Sometimes we're lucky enough to receive 2 decent home fixtures (next year we should be the home team against Richmond on Anzac eve)

The solution (in part) is to drag ourselves up to the middle tier (or above) and hope that Jackson can then get a much better deal for the club. In the meantime, he might want to push for a home game to start the season against one of the other big Victorian teams (Essendon or Geelong?)

The real solution is for the AFL to start acting like proper custodians of the sport. Does anyone honestly believe that can happen?

Macca, you have hit the nail on the head dead centre.

It is the unequal allocation of home games against "big" clubs that is sending smaller clubs broke.

Our 4 Home games this year against Victorian clubs, 3 of which are St.Kilda, North, and Bulldogs....the lowest membership base Victorian clubs. Away games against Richmond, Hawthorn, Geelong, Essendon, Collingwood and Carlton. Who wins financially out of that deal?

And perhaps the AFL could stop the falsehood about "blockbuster" games drawing in bigger numbers of spectators.

While Essendon v Richmond might draw 80K, down the road Melbourne v St Kilda is drawing 40K. Total 120k. IF Richmond play Melbourne and Essendon play St.Kilda then each match will draw 60k. Total 120k.

No more fans go through the turnstiles, but Richmond and Essendon get greater gate takings, when they get to play each other twice in a year.

Macca, you have hit the nail on the head dead centre.

It is the unequal allocation of home games against "big" clubs that is sending smaller clubs broke.

Our 4 Home games this year against Victorian clubs, 3 of which are St.Kilda, North, and Bulldogs....the lowest membership base Victorian clubs. Away games against Richmond, Hawthorn, Geelong, Essendon, Collingwood and Carlton. Who wins financially out of that deal?

And perhaps the AFL could stop the falsehood about "blockbuster" games drawing in bigger numbers of spectators.

While Essendon v Richmond might draw 80K, down the road Melbourne v St Kilda is drawing 40K. Total 120k. IF Richmond play Melbourne and Essendon play St.Kilda then each match will draw 60k. Total 120k.

No more fans go through the turnstiles, but Richmond and Essendon get greater gate takings, when they get to play each other twice in a year.

When I first saw our draw My first impression was that it was designed specifically to destroy us financially. As you correctly point out 95% of our home games were against interstaters or the smaller Victorian teams and any match against a big Victorian team was designated as an away game for us. It looked quite calculated to me. Why do we have to play the Hawks at the G as an away game? Then Richmond and Essendon. But we live on with AFL welfare and don't we love that. Great to be treated like dole bludgers and be the laughing stock of the competition and at best tolerated by the Commission and the loud mouths from the big clubs.

Macca, you have hit the nail on the head dead centre.

It is the unequal allocation of home games against "big" clubs that is sending smaller clubs broke.

Our 4 Home games this year against Victorian clubs, 3 of which are St.Kilda, North, and Bulldogs....the lowest membership base Victorian clubs. Away games against Richmond, Hawthorn, Geelong, Essendon, Collingwood and Carlton. Who wins financially out of that deal?

And perhaps the AFL could stop the falsehood about "blockbuster" games drawing in bigger numbers of spectators.

While Essendon v Richmond might draw 80K, down the road Melbourne v St Kilda is drawing 40K. Total 120k. IF Richmond play Melbourne and Essendon play St.Kilda then each match will draw 60k. Total 120k.

No more fans go through the turnstiles, but Richmond and Essendon get greater gate takings, when they get to play each other twice in a year.

And it's the accumulative effect over a number of years which creates the bigger gulf.

As an example - 5 x 60,000+ crowds might equate to 5 million+ in revenue whereas 1 x 60,000 game only equates to perhaps 1 million in revenue. That's at least a 4 million dollar head start every year for up to a half a dozen Victorian clubs (in theory)

Thomas' other notable points were very important too ... the unseen stuff that someone like Jackson would know only too well.

The greatest error in this judgement is there is zero consideration for ongoing brand development, marketing, sponsorship and advertising – let alone trying to attract generations to follow your team.

Winning more games would help (somewhat) ... do that and it would give our CEO some decent ammunition for a better deal.

I guess a lot of us have got some reasonable solutions to a complex issue but we're talking about a governing body who have their eyes firmly planted on the almighty dollar.

And it's the accumulative effect over a number of years which creates the bigger gulf.

As an example - 5 x 60,000+ crowds might equate to 5 million+ in revenue whereas 1 x 60,000 game only equates to perhaps 1 million in revenue. That's at least a 4 million dollar head start every year for up to a half a dozen Victorian clubs (in theory)

Thomas' other notable points were very important too ... the unseen stuff that someone like Jackson would know only too well.

Winning more games would help (somewhat) ... do that and it would give our CEO some decent ammunition for a better deal.

I guess a lot of us have got some reasonable solutions to a complex issue but we're talking about a governing body who have their eyes firmly planted on the almighty dollar.

Always going to happen 'Macca' when their pay-packet is linked to turnover and not the betterment of the game...

Always going to happen 'Macca' when their pay-packet is linked to turnover and not the betterment of the game...

