Grant Thomas on equalization

[sue 8,412]

http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/2015/07/16/grant-thomas-afl-killing-poorer-clubs/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20150722%20The%20New%20Daily%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=23095716&spUserID=MTAyNjUwMzI2MzU2S0&spJobID=602046013&spReportId=NjAyMDQ2MDEzS0

[rjay 23,874]

Always good to hear from Grant, we could do with his voice on TV rather than that dope from EFC.

[Earl Hood 5,787]

http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/2015/07/16/grant-thomas-afl-killing-poorer-clubs/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20150722%20The%20New%20Daily%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=23095716&spUserID=MTAyNjUwMzI2MzU2S0&spJobID=602046013&spReportId=NjAyMDQ2MDEzS0

Grant is speaking the truth and it just highlights the need for very aggressive equalization measures to even up the comp and I am talking access to priority picks, say the first 12 draft picks raffled amongst the bottom six clubs and the top 4 clubs denied access to the FA system each year. And there should be a transfer of funds between clubs that reflects the imbalance in the FIXture. It should be possible to come up with an equation that quantifies in $ the value of a Friday night game vs a Sunday twilight.

If smaller clubs can build their lists and play great footy, they will get TV time and have a chance to build their fan base.

[Lucifers Hero 36,984]

http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/2015/07/16/grant-thomas-afl-killing-poorer-clubs/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20150722%20The%20New%20Daily%20%281%29&utm_content=&spMailingID=23095716&spUserID=MTAyNjUwMzI2MzU2S0&spJobID=602046013&spReportId=NjAyMDQ2MDEzS0

Perfect description of the issue:

"So in a nutshell the AFL thinks this way; we will maximise attendances by matching up (large) teams to play certain (blockbuster) events and we will appease the ignored (small) clubs by other means. This may appear to end up as “roughly” the same end result financially but 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."

No more to add, really!

[jnrmac 18,914]

Grant is speaking the truth and it just highlights the need for very aggressive equalization measures to even up the comp and I am talking access to priority picks, say the first 12 draft picks raffled amongst the bottom six clubs and the top 4 clubs denied access to the FA system each year. And there should be a transfer of funds between clubs that reflects the imbalance in the FIXture. It should be possible to come up with an equation that quantifies in $ the value of a Friday night game vs a Sunday twilight.

If smaller clubs can build their lists and play great footy, they will get TV time and have a chance to build their fan base.

You didn't read the article did you. He is saying they can't do that under the current fixturing.

What he missed out on are the stadium deals that kill clubs like ours when we play interstate sides on a Sunday afternoon at the G and lose money...compared to WCE and Geelong who make hundreds of thousands more at games than we do because they have better deals.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I've always been a strong advocate for equalisation but the reality is the only way to really even up the competition would be to go back to twelve teams and 22 rounds.

Each teams plays each other twice and the talent pool would be far stronger than it is now.

[rjay 23,874]

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.

[praha 10,267]

"Fairness" and "equality"? It's in the league's best interests to offer a good product and appease neutral fans.

Melbourne is in the position it's in, not because Collingwood and Hawthorn get blockbuster prime time games, but because it was run by nitwits.

This is a competitive league. Hawthorn and Collingwood were riddled by debt in the late '90s and somehow managed to build something out of nothing.

More people watch the game now than ever, and fixturing is merely a product of consumer interest. Of course it appeases broadcasters: broadcasters have an audience to serve.

It's a chicken and egg scenario:

- If you're bad and no one cares about you, you don't get exposure

- If you don't get exposure, you don't get money

- If you don't get money, you can build your club

- If you can't build your club, you become bad

- If you're bad, no one cares about you, and you don't get exposure

I don't have any major issues with the league's socialistic approach to helping lower clubs, but specifically in Melbourne's case, we're down the bottom with low membership because the club's been run by morons. These morons haven't come cheap and they certainly didn't lack experience.

Geelong is facing a few years down the bottom. They could sign Danger and it wouldn't make a difference. 2 years ago everyone was crying about how they're going to be a power for 20 years.

Hawthorn will eventually come undone.

Collingwood has, but has drafted superbly and has a great culture in place after getting rid of deadwood.

WC has jumped up from last to a flag contender in 5 years.

Port went from basket case to 60,000 members, full houses and a great young side literally over one pre-season.

Each club has the means to make money and build a good club and business model.

A good business thrives in a highly competitive environment. Melbourne has failed because it wasn't up to the task. You need good thinkers, innovators, people who can turn something into nothing.

I'm sick of people constantly wanting to change the dynamic of the league, its rules, and its brand, because a few clubs have been run into the ground by poor business decisions.

