Coronavirus: AFL & MFC

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

Just some thoughts....

The only rationale I have heard for the existence/continuation of the GCS is that of maintaining a media presence in a large market. The argument goes that if you only have Brisbane playing each two weeks the AFL coverage is flooded by the coverage of other sports namely NRL. As part of this is the argument saying Brisbane/Queensland needs a local live TV game each week.

The downside is that it splits the local following and sponsorship etc which were available to Brisbane. Crowd wise Brisbane and GCS will always struggle. There just isn't the historical tribal base that delivers crowds week on week.

You could say the same about GWS but I think that with the right product (particularly the inclusion of the ACT) that team is worth investing in. FWIW I think they made a mistake basing the team in Western Sydney. Sounded good but a central base is what was needed. Then again the Sydney Olympics saw the Sydney sporting precinct being moved a long way from central Sydney. They have struggled ever since to win the hearts of the the local as a desirable go to destination.

While we are at it Port and Freo should not escape review. A few years back Port were in trouble. By keeping their old Magpie connection they alienated 70% of the local market.They need to realign and take advantage of the fact that following the Crows is financially prohibitive due to closed membership lists etc. I don't know enough about Freo but I expect they need to take a similar path.

Tasmania...maybe but they need a covered stadium which they cannot afford.

[Ohio USA - David 107]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The only ones pushing for mergers will be the non-Vic clubs - they will want to shift the balance of power outside Victoria so they can drive their agendas such as moving the Grand Final away from the MCG

NB - we clearly CAN support 10 teams in Melbourne, we have been doing so for almost 100 years. If the AFL didn't hamstring clubs with biased fixturing and stadium deals or implemented a revenue sharing arrangement like exists in competitions such as the NFL clubs would easily be able to stand on their own. The AFL looks after the AFL's bottom line at the expense of the clubs. Clubs should be pocketing the majority of AFL revenue however when the AFL hands out a million dollars here or there they act as if they are doing the clubs a favour! They should never have been withholding that money in the first place.

These are  shortsightedness arguments. The League and in turn the Clubs are bigger than you and me and their aim is for long term security. Unfortunately this Virus interruption has brought Clubs back to reality both financially and vulnerability and they WILL to to look after number 1.  They most definitely will start to look outside the square, the bubble of past AFL life  and consider life long deliverance. That will include mergers. The AFL is run by the Clubs equally and they will band together for long term survival against the odds at present. Watch this space.

 

[Jack Russell 80]

55 minutes ago, Ohio USA - David said:

These are  shortsightedness arguments. The League and in turn the Clubs are bigger than you and me and their aim is for long term security. Unfortunately this Virus interruption has brought Clubs back to reality both financially and vulnerability and they WILL to to look after number 1.  They most definitely will start to look outside the square, the bubble of past AFL life  and consider life long deliverance. That will include mergers. The AFL is run by the Clubs equally and they will band together for long term survival against the odds at present. Watch this space.

 

With respect you are completely wrong - watch this space. Also read Goyder’s letter 18 clubs going in 18 clubs coming out. Talk of mergers is 1990s type hyperbole. We are more likely to end up with 20 or 22 clubs than less Why? Media rights and the fixture.  Watch this space yep heard about mergers since the 1990s

[Dante 2,739]

 

On another matter, I saw Jake Lever doing a solo of the Tan the other day, he looks fit albeit really thin.

[Ohio USA - David 107]

56 minutes ago, Jack Russell said:

With respect you are completely wrong - watch this space. Also read Goyder’s letter 18 clubs going in 18 clubs coming out. Talk of mergers is 1990s type hyperbole. We are more likely to end up with 20 or 22 clubs than less Why? Media rights and the fixture.  Watch this space yep heard about mergers since the 1990s

You are entitled to your narrow perspective. I am looking long term as a result of this turmoil. My opinion for what it is worth. The AFL are not going to spill all the coffee beans they will leave some in the cup to mature.