It's been that way for a long time but as the sport has got bigger, so too has the footy public's knowledge of how it all works.

The huge amount of money from the broadcast rights and the colossal amount of revenue from all the club's pokies venues is a case in point ... all the clubs should be in a very healthy state but the gulf between the rich and the not-so-rich is (in part) caused by the favoured fixturing that the big clubs receive.

I must stress that prime time free-to-air TV spots is a completely different issue ... as an example, it's entirely possible for our club to have home fixtures against the Pies, Blues, Dons, Tigers, Hawks & Cats every single season ... without even 1 of those games ever being played on a Friday or Saturday evening.

But it never happens ... most years we're lucky to have 2 out of those 6 teams as opponents in home games. 27 of our previous 44 home games (over the last 4 seasons) have been or are against interstate teams. Again, it's the accumulative effect of these low drawing fixtures which hurts us (in a financial sense)

It's any wonder we need to sell a number of these games off to the NT.

Agree Macca.

I had a look last year; stats-wise, the breakdown is as follows:

Interstate home game splits:

• 2015 - 4-7 (WB, NM, St Kilda, Collingwood)
• 2014 - 4-7 (WB, NM, Geelong, Collingwood)
• 2013 - 4-7 (WB, NM, Hawthorn, Collingwood)
• 2012 - 5-6 (WB, Hawthorn, Richmond, St Kilda, Collingwood)
• 2011 - 4-7 (Carlton, Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood)
• 2010 - 6-5 (WB, NM, Essendon, Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood)
• 2009 - 6-5 (WB, NM, St Kilda, Geelong, Richmond, Collingwood)
• 2008 - 7-4 (WB, NM, Hawthorn, Geelong, Richmond, Carlton, Collingwood)
• 2007 - 6-5 (WB, NM, Carlton, Geelong, St Kilda, Collingwood)

So in that period (9 seasons), home games tally against the Victorian clubs:

• Collingwood - 9
• WB - 8
• NM - 7
• Hawthorn - 5
• Richmond - 5
• Geelong - 4
• Carlton - 3
• St Kilda - 3
• Essendon - 1

So we're essentially not getting Essendon home games, we're running at 1 home game every 3 years for St Kilda (who over this period was a generally successful club) and Carlton, whilst the 5 home games against Richmond were all 2008-2012, during which time Richmond did not play finals once.

We've been given some home games against Hawthorn to placate us, as well as QB of course, but otherwise we're being fed a diet of WB and NM.

In 2011 we hosted every single interstate club, and six other times in these 9 years we have hosted all but one.

Agree Macca.

I had a look last year; stats-wise, the breakdown is as follows:

Yep, I remember that post of yours - well researched.

What stands out to me are the home teams at the MCG when there's a big crowd there (60,000+) ... if a club knows it's going to get 5 opportunities like that in any given year it can set some decent budgets. And if they know that they can bank on that return, year after year, then it helps that club with marketing, memberships, sponsorships, coterie, merchandising etc etc.

It's a huge advantage because that extra money helps with the FD spend and other such vital footy areas that the less advantaged clubs don't have. So it's overspend and go into debt or cut back on spending to balance the books (which Jackson has needed to do)

We get punished with a lack of prime-time free-to-air TV games because of our lack of success (which is more than likely a decision made by the broadcast partners) but we end up getting punished again with lousy fixtures for not being a "big club"

And the AFL would know full well how disadvantaged we are too ... they are the people responsible for implementing the measures that causes our club to be disadvantaged. Whether that's deliberate or not is open for debate.

What we can do to alleviate the problem is to win more games ... we could also possibly approach the other big clubs like we have with Richmond in the Anzac eve game ... A rotating round 1 clash and perhaps a rotating home game in May, July & August against the Dons, Blues, Cats & Hawks could be put forward (at least in idea form - with some sort of theme attached?) You don't ask, you don't get.

Richmond have 3 such arrangements with their round 1 clash against Carlton, the dreamtime game and the Anzac eve game against us. (they've also had home games against the Pies in 7 of the last 9 years)

It is refreshing when I read an article by Thomas and I consider it as Grant playing the straight bat.

A couple of years ago this would've been a risky article. Thankfully there have been some critical articles of the AFL of late.

The AFL run as a business, but they seem to forget that the game is the product, and when the product is rubbish, no one wants it.

Instead the AFL market the product and [censored] it out to big business, and meanwhile the product is of sub standard quality.

The AFL have hijacked the game, disrespected it, sold it out, and now it's sh*t.

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

A strong dynasty is made over several years not one season

I'm with WYL.

The Daniher era was a disgrace.

Up down up down.

The AFL has given us our chances in good time slots after promising years and we've blown them big time.

And usually embarrassingly so.

Edited July 23, 20159 yr by Fork 'em

Agree Macca.

I had a look last year; stats-wise, the breakdown is as follows:

Might be worth sending these stats through to Grant Thomas? They make the point really well.

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.

Sure 2001 was a disgrace on the field, but when the FIXture was released we were the second best club in the comp. that didn't translate into a second best fixture, so don't give me that.