Who the [censored] wants to watch Melbourne vs Carlton on a Friday night? Seriously? You can call it "equalisation", but you're just forcing ineptness onto the neutral fan who just wants to watch a good team play.

Edited July 21, 2015 by praha

[rjay 23,874]

Who the [censored] wants to watch Melbourne vs Carlton on a Friday night? Seriously? You can call it "equalisation", but you're just forcing ineptness onto the neutral fan who just wants to watch a good team play.

...well I'm really hanging out for the Carlton/Hawthorn game this Friday.

Should be an absolute cracker.

[monoccular 16,017]

An old hobby horse: two teams put on every game.

Why should one scoop the gate and the other gets nothing. Even more absurd for games at the G between two teams that call it home.

Surely the gate should be pooled. Now it is the luck of the FIXture eg EssnDrug always play us at our ground as the home team, and we play Magpies as home team.

Or at the risk of sounding like a bleeding socialist, let the AFL pay the 'running costs' for the day then pool the gate for the whole round and split it 18 ways.

[Fork 'em 6,507]

This is a competitive league. Hawthorn and Collingwood were riddled by debt in the late '90s and somehow managed to build something out of nothing.

Hawthorn built their "something from nothing" on the back being 5 time day, 5 time night premiers during the 80's when all those kids that swapped teams to follow the top side matured and were able to buy their own memberships.

Similar thing with Collingwood supporters but from the 70's.

We've been shithouse for so long that even if we suddenly did get our sheet together and managed to sustained it we wouldn't see real improvement in our ageing membership base till 10- 15 years after.

That how far back we're coming from.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Fork 'em

[rpfc 27,393]

I'm sick of people constantly wanting to change the dynamic of the league, its rules, and its brand, because a few clubs have been run into the ground by poor business decisions.

Are you really trying to get me to swallow this as the sole reason we need to constantly evolve the league?

Evolution is necessary - Why did the draft come in? Should we do away with it?

Those are rhetorical questions because the first doesn't have a simple answer and the second would be wholly disastrous to the fabric of the game.

Improvement is the mantra - and you can do that on the fixture, on FA, on the draft, on the academies.

That is what we are talking about here - not blaming the poorest for their predicament but helping them out of it - for the benefit of the entire AFL.

[Chris 2,892]

"Fairness" and "equality"? It's in the league's best interests to offer a good product and appease neutral fans.

Melbourne is in the position it's in, not because Collingwood and Hawthorn get blockbuster prime time games, but because it was run by nitwits.

This is a competitive league. Hawthorn and Collingwood were riddled by debt in the late '90s and somehow managed to build something out of nothing.

More people watch the game now than ever, and fixturing is merely a product of consumer interest. Of course it appeases broadcasters: broadcasters have an audience to serve.

Hawthorn and Collingwood got out of debt by being allowed access to the market, they had the supporter base, they got on telly, got the crowds made the money. Many lower clubs are not provided that opportunity.

I agree we have been run by halfwits, I agree we need to take responsibility, but there is an inherent inequality in the league that is unhealthy. People say that is fine and it is capitalism at work, the problem with that is that the clubs competitors aren't the other clubs, it is the other codes. The AFL is acting in a capitalist realm where they need to survive against the other codes, to do that they need all the clubs being strong and viable, that isn't allowed the way things work today.

For too long the AFL has built the big clubs, the clubs wont admit it, but they are big because the AFL wanted them big for their own survival. This ignores the long term pain felt when you end up with a lague with few viable teams and people walking away from the game as their team will never have a chance.

You are right it is chicken an egg, but it is with the fixture more than anything, have a look at ours this years and tell me more than one game we can expect to make money from (with the exception of the two we sold). This wouldn't be changed significantly if we had more members as most of our home games are against interstate or small drawing teams. Then compare that to the big teams, who all play each other twice, make heaps of cash of each other, and then make cash off playing us, as we don't get a home game against them!

[praha 10,267]

Melbourne is in the current situation because of poor management. It has nothing to do with the AFL. Hawthorn won premierships and night premierships but ultimately had no fans, no membership and no money in the 90s. Through good drafting, good business decisions, great sponsorship and great development, they have created a powerhouse. They went from nothing to something at the right time.

Carlton has been gifted Friday night games this year and everyone hates it. It won't happen next year. Good teams will get it. The Bulldogs will get more Friday night games and rightly so.

At the end of the day you can still create a good business and football environment with what's currently available to the clubs. At the worst, it's still good exposure. At the best, it's prime time exposure.

