4 minutes ago, Chris said:

Agree entirely and it is why I hold especially Dill and Andy G in complete contempt. They continually kowtowed to the TV stations and made changes to the game and the 'game day experience' which actually took away from the game for many of the stalwarts.

Bring in a CEO who will stand up to the TV people and tell them who will play who when, and how the game will be played and things will start to look positive. There will certainly be an initial hit in the amount paid but in time we will be ahead because those with the long term health of the league in mind will be in charge, not those with short term ratings in mind. The TV execs could not care less if it is Soccer, AFL, NRL, Netball, or Quidich which brings the ratings, what matters to them is what will bring the ratings, if it isn't one of them it will be a different one, and they will just go off and spend their money there. They are killing the sport and many can't see it, especially in the boys club running the sport, which isn't surprising as the TV execs are part of that same bloody boys club!

....END RANT......

Spot on Chris...It all started with Wayne Jackson and has continued. 

The game must be stronger than the Broadcasters and Commission. At present it is teetering right on the edge. 

25 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The TV Right deals bother me greatly because the Rules are changed and tinkered with because the Broadcasters want to quicken up the game. 

They don't want Boundry Throw ins, they want scoring. Why? Because after a score they can run adverts. In time the game will be shorter, TV will dictate that  

Is the game day experience better now than what it was 25 years ago?

I say no, because of Gambling adverts constantly bombarding the scoreboard and fences. 

Loud crap music played at all breaks so that conversation is killed off 

The Players still astound me with what they do. The AFL get in the way. 

I am aware what the clubs did up till 1986, but the AFL Commission are killing the game off in just different ways  

CEO bonuses  what a disgusting concept we now live under...

 

I agree with you about the loud music because it's not something you have a choice to avoid. But I don't get how the gambling advertisements affect your enjoyment. Can't you just ignore them? 

4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I agree with you about the loud music because it's not something you have a choice to avoid. But I don't get how the gambling advertisements affect your enjoyment. Can't you just ignore them? 

Yes i could ignore them, but gambling did a lot of damage to parts of my family and i find it offensive that this industry is allowed so much airtime during a game of football. 

I don't expect a perfect world but advertising has ramped up so much in the last decade. Cigarette advertising was banned totally. Gambling is just as evil

2 hours ago, Bossdog said:

The AFL is a multi billion organisation and need the likes of the CEO to run it.  

The AFL isn't a multi billion dollar organisation, revenue in 2015 was $506m

52 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The TV Right deals bother me greatly because the Rules are changed and tinkered with because the Broadcasters want to quicken up the game. 

They don't want Boundry Throw ins, they want scoring. Why? Because after a score they can run adverts. In time the game will be shorter, TV will dictate that  

Is the game day experience better now than what it was 25 years ago?

I say no, because of Gambling adverts constantly bombarding the scoreboard and fences. 

Loud crap music played at all breaks so that conversation is killed off 

The Players still astound me with what they do. The AFL get in the way. 

I am aware what the clubs did up till 1986, but the AFL Commission are killing the game off in just different ways  

CEO bonuses  what a disgusting concept we now live under...

 

I think tv will want games reduced to 2 hours to fit in nicely with their programming schedule.

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The AFL isn't a multi billion dollar organisation, revenue in 2015 was $506m

maybe he meant to say "afl and mates". adds up perfectly then

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think tv will want games reduced to 2 hours to fit in nicely with their programming schedule.

Sure they will. 90 minutes of game

30 mins of Adverts

Unfortunately, it is not possible to judge what he does from outside.  All we see is a cringeworthy toilet brush of an individual that talks like a muppet and wants to be half as good as his pathetic brother.  He could be doing brilliantly on a whole series of other metrics that we are not privy to.

however, these would include (at a guess):

enhancing appeal and reach ( women's league, expansion teams, advertising and mercy revenues, china games)

tv rights

dealing with AFLPA

internal staff operations and performance

so, there may be many reasons why he is not paid enough. 

Over the past couple of years the AFL have appeared to have no plan B to deal with what were quite obvious (yet blindsiding to them) outcomes. Screams of incompetence. They're lucky to have a product (the game) that's so loved that their incompetence can be absorbed. God knows how they'd cope in an industry where there's any real competition.