When I first saw our draw My first impression was that it was designed specifically to destroy us financially. As you correctly point out 95% of our home games were against interstaters or the smaller Victorian teams and any match against a big Victorian team was designated as an away game for us. It looked quite calculated to me. Why do we have to play the Hawks at the G as an away game? Then Richmond and Essendon. But we live on with AFL welfare and don't we love that. Great to be treated like dole bludgers and be the laughing stock of the competition and at best tolerated by the Commission and the loud mouths from the big clubs.

Until you pointed that out I hadn't really appreciated just how bad financially our fixture was.

As you emphasize, all our home games are crap, and all our games vs high drawing clubs are (artificially) designated away games. At OUR home ground to add insult to injury.

How can that be justified? Gives more credence to my earlier suggestion that all gates should be shared between those who put on the show, especially where the home or away designation is totally artificial.

This competition if you can call it it one will never be equal.... Can't play its other twice, no home & away, only interstate teams have a hone ground advantage, Geelong inc.... Free agency equals top clubs raiding best talent.... It's a marketing/TV comp.....

You'd think tonight would be a wakeup call to the AFL. An almost perfect representation of everything that's wrong with their precious game.

Nothing will happen though. Head in sand syndrome.

When you put the Presidents of Collingwood and Hawthorn in among the spokespeople for "equalisation" then you know that you've got problems. The system simply gets worse in terms of equalisation and the concept at AFL level has become a farce.

Equalisation aint working carlton.

Gifted 6 Friday night games, blockbusters, big drawing home games etc

The AFL is fast becoming a basket case where the heartland is being lost. The 'fight' against soccer and rugby is being lost because of the arrogance of headquarters.

A healthy competition is required and you can't have that without the fixture and stadium deals being sorted. The two are inextricably linked. TV should be told to shove it. They will jump at broadcasting because it is critical to their ad selling.

I bet the AFL and broadcasters are thrilled at Hawks v Carlton last night. What a train wreck.

26000 fans, Where is the outrage that would have accompanied a Melbourne game drawing 26k?? What a far king disgrace the AFL are. You reap what you sow.

Equalisation aint working carlton.

Gifted 6 Friday night games, blockbusters, big drawing home games etc

The AFL is fast becoming a basket case where the heartland is being lost. The 'fight' against soccer and rugby is being lost because of the arrogance of headquarters.

A healthy competition is required and you can't have that without the fixture and stadium deals being sorted. The two are inextricably linked. TV should be told to shove it. They will jump at broadcasting because it is critical to their ad selling.

I bet the AFL and broadcasters are thrilled at Hawks v Carlton last night. What a train wreck.

26000 fans, Where is the outrage that would have accompanied a Melbourne game drawing 26k?? What a far king disgrace the AFL are. You reap what you sow.

makes dimwit's timed departure look like a stroke of genius

makes dimwit's timed departure look like a stroke of genius

Not so silly, saw the writing on the wall.

Sure 2001 was a disgrace on the field, but when the FIXture was released we were the second best club in the comp. that didn't translate into a second best fixture, so don't give me that.

But you are not looking at the '97 & '99 results which i am sure had a lot to do with it.

Edited July 25, 20159 yr by Sir Why You Little

....

26000 fans, Where is the outrage that would have accompanied a Melbourne game drawing 26k?? What a far king disgrace the AFL are. You reap what you sow.

Exactly. If I recall we had about that number on Friday night 8/8/8 and were berated as a disgrace, despite this only FN game for that year clashing with the opening of the Peking Olympics. Set up by the AFL for a 'fail' if ever there was. I guess all the 'power clubs' said "not interested...hand it off the someone who will snaffle at any crumb thrown to them."

But you are not looking at the '97 & '99 results which i am sure had a lot to do with it.

I wonder why you omit '98. Be sure about what you like, but I for one am sure that a young team on the rise which unexpectedly made the 2000 GF would be just the sort of thing that the AFL builds hype around and would get a decent FN go in the following year regardless of what happened in the previous millenia. Much more likely that we didn't get that decent FN go because we are one the 'minor' clubs.

Edited July 25, 20159 yr by sue

I wonder why you omit '98. Be sure about what you like, but I for one am sure that a young team on the rise which unexpectedly made the 2000 GF would be just the sort of thing that the AFL builds hype around and would get a decent FN go in the following year regardless of what happened in the previous millenia. Much more likely that we didn't get that decent FN go because we are one the 'minor' clubs.

I don't negate '98 but either side of it we stank as we did in 2001

We were untrustworthy

This is why the AFL stuffed up this year so badly

Carltank were always going to be crap but the Ivory Tower didn't factor it in

Fools.

this "if you play well you will get good fixtures" is a load of BS.

the TV stations want the big clubs with lots of members to play so their ratings go up.

they dont care about the smaller clubs.

give me one example where a team has played well and been given more prime fixtures, because i dont know one.

not to mention that it is so much harder to get better when youre getting 15k people on a sunday because your club ends up with less money and therefore less footy department resources.