TV Ratings - National Competition Thriving

[DaveyDee 421]

AFL releases TV ratings and the interstate teams dominate them - Sydney especially.

I appreciate many are very critical of a National competition and the AFL but maybe time to admit the AFL got it right. 

Long may it continue - huge thanks to the AFL

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-12-03/gf-friday-night-footy-dominates-tv-ratings

[rjay 24,940]

3 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

AFL releases TV ratings and the interstate teams dominate them - Sydney especially.

I appreciate many are very critical of a National competition and the AFL but maybe time to admit the AFL got it right. 

Long may it continue - huge thanks to the AFL

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-12-03/gf-friday-night-footy-dominates-tv-ratings

Nice to see you on Demonland Gillon...

Edited December 3, 2017 by rjay

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

41 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

AFL releases TV ratings and the interstate teams dominate them - Sydney especially.

I appreciate many are very critical of a National competition and the AFL but maybe time to admit the AFL got it right. 

Long may it continue - huge thanks to the AFL

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-12-03/gf-friday-night-footy-dominates-tv-ratings

1 and 2 team towns V 9 in Melbourne

not Rocket science. 

Do you work for the AFL Doctor?

[buck_nekkid 5,876]

Gold Coast, Brisbane, ....tumbleweeds....

when teams like the Bummers, Hawks , Tigers and Sydney are on the up, they will bring crowds.  Perhaps why certain teams are gifted Friday night games and we aren’t.

might be the biggest tv product, but it is crafted that way.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,226]

11 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

1 and 2 team towns V 9 in Melbourne

not Rocket science. 

Do you work for the AFL Doctor?

Plus non-Vic clubs have every game beamed into their home state on FTA (I think the SA/WA teams had 3 that were Foxtel only this year and they spoked about it).

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

47 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Plus non-Vic clubs have every game beamed into their home state on FTA (I think the SA/WA teams had 3 that were Foxtel only this year and they spoked about it).

Exactly

Dr Who is speaking  from skewered figures as usual, just like the AFL. 

Imagine if Melbourne had only 2 teams in the AFL.... and The MFC was one of them

[Diamond_Jim 12,592]

When Sydney aren't playing would the footy by any chance be on the second channel in Sydney ?

Might explain the higher ratings when they play.

On the bigger clubs get the prime TV games etc perhaps it's time we had two games Friday night and let the viewing public decide. Plenty of spectrum available these days.

[DaveyDee 421]

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

On the bigger clubs get the prime TV games etc perhaps it's time we had two games Friday night and let the viewing public decide. Plenty of spectrum available these days.

Interesting idea - But the AFL are doing so well - Why change a winning formula? 

Sure the AFL will always have their knockers, no matter what they do, but that says more about the knockers than the AFL. 

Im rapt the AFL stepped in and saved our club, I rapt the way the AFL has handled the game over the last 20-30 years - now thats not giving the AFL blanket approval, but Im prepared to live with the good and the bad and get on with supporting the MFC AND the AFL.

Sometimes you have to say - thank-you and put aside the petty little issue and recognise  the professionalism of the AFL. 

Edited December 3, 2017 by DaveyDee

[Dr. Gonzo 24,226]

On 03/12/2017 at 5:22 PM, DaveyDee said:

Interesting idea - But the AFL are doing so well - Why change a winning formula? 

Sure the AFL will always have their knockers, no matter what they do, but that says more about the knockers than the AFL. 

Im rapt the AFL stepped in and saved our club, I rapt the way the AFL has handled the game over the last 20-30 years - now thats not giving the AFL blanket approval, but Im prepared to live with the good and the bad and get on with supporting the MFC AND the AFL.

Sometimes you have to say - thank-you and put aside the petty little issue and recognise  the professionalism of the AFL. 

It's not a "petty little issue", its deliberate policies of the AFL that provide specific advantages and disadvantages to certain teams, ours being one that is consistently disadvantaged. This impacts us in both the short term (less revenue each year through gate receipts, sponsorships etc) and long term (inability to generate and consolidate a supporter base, inability to sign long term sponsorship deals etc). This wouldn't be so bad if it was acknowledged and AFL revenues pooled and distributed amongst the clubs equally however every few years the topic of finances comes up and clubs like ours are asked the question "why can't you make money, increase membership, increase crowds, increase sponsorship revenue etc?"

