Grant Thomas on equalization

[Roger Mellie 4,032]

I have a power of work to do, but seeking a suitable distraction (procrastination) I thought I'd have a closer look at the allocation of games.

I thought I'd look specifically at allocation of games to high drawing clubs between 2010 and 2015 (being Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, Essendon, Hawthorn and Geelong). Geelong is a bit iffy, as from 2010 to 2013 they drew big crowds. It has since fallen away.

I didn't look at time slots at all, which is another can of worms and heavily favours the above listed clubs.

I looked at all Victorian based clubs as the relevant criteria (except Geelong - they are slightly different and I don't really give a toss about them).

I have tried to be unbiased but I'll let you be the judge.

The figures below represent the club followed by the number of big crowd-drawing games allocated from 2010 to 2015.

So for example:

North Melbourne: 2010-2, 2011- 3, 2012 - 3, 2013 - 5, 2014 - 4, 2015 - 4

North was therefore given 2 games against the bigger Victorian clubs in 2010, 3 in 2011, 3 in 2012, 5 in 2013, 4 in 2014 and 4 in 2015

I then looked at ladder position to see if any increase or decrease in games allocated, was reflected by improvement in ladder position or otherwise.

Other clubs:

Bulldogs - 2010 - 4, 2011 - 4, 2012 - 4, 2013 - 3, 2014 - 3, 2015 - 2

St Kilda - 2010 - 6, 2011 - 5, 2012 - 4, 2013 - 3, 2014 - 3, 2015 - 5

Hawks - 2010 - 3, 2011 - 2, 2012 - 2, 2013 - 2, 2013 - 3, 2014 - 2, 2015 - 4

Melb - 2010 - 4, 2011 - 4, 2012 - 3, 2013 - 2, 2014 - 2, 2015 - 1

Carlton, Richmond, Essendon and Collingwood receive 4 or 5 games against high drawing clubs, regardless of ladder position every year.

One anomaly was Richmond in 2010, where they only received 2 big games.

Observations:

Hawthorn was a big surprise to be lumped in with us peasant clubs. In fact, after Melbourne, they receive the worst allocation of big games.

I suspect this is somehow tied in with their Tassie arrangement as they make an absolute killing out of that junket. Having said that, it should not technically penalise their allocation of 'big' games, but it has until the 2015 fixture (4 big games). Also, looking at crowd numbers, the Hawks draw big numbers versus Swans and one or two other clubs. I wouldn't be surprised if they've kicked up a stink with the AFL and are finally getting the games they deserve given their ladder position. Enough about the Hawks but the 'big games' allocated are not reflective of their ladder position.

Melbourne - it's official, we are royally shafted and I assume it's ladder position related. 2013-2015 is particularly offensive. I think it would be safe to say that, as we try to dig our way out of the hole we're in, the AFL has taken away our spade.

St Kilda - aside from 2015 (where they were given a whopping 5 home games against the big clubs after finishing last on the ladder), their allocation is loosely based on ladder position. Doesn't Gillon go for the Saints? (Trying not to be biased)

Bulldogs - Did pretty well from 2010-12 where they were given 4 big games each year, although 2010 and 2011 is linked to ladder position (3rd and 4th). It's down hill from there though, and like us, from 2013, they've been shafted.

My interpretation is that, at least for the Bullies and us, something changed from 2013 and we seem to be out of the big game equation. It will be interesting to see if Footscray will be rewarded for their Top 8 finish (or thereabouts) this year. I assume the change (from 2013) is related to the equalisation fund or, that we have no say in the matter (rogered by AFL).

I'm surprised the bummers weren't penalised for their actions by the fixture in any way.

The final observation is this - The bigger clubs will always be allocated their 4 or 5 games and, as much as we, or any other club improves, there are a limited number of big games available to us - given they won't be taken away from Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon. So, don't expect improved ladder position to automatically translate to a better allocation of financially rewarding games.

I'm nerded out now

[Dr. Gonzo 24,221]

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.

Your anger at the inept leaders of the MFC over the years clouds your vision on this issue. Your focus is too narrow, don't just look at us and say "we did it to ourselves" look at the comp as a whole. Look at the Dogs, North even Port, Freo and the Crows.

Also look at the home/away split of games rather than simply the time scheduling. Some Vic clubs are continually favoured and propped up by the AFL with the view to "maximise revenue" thereby increasing the pie so the small clubs can benefit from the increased dollars. However there are several problems with this.

Firstly, there is no documented evidence that this policy even meets its aims to maximise revenue.

Secondly there is no investigation of the long term effects this policy will have on the competition.

Thirdly clubs are made reliant on the AFL dole with little prospect of becoming self sufficient due to the AFL's policies hamstringing them.

Fourthly, clubs are then told to stop leeching off the rest and contribute to the comp instead of taking handouts - however the AFL policies are designed this way! The policies state the big clubs will be given favourable conditions to bring in more money to support the smaller clubs however the smaller clubs are then reprimanded without any acknowledgement that the AFL policies have helped make the bigger clubs what they are.

Fifthly, I keep hearing about small clubs being run poorly and needing to "get their houses in order". No one has ever explained what this can possibly entail while having one arm tied behind their backs due to the AFL policies. Big clubs make poor decisions too. Look at Collingwoods million dollar losses on their pubs. Look at Essendons issues over the past few years. Look at Carlton! Meanwhile, what exactly have these clubs done that is so "smart" except ride the wave of increased exposure and dollars in the game due to the evolution to the national comp and greater media exposure while having the benefit of AFL policies created specifically to benefit them and entrench their advantages?