If you're in the heartland of AFL and can't build a strong, profitable business, you're doing something wrong. You can blame the AFL all you like. It has gone to great lengths to grand us blockbuster games when we haven't deserved them. We are lucky we still have Queens' Birthday, and ANZAC Eve against Richmond is a godsend. Next season is our how game and it'll be 75,000+.

Good clubs establish good models, good branding, and a good working environment. When you make the people involved in the club want to come to work every day, it'll snowball into greatness. But if you create a [censored] environment, then don't be surprised if it turns to [censored].

There is no reason why we couldn't be where Freo or the Hawks are now considering our access to talent over the past 8 years. The problem is that the club has been a career killer through no fault of its own, not because of fixturing.

The bigger issue here is bad business people running clubs into the ground. Why else did the AFL get involved in Melbourne? It literally installed its own approved CEO.

But hey, keep saying it's fixturing.

I'm sick of the clubs at the lower end of the ladder blaming the league for its own ineptness. Carlton is a "powerhouse" that has been run by morons consistently since 1999. No amount of prime time gifting has turned it into a powerhouse, even if it did land it Judd. It's just a bad club and a bad business that sells a [censored] product.

Edited July 22, 2015 by praha

[Mach5 4,482]

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.

Exactly.

The aims and objectives of the AFL executive are inherently leading us to imbalance.

It needs an overhaul.

[Chris 2,892]

Melbourne is in the current situation because of poor management. It has nothing to do with the AFL. Hawthorn won premierships and night premierships but ultimately had no fans, no membership and no money in the 90s. Through good drafting, good business decisions, great sponsorship and great development, they have created a powerhouse. They went from nothing to something at the right time.

Carlton has been gifted Friday night games this year and everyone hates it. It won't happen next year. Good teams will get it. The Bulldogs will get more Friday night games and rightly so.

At the end of the day you can still create a good business and football environment with what's currently available to the clubs. At the worst, it's still good exposure. At the best, it's prime time exposure.

If you're in the heartland of AFL and can't build a strong, profitable business, you're doing something wrong. You can blame the AFL all you like. It has gone to great lengths to grand us blockbuster games when we haven't deserved them. We are lucky we still have Queens' Birthday, and ANZAC Eve against Richmond is a godsend. Next season is our how game and it'll be 75,000+.

Good clubs establish good models, good branding, and a good working environment. When you make the people involved in the club want to come to work every day, it'll snowball into greatness. But if you create a [censored] environment, then don't be surprised if it turns to [censored].

There is no reason why we couldn't be where Freo or the Hawks are now considering our access to talent over the past 8 years. The problem is that the club has been a career killer through no fault of its own, not because of fixturing.

The bigger issue here is bad business people running clubs into the ground. Why else did the AFL get involved in Melbourne? It literally installed its own approved CEO.

But hey, keep saying it's fixturing.

I'm sick of the clubs at the lower end of the ladder blaming the league for its own ineptness. Carlton is a "powerhouse" that has been run by morons consistently since 1999. No amount of prime time gifting has turned it into a powerhouse, even if it did land it Judd. It's just a bad club and a bad business that sells a [censored] product.

You are ignoring the elephant in the room, access to market.

The AFL almost went broke through the 80's and 90's, they lent on the big clubs and their membership to get them out of it, it worked. It come at the cost of the smaller clubs though as they were not allowed access to the market and became smaller and more irrelevant as they were not seen. The pendulum must swing back the other way at some point or the AFL will turn into the EPL with 3 or 4 clubs winning every flag for 25 years. That would not be sustainable for very long in the small Aussie market.

All this is compounded by bad business decisions, there is no hiding from that, but to ignore the elephant distorts your view.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,026]

An old hobby horse: two teams put on every game.

Why should one scoop the gate and the other gets nothing. Even more absurd for games at the G between two teams that call it home.

Surely the gate should be pooled. Now it is the luck of the FIXture eg EssnDrug always play us at our ground as the home team, and we play Magpies as home team.

Or at the risk of sounding like a bleeding socialist, let the AFL pay the 'running costs' for the day then pool the gate for the whole round and split it 18 ways.

Good call, monoccular. If they are serious about equalisation, then split the takings from each game, or pool the lot and split it all equally between the clubs. Anything else is lip service at best.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

We have had our chances and blew them (mostly at the draft) because our club was managed poorly.

Saints have had chances.

Bulldogs have had chances.

Look also at the so called "power" clubs who have failed to adjust to the times ie Carlton, Richmond.

The equalisation measures are there, shrewd management is required to take advantage of them, ie Geelong, Swans.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

We have had our chances and blew them (mostly at the draft) because our club was managed poorly.

This.