North, Saints and Dogs are in the same boat, continually shafted by the AFL and they have the double whammy of Docklands agreements that they don't want but are forced in to due to AFL contracts to play a set number of games there each year (up until they bought it out last year).

And it's got nothing to do with performance. Carlton has been as inept as us for longer (15 years) yet still get numerous prime time and high revenue games. We were one of the better performed sides over the AFL era until 2006 and still got shafted every year. Yeah we were pathetic from 2007-2013 but that's a separate issue, these AFL policies have been in place long before that.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Dr. Gonzo

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Doing a lot better than the A-League.

[DeeSpencer 25,717]

I think these ratings say more about when the AFL gets the Swans (or Giants) on the main channel 7 in Sydney and then the ratings get a huge boost because 1/4 of people turn the TV on and it's on 7 and a lot of them stay with it.

I'm pretty sure all Swans and Giants games are on free to air in Sydney but most are on 7 mate or 7 two or whatever it is (as well as simulcast on foxtel) and don't get nearly the big numbers as the prime time games.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,808]

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

I think these ratings say more about when the AFL gets the Swans (or Giants) on the main channel 7 in Sydney and then the ratings get a huge boost because 1/4 of people turn the TV on and it's on 7 and a lot of them stay with it.

I'm pretty sure all Swans and Giants games are on free to air in Sydney but most are on 7 mate or 7 two or whatever it is (as well as simulcast on foxtel) and don't get nearly the big numbers as the prime time games.

To extend this comment further, the spin machine at the AFL fails to point out the elephant in the room...when Sydney (the team) isn't playing, Sydney (the city) isn't watching. Essentially what this data tells us is that there's always a strong support base in the southern States, but icing is added to the cake when Sydney (the team) plays. 

Nevertheless, I've always been a strong supporter of the AFL's national expansion and still hope that one day Sydney (the city) will become as interested in watching games when their teams aren't playing as the rest of us in the southern States are.

[Diamond_Jim 12,592]

But how long do you go on pumping money into Brisbane, GWS and Gold Coast.

Brisbane is the worry ... they have been there for around 30 years .. won three flags and yet they are now structurally a fail.

What hope for GWS and Gold Coast.

AFL supporters in NSW would be wedded to Sydney. Is there really any hope to grow GWS other than the often repeated mantra .... lots of people in the West.

Gold Coast to Tasmania is just so obvious but it would require the AFL to admit they got it wrong.

[daisycutter 29,616]

dr who speaks with forked tongue

is he a dual citizen?

[DaveyDee 421]

5 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

But how long do you go on pumping money into Brisbane, GWS and Gold Coast.

 

That is a brilliant question. Probably as long as the TV companies & AFL sponsors want National Coverage and the AFL want to continue to grow the game in those areas of Australia

5 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Brisbane is the worry ... they have been there for around 30 years .. won three flags and yet they are now structurally a fail.

What hope for GWS and Gold Coast.

 

Not really AFL is now putting their people into those clubs, it will only take time. 

I would suggest the market according to the AFL in the biggest strife is the over crowded Victorian Market, if revenues further dry up a takeover ( not a merger - the AFL learned from the Failed Brisbane - Fitzroy merger ) will be on the cards. But nothing will happen until a much clearer picture emerges from Pokies & TV rights. Plus the curve ball will come in via the 3rd stadium in Melbourne but that will be delayed until a Federal Election and the pollies are throwing out money for votes. 

5 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Gold Coast to Tasmania is just so obvious but it would require the AFL to admit they got it wrong.

No the obvious one was North Melbourne to Tassie, but think they AFL is now happy with the fly in fly out arrangements North & Hawks have in Tassie. 

[DaveyDee 421]

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

To extend this comment further, the spin machine at the AFL fails to point out the elephant in the room...when Sydney (the team) isn't playing, Sydney (the city) isn't watching. Essentially what this data tells us is that there's always a strong support base in the southern States, but icing is added to the cake when Sydney (the team) plays. 

Nevertheless, I've always been a strong supporter of the AFL's national expansion and still hope that one day Sydney (the city) will become as interested in watching games when their teams aren't playing as the rest of us in the southern States are.

I think you make an excellent point, 2 team town & 2 academies seems to be the strategy to grow the game in NSW. Its not easy to get into the Swans Academy they put a real emphasis these days on NSW talent - which I think is both right and fair.

