The 2016 Fixture

[monoccular 17,413]

This again raises my old hobby horse about sharing of the gate takings.

Especially for games at shared home grounds, NB our annual game vs EssenDrug, at OUR home ground but their home game.

Two teams put on each game - why should one by the quirk of the AFL's administrators, take the whole gate whilst the other team actually plays for nothing?

Surely, after deducting the costs or running the game, the gate should be split? After all, EssenDrug, Collingwood, Melbourne, Richmond don't actually own the MCG.

Even fairer, the AFL should carry the ground costs, and the participating teams split the residual revenue.

In fact the whole concept of the cost of running a particular match is artificial - no club never can nor should carry the true cost of having a ground in a prime real estate position, not maintenance, nor the full cost of lighting etc.

As it stands with the "power teams" getting a disproportionate number of games at the venues that allow / attract bigger crowds, it is again just a matter of the rich get richer, and thus stay at the top, and the poor remain poor and find it more difficult to rise.

And all this is artificially rigged by the AFL.

Edited October 30, 2015 by monoccular

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

This again raises my old hobby horse about sharing of the gate takings.

Especially for games at shared home grounds, NB our annual game vs EssenDrug, at OUR home ground but their home game.

Two teams put on each game - why should one by the quirk of the AFL's administrators, take the whole gate whilst the other team actually plays for nothing?

Surely, after deducting the costs or running the game, the gate should be split? After all, EssenDrug, Collingwood, Melbourne, Richmond don't actually own the MCG.

Even fairer, the AFL should carry the ground costs, and the participating teams split the residual revenue.

As it stands with the "power teams" getting a disproportionate number of games at the venues that allow / attract bigger crowds, it is just a matter of the rich get richer, and thus stay at the top, and the poor remain poor and find it more difficult to rise.

Another thing that absolutely shits me is when Eddie acts like he's a good guy by gifting us the QB home game. What an arrogant [censored] that guy is.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,144]

This again raises my old hobby horse about sharing of the gate takings.

Especially for games at shared home grounds, NB our annual game vs EssenDrug, at OUR home ground but their home game.

Two teams put on each game - why should one by the quirk of the AFL's administrators, take the whole gate whilst the other team actually plays for nothing?

Surely, after deducting the costs or running the game, the gate should be split? After all, EssenDrug, Collingwood, Melbourne, Richmond don't actually own the MCG.

Even fairer, the AFL should carry the ground costs, and the participating teams split the residual revenue.

In fact the whole concept of the cost of running a particular match is artificial - no club never can nor should carry the true cost of having a ground in a prime real estate position, not maintenance, nor the full cost of lighting etc.

As it stands with the "power teams" getting a disproportionate number of games at the venues that allow / attract bigger crowds, it is again just a matter of the rich get richer, and thus stay at the top, and the poor remain poor and find it more difficult to rise.

And all this is artificially rigged by the AFL.

Pretty sure gate sharing was in place until as recently as the late 90's! I assumed it changed due to the non-Vic clubs kicking up a stink?

[beelzebub 23,313]

Im still trying to understand how we play StKilda at THEIR ground and its Our home game and We play Essendon at OUR ground and it is THEIR home game.

Both Saints and Ess are HOME at Etihad.

Plainly just bs

[ManDee 7,124]

Im still trying to understand how we play StKilda at THEIR ground and its Our home game and We play Essendon at OUR ground and it is THEIR home game.

Both Saints and Ess are HOME at Etihad.

Plainly just bs

A case of swings and roundabouts.

Edited October 30, 2015 by ManDee

[13thFlagIsComing 542]

would be great if next year we said to collingwood queens birthday is yours next year....

[jnrmac 20,053]

would be great if next year we said to collingwood queens birthday is yours next year....

Really? What a moronic statement

[stuie 7,374]

Im still trying to understand how we play StKilda at THEIR ground and its Our home game and We play Essendon at OUR ground and it is THEIR home game.

Both Saints and Ess are HOME at Etihad.

Plainly just bs

I believe part of the Etihad contract is that every Victorian team has to play 1 home game there. Second hand info, so don't take it as gospel.

[ManDee 7,124]

I believe part of the Etihad contract is that every Victorian team has to play 1 home game there. Second hand info, so don't take it as gospel.

If that is the case it should be against a side that does not have Etihad as home ground.

[stuie 7,374]

If that is the case it should be against a side that does not have Etihad as home ground.

Could go either way though, financially it's probably better against an "Etihad team" seeing MFC supporters refuse to go to Docklands.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Not all Victorian teams are playing a home game at Etihad this year...

Edit - Hawthorn doesn't have a home game at Etihad this year.

Edited October 30, 2015 by billy2803

[Gorgoroth 12,920]

All these arguments about we earned it are just bulltish.

Carllton didn't earn 6 Friday night games and 2 Saturday night games this year. Carlton didn't 'earn' the fact that they haven't played at Geelong since last century.

The AFL do what they want and we need to rage about it. The comp will never be equal until they fix this crud.

. Ah yes, but Carlton when playing well have big crowds, Melbourne less so, Carlton playing well has channel 7 wanting them in prime time due to big ratings, Melbourne less so.