9 minutes ago, TRIGON said:

Over the past couple of years the AFL have appeared to have no plan B to deal with what were quite obvious (yet blindsiding to them) outcomes. Screams of incompetence. They're lucky to have a product (the game) that's so loved that their incompetence can be absorbed. God knows how they'd cope in an industry where there's any real competition.

100% agree with this. The AFL Commission have no competition...

I never in the past took too much notice of the AFL boys club and the effect it was having on the game, probably because we had or very own boys club to get furious about and I only had time for one such frustration. 

It seems the good work of PJ ridding our club of past demons, pardon the pun, has me far less worried on the home front and now I realise how inept teh AFL management actually are.

I must say that Gill and Dill has got a few things through that are good. These are

- Helping us our by assisting in paying out contracts and getting PJ on board. Kudos must got the AFL for that, we would not be where we are without them

- Setting up the womens league, although the dogs and us did most of that but won't get any reward or recognition for it!

- Lowered the price of chips at Etihad

- Bought Etihad, although anyone could see that was the right thing to do

- ummmmmmmm, thinking, ummmmmmmmm. Nope, that's about it.

Now onto the stuff he has stuffed (along with his best mate Andy D)

- The entire EFC affair form start to finish

- The treatment of the EFC players since banned

- The fixture (has the chance to fix it in TV rights deal but didn't even try)

- GWS and GC getting everything under the sun so they win a flag. Over compensation due to it taking Freo so bloody long. 

- Screwed the small club with fixture and expansion teams

- Has put nothing real in place to stop the influence of gambling on the game to the point now where kids are discussing odds not the game!

- The entire Lachie Whitfield saga, it should have been handed to ASADA at the bloody start!

- The Goodes Booing affair. I think there was a fair racial element to it but he handled it really poorly, along with Eddies constant gaffs.

- etc etc etc etc etc etc.

 

3 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes i could ignore them, but gambling did a lot of damage to parts of my family and i find it offensive that this industry is allowed so much airtime during a game of football. 

I don't expect a perfect world but advertising has ramped up so much in the last decade. Cigarette advertising was banned totally. Gambling is just as evil

Especially when you consider the kids who are exposed to continual odds now radio tv and at the game

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Especially when you consider the kids who are exposed to continual odds now radio tv and at the game

Exactly. Far easier to lose money than make it

the fences lit up now at night, i have wondered what the players think of them?

20 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

2.508 billion dollar TV rights deal over 6 years.

That's 418 million a year without even adding the revenue from memberships, attendances etc.

So at 1.7 million per year Gil has taken home about 0.41% of revenue from the broadcast deal. Is that really that unfair?

Forget about if you like the bloke or not and look at his achievements and things aren't going too bad. 

We've got a women's league.
The Dees have a women's team.
The Dees have posted profits despite still missing finals 
A fellow battler just won the flag.
The AFL took control of Etihad to help those teams out and secure an asset 
(Way too slowly but) the AFL is at least thinking of reigning in some of GWS' advantages 
The fixture isn't getting any more screwed up that it has been!

 

19 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The AFL should have taken control of Etihad Stadium in 2000 when the piece of junk was first opened..it was appalling to allow those deals to be signed off.

$2.508 Billion looks good on paper, but the reality i am not so sure. Do we need that much money swilling around. It makes the TV Stations more desperate for advertising, that i know.

More games will go to Foxtel in time Coz that is how Rupert works

in my opinion 18 teams is too many, who has time to watch 9 games?

But Gill gets his grotesque wage and the Corporates get free tickets to the Grand Final.

SWYL, amazing, you have managed to turn silk purses into sow's ears. I won't comment on each of your points but the bolded one is fascinating.

You think we have too many teams because you haven't got time to watch 9 games each week? How many games a week can you watch? I wonder why the EPL, NFL, NBA etc etc haven't cottoned on to that idea? The A- League have 5 games each week and the damned fools are talking about expanding to a much larger competition!

 

As for the general topic of AFL CEO's, If Gil and his predecessor a so abhorrent, who was the last good CEO and why? How is it that the AFL, according to most posters on this thread gets the dregs? The Commissioners who make the appointments, whilst in their other roles seem to be clever and successful, must be transformed into drongo's once they are appointed!