[Diamond_Jim 12,592]

1 hour ago, DaveyDee said:

I would suggest the market according to the AFL in the biggest strife is the over crowded Victorian Market, if revenues further dry up a takeover ( not a merger - the AFL learned from the Failed Brisbane - Fitzroy merger ) will be on the cards. But nothing will happen until a much clearer picture emerges from Pokies & TV rights. Plus the curve ball will come in via the 3rd stadium in Melbourne but that will be delayed until a Federal Election and the pollies are throwing out money for votes. 

 

No Victorian club draws less than Brisbane ... let alone less than Gold Coast and GWS

Would you like to address the failure of Brisbane... 30 years in a growing AFL area (due to northern immigration from Vic)... three straight premierships and around 7 years of success plus a stadium smack bang in the middle of the city wonderfully served by public transport etc

[Dr. Gonzo 24,226]

Why would the AFL build a 3rd stadium in Vic especially now that they own docklands? The stadium issue is a matter of economics rather than demand exceeding supply, they would only be spending a fortune to have games down the road at the expense of Docklands to save a handful of clubs a few dollars. Doesn't make any sense.

Also AFL was not happy Hawks didn't leave Tassie a couple of years back when they wanted to shaft north and send them south (ironic South ended up going north and now AFL wants to send North south). Don't know if this had changed but I think AFL still has a long game there.

As for the expansion clubs I don't have a problem with the AFL continuing to fund then to ensure they succeed as long as they have the funds to do so. If revenue dries up they would be stupid to continue doing so at the expense of foundation clubs. You can argue whether they should have created these clubs but now that they're there I think the AFL is obliged to see it through. If the locals see that the AFL is in for the long haul rather than cutting and bailing as others have in the past (particularly on GC) I think that will help. It may take decades but in the long run I think it's in the AFL's interest to ensure the northerb expansion succeeds. And I think it will - eventually.

As for the academies they are a farce. They should be gone yesterday. Father son picks should probably go too, or at least if they keep Father son picks let the clubs have their academy picks until they have been around long enough to generate FS prospects.

[Willmoy1947 4,096]

If the AFL are such a mighty organization, why the hell do they keep trying to screw around with the product, which, i think, in the long term could be the  Achilles heel. Equalisation aside, a white paper review on all matters to do with Australian Football should be rostered every ten years in my book.

[DaveyDee 421]

4 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

No Victorian club draws less than Brisbane ... let alone less than Gold Coast and GWS

Would you like to address the failure of Brisbane... 30 years in a growing AFL area (due to northern immigration from Vic)... three straight premierships and around 7 years of success plus a stadium smack bang in the middle of the city wonderfully served by public transport etc

Sorry, I thought I already had - think nearly all at AFL house recognise the Bears / Lions merger was a mistake and they did not get their people inside the club quick enough. However, that is rectified now. Next time although it will be described as a "merger" it will in fact be a takeover. 

Think the AFL feel the mix of teams interstate is right - hence Brisbane will be supported. Not that there is a problem today, but if any club is going it will be the over crowded Melbourne market. 

However, the equalisation fund is in good shape, the game is in good shape, the equalisation fund is being topped up by the maximisation of revenues thanks to the fixture and ironically MFC, Bulldogs, Saints and North are all fully behind the AFL to maximise revenues thru the fixture. 

Think Jackson has said numerous occasions - you earn your own draw/fixture so if we can rebuild our brand, rebuild our memberships, rebuild our crowds, rebuild our sponsorships, rebuild out TV ratings, maintain competitive football department spending and find alternative revenue streams we will be fine - as will all the other Melbourne based sides.  

I should add - which many around here want to conveniently forget is .... 

It was not that long ago we were writing cheques to pay off debt and play games at the MCG - if those days were to return Im confident the AFL will not step in if we are self managed.  

Edited December 5, 2017 by DaveyDee

[DaveyDee 421]

16 minutes ago, willmoy said:

If the AFL are such a mighty organization, why the hell do they keep trying to screw around with the product, which, i think, in the long term could be the  Achilles heel. Equalisation aside, a white paper review on all matters to do with Australian Football should be rostered every ten years in my book.

Think its called moving with the times and many of the rule changes are a result of clubs/coaches trying to manipulate the system. 

The only rule change I can recall recently that was not the above - was the no second man up in the ruck, but that was disguised to save those dinosaur ruckman who the AFL recognised are near extinction and its a unique part of the game the AFL want to save.