If we change that so we get big numbers to games and big numbers in ratings we will play Friday night etc.

That is why Carlton have none this year, last year they got lots and put up poor numbers.

Not misguided at all. Simply reality.

Kick up a fuss, I'm sure the AFL will care. They don't care if we are strong, or saints, or bullies, etc, the want pies, Tigers, blues, bombers big as they get better numbers to games and to the TV.

[Chris 2,892]

. Ah yes, but Carlton when playing well have big crowds, Melbourne less so, Carlton playing well has channel 7 wanting them in prime time due to big ratings, Melbourne less so.

If we change that so we get big numbers to games and big numbers in ratings we will play Friday night etc.

That is why Carlton have none this year, last year they got lots and put up poor numbers.

Not misguided at all. Simply reality.

Kick up a fuss, I'm sure the AFL will care. They don't care if we are strong, or saints, or bullies, etc, the want pies, Tigers, blues, bombers big as they get better numbers to games and to the TV.

That is a pretty poor business case and short sighted at best. 18 fairly strong clubs is far more attractive, and healthy for the league, than 6 really strong clubs, 6 OK clubs, and 6 clubs on the teat. Just one of my gripes with teh AFL and the way they run things. Stop pandering to the TV stations and do what is right for the long term health of league would be the first good step!

[Gorgoroth 12,920]

That is a pretty poor business case and short sighted at best. 18 fairly strong clubs is far more attractive, and healthy for the league, than 6 really strong clubs, 6 OK clubs, and 6 clubs on the teat. Just one of my gripes with teh AFL and the way they run things. Stop pandering to the TV stations and do what is right for the long term health of league would be the first good step!

Agree, but they don't think that. We need to make them think of us in a better light and that's done by having more people show up to games and play better footy so more people want to watch us play.

[Chris 2,892]

Agree, but they don't think that. We need to make them think of us in a better light and that's done by having more people show up to games and play better footy so more people want to watch us play.

Thats true with the BS way the run the league, doesn't make it right or sustainable though. About time the put a business person in charge and not an ex sports player!

[beelzebub 23,313]

I believe part of the Etihad contract is that every Victorian team has to play 1 home game there. Second hand info, so don't take it as gospel.

Actually it almost pans out that way, save for Hawthorn. They probably didnt get the memo

[biggestred 5,015]

Its not a competition its a TV show.

The afl needs to remember it is running a competition.

[jötnar 25]

Its not a competition its a TV show.

The afl needs to remember it is running a competition.

Big I think they are running a business that contains a competition for TV.

Edited October 30, 2015 by jötnar

[beelzebub 23,313]

Big I think they are running a business that contains a competition for TV.

'bout sums it up

[Chris 2,892]

Big I think they are running a business that contains a competition for TV.

Spot on, and they are doing it badly!

Name one other business that would not try to make half of their franchises profitable to strengthen their overall position instead of just handing them cash year after year which only makes the comp weaker. Think they need to go to business school!

[jötnar 25]

Spot on, and they are doing it badly!

Name one other business that would not try to make half of their franchises profitable to strengthen their overall position instead of just handing them cash year after year which only makes the comp weaker. Think they need to go to business school!

I would swap bank account with AFL. I think as a business they do pretty well, as a competition they have much work to do.

[Chris 2,892]

I would swap bank account with AFL. I think as a business they do pretty well, as a competition they have much work to do.

In the short term it will work, and they did it in the short term to improve the bank balance, they need to switch to more long term planning or things will go south with clubs on the brink of collapse, and when it does go south it will go south fast.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,687]

In the short term it will work, and they did it in the short term to improve the bank balance, they need to switch to more long term planning or things will go south with clubs on the brink of collapse, and when it does go south it will go south fast.

My personal view is that it's Channel 7's short termism which is the problem. The AFL has to keep that organisation happy to keep the money flowing. If the AFL (or the public) could explain the principal of business sustainability to that TV network then I think the AFL competition would benefit...and eventually so would the holder of the TV rights.

[Chris 2,892]

My personal view is that it's Channel 7's short termism which is the problem. The AFL has to keep that organisation happy to keep the money flowing. If the AFL (or the public) could explain the principal of business sustainability to that TV network then I think the AFL competition would benefit...and eventually so would the holder of the TV rights.

Spot on, what the AFL need to do is take a short term hit in the revenue coming in, by standing up to 7 and telling them how the fixture will be, and if they do that and get all clubs to a sustainable position then the comp will be healthier and the dollars from 7 will be even bigger. It will take some short term pain though, and as the pollies will tell you, Aussies don't like pain if they don't understand why, and most people don't understand economics in any sense.

[P-man 13,366]

Need to put a whopping big circle around the two Hawthorn fixtures.

Can either look upon it as 8 points in the bin, or an opportunity to make a statement to the competition that the Melbourne they have come to love is gone.

No team has treated the club with complete and utter disregard quite like the Hawks. All I get from Hawthorn supporting friends is pity. It's sickening.

Their bogey side is [censored] Richmond. That alone shows how fallable they can be.

Don't make outlandish statements prior to the match about them being "vulnerable". Just go out there and beat them. There are two opportunities to do so.

Edited October 30, 2015 by P-man