Whilst I agree that CEO salaries are extremely high, (too high), that is the case in all western economies. Taking  pot shots at the AFL  CEO's salary without putting it in context of other CEO salaries is no basis for a rational discussion. If readers are interested these links will provide some context:

This is from Feb 2016:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/why-cant-the-nrl-find-a-ceo-20160218-gmx9t0.html   

This is from 2014:

 http://www.afr.com/business/salary-survey-2014--meet-australias-bestpaid-ceos-20141209-123pii

 

His salary is not off the scale relatively. 

It seems to me that many of the criticisms of McLachlan expressed in this thread are based on  personal dislike of him. Why is his appearance and manner of speaking of any consequence if people are attacking his salary? 

 

1 minute ago, xarronn said:

 

SWYL, amazing, you have managed to turn silk purses into sow's ears. I won't comment on each of your points but the bolded one is fascinating.

 

You think we have too many teams because you haven't got time to watch 9 games each week? How many games a week can you watch? I wonder why the EPL, NFL, NBA etc etc haven't cottoned on to that idea? The A- League have 5 games each week and the damned fools are talking about expanding to a much larger competition!

 

 

 

As for the general topic of AFL CEO's, If Gil and his predecessor a so abhorrent, who was the last good CEO and why? How is it that the AFL, according to most posters on this thread gets the dregs? The Commissioners who make the appointments, whilst in their other roles seem to be clever and successful, must be transformed into drongo's once they are appointed!

 

Whilst I agree that CEO salaries are extremely high, (too high), that is the case in all western economies. Taking  pot shots at the AFL  CEO's salary without putting it in context of other CEO salaries is no basis for a rational discussion. If readers are interested these links will provide some context:

 

This is from Feb 2016:

 

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/why-cant-the-nrl-find-a-ceo-20160218-gmx9t0.html   

 

This is from 2014:

 

 http://www.afr.com/business/salary-survey-2014--meet-australias-bestpaid-ceos-20141209-123pii

 

 

His salary is not off the scale relatively. 

It seems to me that many of the criticisms of McLachlan expressed in this thread are based on  personal dislike of him. Why is his appearance and manner of speaking of any consequence if people are attacking his salary? 

 

18 teams are too many in a 22 week season. The fixture continues to be a joke. 

The Salaries of CEO's are a disgrace across the board when average workers are stuck on the same wage. 

Next year i get my first REAL payrise since 2002 working in the same job. The cost of living has gone up tenfold since then..

 

14 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

18 teams are too many in a 22 week season. The fixture continues to be a joke. 

The Salaries of CEO's are a disgrace across the board when average workers are stuck on the same wage. 

Next year i get my first REAL payrise since 2002 working in the same job. The cost of living has gone up tenfold since then..

 

NFL has 32 teams and play 16 games. For much of its history the VFL had 12 teams and played 18 games , - only 5 teams played each other twice. 

I've agreed about the salaries of CEO's, but that just confirms that he is getting about the going rate. 

I'm not having a go at your circumstances, but seriously, how is the bolded comment relevant to the CEO's salary and this thread? 

2 minutes ago, xarronn said:

NFL has 32 teams and play 16 games. For much of its history the VFL had 12 teams and played 18 games , - only 5 teams played each other twice. 

I've agreed about the salaries of CEO's, but that just confirms that he is getting about the going rate. 

I'm not having a go at your circumstances, but seriously, how is the bolded comment relevant to the CEO's salary and this thread? 

CEO's live in their own little world. 

I have said above i don't think the competition has been well run since Wayne Jackson was in charge. 

Certain areas of the comp are swimming in cash, but there is always a payoff to that. 

The quality of a lot of the AFL Presentation has gone backwards- Commentators who now make it a social outing

are we getting value for money

i say no

15 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

CEO's live in their own little world. 

I have said above i don't think the competition has been well run since Wayne Jackson was in charge. 

Certain areas of the comp are swimming in cash, but there is always a payoff to that. 

The quality of a lot of the AFL Presentation has gone backwards- Commentators who now make it a social outing

are we getting value for money

i say no

You mean with clubs swimming in zero-asset debt, Victorian clubs embroiled in constant merger talks, games played at stadiums falling apart (and clubs losing millions in the process), little to no regional and grassroot support, little to no Indigenous support ... shall I go on?