[The Stigga 1,094]

2 hours ago, Ohio USA - David said:

These are  shortsightedness arguments. The League and in turn the Clubs are bigger than you and me and their aim is for long term security. Unfortunately this Virus interruption has brought Clubs back to reality both financially and vulnerability and they WILL to to look after number 1.  They most definitely will start to look outside the square, the bubble of past AFL life  and consider life long deliverance. That will include mergers. The AFL is run by the Clubs equally and they will band together for long term survival against the odds at present. Watch this space.

 

 

Gill's a Saints supporter, as long as he's there they're going nowhere...

 

Edited April 1, 2020 by The Stigga

[The Stigga 1,094]

16 minutes ago, Ohio USA - David said:

You are entitled to your narrow perspective. I am looking long term as a result of this turmoil. My opinion for what it is worth. The AFL are not going to spill all the coffee beans they will leave some in the cup to mature.

Respect your right to have an opinion, but mergers won't work in Victoria, teams are either in or out in their current guise.

 

[Cards13 9,117]

3 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Just some thoughts....

The only rationale I have heard for the existence/continuation of the GCS is that of maintaining a media presence in a large market. The argument goes that if you only have Brisbane playing each two weeks the AFL coverage is flooded by the coverage of other sports namely NRL. As part of this is the argument saying Brisbane/Queensland needs a local live TV game each week.

The downside is that it splits the local following and sponsorship etc which were available to Brisbane. Crowd wise Brisbane and GCS will always struggle. There just isn't the historical tribal base that delivers crowds week on week.

You could say the same about GWS but I think that with the right product (particularly the inclusion of the ACT) that team is worth investing in. FWIW I think they made a mistake basing the team in Western Sydney. Sounded good but a central base is what was needed. Then again the Sydney Olympics saw the Sydney sporting precinct being moved a long way from central Sydney. They have struggled ever since to win the hearts of the the local as a desirable go to destination.

While we are at it Port and Freo should not escape review. A few years back Port were in trouble. By keeping their old Magpie connection they alienated 70% of the local market.They need to realign and take advantage of the fact that following the Crows is financially prohibitive due to closed membership lists etc. I don't know enough about Freo but I expect they need to take a similar path.

Tasmania...maybe but they need a covered stadium which they cannot afford.

Read an article the other day saying the Port Magpies are in real trouble and could go under without government help.

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

34 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Read an article the other day saying the Port Magpies are in real trouble and could go under without government help.

I read that as well. I thought they owned the AFL licence for the Power but perhaps they lost that under their last financial restructure??

PS: Having done a wikipedia search it seems that the SANFL own the Power's AFL licence

Edited April 1, 2020 by Diamond_Jim

[darkhorse72 1,925]

42 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Read an article the other day saying the Port Magpies are in real trouble and could go under without government help.

I thought “merging” with AFL port saved them a few years ago as they are now the same entity.

[Demonland 73,140]

 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

2 hours ago, Dante said:

 

On another matter, I saw Jake Lever doing a solo of the Tan the other day, he looks fit albeit really thin.

It was only a bit over a week ago we saw him play in a game, I doubt he would have changed too much since then.

[Demonland 73,140]

 

[Demonland 73,140]

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

It was only a bit over a week ago we saw him play in a game, I doubt he would have changed too much since then.

You know what they say; A week is a long time in football.

[Demonland 73,140]

 

[Demonland 73,140]

 

[Demonland 73,140]

 

[Cards13 9,117]

36 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

“Happy for”? NUmerous NRL players are back working regular jobs, you would assume A League, NBL, Rugby etc players are all looking for work or at Centrelink. 

[Macca 17,033]

5 hours ago, The Stigga said:

Respect your right to have an opinion, but mergers won't work in Victoria, teams are either in or out in their current guise.

 

Agreed

Mergers would never work in Victoria ... 95% of the supporters care way more about their team than they do the game itself. 