The only club that can really lay claim to being "well run" to propel themselves into the upper echelon is Hawthorn and that is on the back of an unprecedented period of success (1975-1991 for 11 GF and 7 premierships in 27 seasons), another current period of success (3 flags and 4 GF in 7 years with another on the way) and selling 4 games a year interstate. Despite this it is yet to be seen whether their success will last beyond the current period of success.

The only club to go from small to big in the last 50 years is Hawthorn. The only club to go from big to small is us. Even Geelong, for all their dominance, can't lay claim to a membership much more than ours and will be in the hole this year due to the debts incurred on their stadium upgrades.

In the AFL as in life, the trickle down theory of neo-liberal economists is [censored] and only pushed by those with wealth and power as a means to justify and maintain their position while blaming the less fortunate for their own predicament despite the game being rigged against them.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Dr. Gonzo

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

Your anger at the inept leaders of the MFC over the years clouds your vision on this issue. Your focus is too narrow, don't just look at us and say "we did it to ourselves" look at the comp as a whole. Look at the Dogs, North even Port, Freo and the Crows.

Also look at the home/away split of games rather than simply the time scheduling. Some Vic clubs are continually favoured and propped up by the AFL with the view to "maximise revenue" thereby increasing the pie so the small clubs can benefit from the increased dollars. However there are several problems with this.

Firstly, there is no documented evidence that this policy even meets its aims to maximise revenue.

Secondly there is no investigation of the long term effects this policy will have on the competition.

Thirdly clubs are made reliant on the AFL dole with little prospect of becoming self sufficient due to the AFL's policies hamstringing them.

Fourthly, clubs are then told to stop leeching off the rest and contribute to the comp instead of taking handouts - however the AFL policies are designed this way! The policies state the big clubs will be given favourable conditions to bring in more money to support the smaller clubs however the smaller clubs are then reprimanded without any acknowledgement that the AFL policies have helped make the bigger clubs what they are.

Fifthly, I keep hearing about small clubs being run poorly and needing to "get their houses in order". No one has ever explained what this can possibly entail while having one arm tied behind their backs due to the AFL policies. Big clubs make poor decisions too. Look at Collingwoods million dollar losses on their pubs. Look at Essendons issues over the past few years. Look at Carlton! Meanwhile, what exactly have these clubs done that is so "smart" except ride the wave of increased exposure and dollars in the game due to the evolution to the national comp and greater media exposure while having the benefit of AFL policies created specifically to benefit them and entrench their advantages?

The only club that can really lay claim to being "well run" to propel themselves into the upper echelon is Hawthorn and that is on the back of an unprecedented period of success (1975-1991 for 11 GF and 7 premierships in 27 seasons), another current period of success (3 flags and 4 GF in 7 years with another on the way) and selling 4 games a year interstate. Despite this it is yet to be seen whether their success will last beyond the current period of success.

The only club to go from small to big in the last 50 years is Hawthorn. The only club to go from big to small is us. Even Geelong, for all their dominance, can't lay claim to a membership much more than ours and will be in the hole this year due to the debts incurred on their stadium upgrades.

In the AFL as in life, the trickle down theory of neo-liberal economists is [censored] and only pushed by those with wealth and power as a means to justify and maintain their position while blaming the less fortunate for their own predicament despite the game being rigged against them.

You fail to factor into all that our previous CEO who was completely incompetent

We have had a lot of chances to get betrer

[Dr. Gonzo 24,221]

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.

Not only that but go back and check the crowds for most of these "Blockbusters" - invariably the return game gets far less than the original game unless both clubs are in the finals race which has been rare recently. Look at the Carlton/Essendon crowd this year.

Look at our crowds against some clubs compared to the big clubs crowds against those same clubs. We actually compare quite favourably and that's despite our complete and utter ineptness on field for the last decade.

The AFL and the favoured clubs are selling us all a furphy.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Dr. Gonzo

[Dr. Gonzo 24,221]

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.

Notice how following that, one of the few "equalisation" measures the AFL actually took up was to remove COLA and change the academies bidding system. Might help Hawthorn and Collingwood win premierships but won't do stuff all for those of us being reamed by the AFL's policies.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,221]

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.

North did get more Friday games last year (4?) but that was a one off. They finished top 4 last year and then had less Friday games this year (2?).

The thing is these policies have been going on since about 1992-93 and have become even more pronounced over the last 10 years. To think that one or even a couple of years of decent fixtures is enough to rectify things is ridiculous.

If the AFL were serious about a fair comp they would create a fair fixture with ongoing compensation payments for the next 15-20 years for those clubs who have been disadvantaged over the last 15-20 years. Following that (and considering the AFL will own Docklands by that point), if clubs are still unable to stand on their own feet then I wouldn't be averse to rethinking the structure of the national competition.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,221]

You fail to factor into all that our previous CEO who was completely incompetent

We have had a lot of chances to get betrer

Thanks for completely missing the point once again. I'm talking about systemic inequalities that effect the entire competition not the poor leadership of one club.

[rjay 24,929]

You fail to factor into all that our previous CEO who was completely incompetent

We have had a lot of chances to get betrer

I'm sure 'Gonzo' hasn't forgotten the previous CEO 'SWYL', if memory serves me he was one of us that was extremely critical and leading the charge against CS on this forum.

As 'Gonzo', 'Macca','Roger' and others have stated, even if we had our act together there are counter forces working against us.

There have been some excellent posts on this subject, well reasoned and great reading.

[The Hallowed Turf 95]

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.

This was also for me the quote that rang alarm bells. It seems contradictory that the AFL executives would want to fixture bottom 8 sides in prime time timeslots if it affected ratings therefore potentially affecting their bonuses. It's human nature that when money is involved self interest becomes paramount. I trust Gillon a thousand times more than I ever did Demetriou but it's still the same animal, different breed.