What's your definition of "swimming in cash", and what is "a payoff" to that surplus?

The commentators have nothing to do with the AFL. The AFL is limited in who it can sell broadcasting rights to. Foxtel arguably offers the best value and best quality across a diverse broadcasting structure but the problem is that it limits free-to-air access...the AFL is in a corner because Channel 7 invests in the wrong individuals to lead its sports coverage. It's the networks that seem out of touch with the broader public, not the AFL.

 

10 minutes ago, praha said:

You mean with clubs swimming in zero-asset debt, Victorian clubs embroiled in constant merger talks, games played at stadiums falling apart (and clubs losing millions in the process), little to no regional and grassroot support, little to no Indigenous support ... shall I go on?

What's your definition of "swimming in cash", and what is "a payoff" to that surplus?

The commentators have nothing to do with the AFL. The AFL is limited in who it can sell broadcasting rights to. Foxtel arguably offers the best value and best quality across a diverse broadcasting structure but the problem is that it limits free-to-air access...the AFL is in a corner because Channel 7 invests in the wrong individuals to lead its sports coverage. It's the networks that seem out of touch with the broader public, not the AFL.

 

They all work together for the final product. The AFL is swimming in cash, not the clubs

Problem 101

On 12/21/2016 at 2:06 AM, Sir Why You Little said:

Maybe the corporate structure is wrong

We all just get used to it...

Commie in the ranks!

On 20/12/2016 at 11:20 PM, DeeSpencer said:

2.508 billion dollar TV rights deal over 6 years.

That's 418 million a year without even adding the revenue from memberships, attendances etc.

So at 1.7 million per year Gil has taken home about 0.41% of revenue from the broadcast deal. Is that really that unfair?

Forget about if you like the bloke or not and look at his achievements and things aren't going too bad. 

We've got a women's league.
The Dees have a women's team.
The Dees have posted profits despite still missing finals 
A fellow battler just won the flag.
The AFL took control of Etihad to help those teams out and secure an asset 
(Way too slowly but) the AFL is at least thinking of reigning in some of GWS' advantages 
The fixture isn't getting any more screwed up that it has been!

Was the WAFL his idea?

We we're always going to have a team in the comp.

Taking the AFL appointment of Peter Jackson aside how are our profits attributable to Gil?

What was Gil's role in the Dogs premiership outside of the farce that was the one sided umpiring.

The game to some extent runs and sells itself, the TV rights deals and major sponsors (NAB/Toyota) are locked away for years, anyone could of got those deals over the line.

The AFL was always going to buy Etihad.

Gil : 

Failed to act with regards to Jobe Watson

The AFL tribunal remains a farce.

Anual rule changes which aren't needed.

Soft handling of GWS with relation to Lachie Whitfield.

 

If every difficult decision is put into the "too hard basket" and then referred to the commission, why is he there? Why not just have the commission ?

4 hours ago, Fitz Fitzpatrick said:

Commie in the ranks!

Haha no.

I just don't like people rewarded heavily when the situation isn't really that great. 

I wouldn't pay this bloke a hundred thousand per annum for the job he has done in the last three years.He has been a somewhat traumatized "reactive" executive and he should be proactive. No excuses and very insular, probably nowhere near first choice and in view of what happened with Demetriou much more thought required. 

On 20/12/2016 at 10:53 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

It's more that i don't believe the suits should be payed more than the players. 

I don't think the suits have done a great job. 

The fans and members love the clubs and the game. 

Certainly not the suits who feed off it. 

I think u are just envious,  the average CEO  in Australia gets 5 million,  the CEO of bonds is on over 5 million and that is with bonds making 200 million  $ losses 

5 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

I think u are just envious,  the average CEO  in Australia gets 5 million,  the CEO of bonds is on over 5 million and that is with bonds making 200 million  $ losses 

No i am not envious mate. Wages like the ones you mention will bring down the Western Economies. The GFC in 2008 gave us a warning light. But nothing has changed

the whole system is way out of balance and anything that is not balanced will break in a big way. 

Members of my family work in the top end of the financial system and they are waiting for the big one. 

Assholes taking home bonuses on the basis of $200 Mill losses should be in jail, that is how out of wack the system is...