If we didn't blow our draft picks from 2008 until 2012 we would be pushing for the top four now.

[Chris 2,892]

We have had our chances and blew them (mostly at the draft) because our club was managed poorly.

Saints have had chances.

Bulldogs have had chances.

Look also at the so called "power" clubs who have failed to adjust to the times ie Carlton, Richmond.

The equalisation measures are there, shrewd management is required to take advantage of them, ie Geelong, Swans.

That is equalisation of your chance of success. Unfortunately success does not lead to financial stability and support, especially if you don't get access to the market.

the article is far more about back of house equalisation than on field. The way it is now, one does not lead to the other. Why would Carlton have 7 Friday night games this year if that was the case?

[Sir Why You Little 34,422]

Melbourne is in the current situation because of poor management. It has nothing to do with the AFL. Hawthorn won premierships and night premierships but ultimately had no fans, no membership and no money in the 90s. Through good drafting, good business decisions, great sponsorship and great development, they have created a powerhouse. They went from nothing to something at the right time.

Carlton has been gifted Friday night games this year and everyone hates it. It won't happen next year. Good teams will get it. The Bulldogs will get more Friday night games and rightly so.

At the end of the day you can still create a good business and football environment with what's currently available to the clubs. At the worst, it's still good exposure. At the best, it's prime time exposure.

If you're in the heartland of AFL and can't build a strong, profitable business, you're doing something wrong. You can blame the AFL all you like. It has gone to great lengths to grand us blockbuster games when we haven't deserved them. We are lucky we still have Queens' Birthday, and ANZAC Eve against Richmond is a godsend. Next season is our how game and it'll be 75,000+.

Good clubs establish good models, good branding, and a good working environment. When you make the people involved in the club want to come to work every day, it'll snowball into greatness. But if you create a [censored] environment, then don't be surprised if it turns to [censored].

There is no reason why we couldn't be where Freo or the Hawks are now considering our access to talent over the past 8 years. The problem is that the club has been a career killer through no fault of its own, not because of fixturing.

The bigger issue here is bad business people running clubs into the ground. Why else did the AFL get involved in Melbourne? It literally installed its own approved CEO.

But hey, keep saying it's fixturing.

I'm sick of the clubs at the lower end of the ladder blaming the league for its own ineptness. Carlton is a "powerhouse" that has been run by morons consistently since 1999. No amount of prime time gifting has turned it into a powerhouse, even if it did land it Judd. It's just a bad club and a bad business that sells a [censored] product.

Agreed 100%

Our home ground can seat 100,000 people and we still have butchered 50 years...

[sue 8,412]

Carlton may well get less Friday night games next year, but why did they get so many this year and not some other club which seemed more clearly to be on the rise?

If you think the AFL doesn't favour the clubs where money to be made as their short term policy you are fooling yourself. The only exception is their long-term policy re NSW and QLD.

They have decided that the competition could compete well with other codes with fewer Victorian clubs. This sadly is probably true. No amount of pointing to how clubs may have averted disasters in previous decades by their own efforts means that that is doable today.

[praha 10,267]

That is equalisation of your chance of success. Unfortunately success does not lead to financial stability and support, especially if you don't get access to the market.

the article is far more about back of house equalisation than on field. The way it is now, one does not lead to the other. Why would Carlton have 7 Friday night games this year if that was the case?

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".

Edited July 22, 2015 by praha

[Chris 2,892]

Carlton may well get less Friday night games next year, but why did they get so many this year and not some other club which seemed more clearly to be on the rise?

If you think the AFL doesn't favour the clubs where money to be made as their short term policy you are fooling yourself. The only exception is their long-term policy re NSW and QLD.

They have decided that the competition could compete well with other codes with fewer Victorian clubs. This sadly is probably true. No amount of pointing to how clubs may have averted disasters in previous decades by their own efforts means that that is doable today.

The answer to your question about Carlton may well lie int he chairman of the commission, where do his allegiances lie again?

[rpfc 27,393]

We can tweak the 'Equalisations Measures of the AFL' can we not?

They were tweaked when the draft came in, they were tweaked when they set up the rule that players who refuse to come to the club that chose them will be banned from all levels of footy for 2 years.

They were tweaked when they gave the northern states zones and academies. This needs to be re-tweaked.

They were tweaked when FA was brought in. This needs to be re-tweaked.

What is so awful about addressing issues with the 'Equalisation Measures'?

'Stop ruining the game!'

Was the game ruined when the draft was brought in in the 80s?

It is not a panacea for 'clubs doin' it ta themselves!1!' but it will help the league.

Edited July 22, 2015 by rpfc