Merging 2 teams within Victoria would be like merging the White Sox & Cubs,  Yankees & Mets,  City & United or the Reds with the Toffees.  Or Freo & the Eagles. 

Anytime there is a match-up between 2 Victorian teams there's often over 140 years of history between those 2 clubs.  1877 is a better starting point rather than 1897.  200+ games to boot (each match-up)

It wouldn't work and the new entities would probably have less supporters & members.

Most would rather see their team die than merge.  Footy is all about the passion,  the colours,  the theme song,  the jumper and history and past greats.

And not many care about the money either ... we just want our teams to win.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,297]

8 hours ago, Ohio USA - David said:

With respect I disagree with your views. The Clubs outside of Victoria have it made and I am confident that Gold Coast Suns are on the right trajectory. The market is crowded in Victoria and the discussion of a merger has been on the tables for years and will continue to be until it is resolved.

With the now Corona virus cutting income and creating debt for Clubs the next move will be player and Coach contracts that will take a move backwards as far as growth goes. No longer $$$ contracts, reality has to settle in and Clubs will be forced to look at ways of pushing that boundary given the unknown factors of the VFL and its immediate pathway. Financially the AFL and clubs need to start looking outside the square. This is the beginning of that move outwards... watch this space.  

You need to explain how relocating/merging or killing off any clubs is going to lead to a better bottom line. In the 80s/90s I could see the argument. But these days with the size of the tv rights contracts that rely just as much on volume of games as quality and with each Victorian club having a minimum of 35k paying members (most at least 40k) the financial argument to get rid of Vic clubs does not make sense.

Ifyou merge 2 Vic clubs with 40k members each you're not going to all of a sudden have a club with 80k - a lot of those supporters will be lost to footy.

 

[Moonshadow 17,677]

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

Eddie looking ridiculous and losing his cool. Was a very straightforward and simple question. Of course Eddie knew the answer and dodged it like there was no tomorrow (which could be a reality for some clubs).

For all the criticisms people might have of Pert, I'm glad he doesn't carry on like Eddie

[gs77 4,445]

51 minutes ago, Macca said:

Agreed

Mergers would never work in Victoria ... 95% of the supporters care way more about their team than they do the game itself. 

Merging 2 teams within Victoria would be like merging the White Sox & Cubs,  Yankees & Mets,  City & United or the Reds with the Toffees.  Or Freo & the Eagles. 

Anytime there is a match-up between 2 Victorian teams there's often over 140 years of history between those 2 clubs.  1877 is a better starting point rather than 1897.  200+ games to boot (each match-up)

It wouldn't work and the new entities would probably have less supporters & members.

Most would rather see their team die than merge.  Footy is all about the passion,  the colours,  the theme song,  the jumper and history and past greats.

And not many care about the money either ... we just want our teams to win.

Out of curiosity, does anyone have any firm numbers on how many Fitzroy supporters were lost to the game after their merger? I can't imagine being nearly as interested in the game if the Dees were pushed into a merger.

[Demonland 73,140]

 

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

2 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Eddie looking ridiculous and losing his cool. Was a very straightforward and simple question. Of course Eddie knew the answer and dodged it like there was no tomorrow (which could be a reality for some clubs).

For all the criticisms people might have of Pert, I'm glad he doesn't carry on like Eddie

They have no answer because in reality they have already spent (a lot?? of)  the money.

Have a look at airlines "refunding" money if you want a similar lesson in obfuscation.

Time for some honesty,,,,, perhaps

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

2 hours ago, gs77 said:

Out of curiosity, does anyone have any firm numbers on how many Fitzroy supporters were lost to the game after their merger? I can't imagine being nearly as interested in the game if the Dees were pushed into a merger.

it does not matter if the departing club is a negative,,,, and fwiw the  Melbourne Lions supporters were ecstatic over the Brisbane 3 peat