Full Review of the AFL called for by Swans and Hawks

[Superunknown 4,217]

2 hours ago, dl4e said:

Get rid of the suns and gws. From Vic North and the saints can go. Hawthorn down to tassie. Carlton can merge with Essendon. The filth can merge with Richmond. That will keep people happy.

except 200k tigers and pies members

[The Chazz 4,077]

39 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Hawthorn's revenue structure would take a decent hit if it were to lose the Tasmanian Government funding.

 

The AFL would pay Hawthorn the shortfall that the Tas revenue brings them.  I'd imagine it would be less than what the AFL are currently spending on North.

[FireInTheBennelly 4,072]

So two of the clubs that benefited from the dilution of the talent pool, and compromised drafts while they were at the top, are now arguing we can't support this many teams any longer, because they have finally started to bottom out?

Sounds legit.

[The Chazz 4,077]

55 minutes ago, old dee said:

After the failure of our merger I don't think there will ever be one in the future. What will probably happen is a club will get into the Fitzroy position. The AFL will take it over and either move it or close it up. 

Our failed merger was 1996.  That's 24 years ago, and we are also in the middle of a global pandemic that has cost the industry millions and millions of dollars.  It's a totally different landscape now, Old Dee.

If the AFL want two clubs to merge, they just turn the income tap back and both clubs will have no option, which will then see the AFL  financially support.

I had this sneaky feeling (perhaps MFCSS) back when PJ was in charge.  A significant amount of our marketing/branding centred around us being Melbourne.  It was almost like they dropped the Demons.  Even now the Club tries to refer to us as Melbourne supporters, or the "red + blue" talk that I absolutely loathe.  I remember back then it felt like we were being set up for the possibility of playing one day without the Demons.  From memory, PJ actually said something along the lines of "there will always be a Melbourne Football Club", never mentioned the Demons part.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,865]

1 hour ago, The Chazz said:

As a side note, I wish they would publish the membership numbers of full memberships per club, and not include the 3-game ones, baby members, pet memberships, etc.

 

Exactly.

St Kilda had a tremendous membership increase this year but I'd be interested to know how many token 1 and 3 games members they had compared to what we had.

[Sir Why You Little 37,054]

2 hours ago, drdrake said:

The AFL do need to relocate sides but the concern is players won't stay.  Ideally GWS should be in Canberra, Gold Coast should have been in Tassie however Tassie is the fall back for a failing club, the Bulldogs or North should be in Ballarat.

The AFL banked on the lifestyle in Sydney and Gold coast to keep players at the club.  How long they can keep funding this time will tell.

Geelong is a successful club as they have a hole region of supporters and own stadium.  They also target kids from the Geelong falcons and go after players that have been recruited to other clubs from their region.  Need to replicate this in other large regional areas, Ballarat is ideal 1 hour from Melbourne, existing stadium which can be continued to be developed.

You could also make a case for a club to move to the East, Gippsland way giving them Eastern Ranges and Dandenong Stingrays and you build like Geelong.  You could have Geelong, Ballarat and Pakenham, basically the 100km rim outside Melbourne.

 

The AFL aern’t going to send Clubs to Country towns. 

The expansion Clubs exist entirely for Broadcast reasons. Straight up the East Coast, where the Population lives. 
Games on each weekend 

it’s that simple 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

The Swans!! That is bloody rich coming from them

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Hawthorn's revenue structure would take a decent hit if it were to lose the Tasmanian Government funding.

 

Not to mention their pokies licenses

[Witches Hat 448]

13 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

never waste a crisis, as they say...

This is a great opportunity to revamp the competition but the AFL won't budge from 18 teams because of the TV money.

My personal preference would be a 16 team competition with two divisions of eight. Play everyone in your own division twice and those in the other division once for a 22 game season. I'd even go as far as promotion/relegation.

As for the two to go, logic dictates Suns and Giants. 

Of course there is the distinct possibility that when Western Australia secede President McGowan builds the border wall leaving West Coast and Freo to play in their own separate competition.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,242]

I really don't know what this is all about but I'm certain of one thing - if Kennett is involved, altruism won't be on the agenda.

[Diamond_Jim 12,600]

22 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The AFL aern’t going to send Clubs to Country towns. 

The expansion Clubs exist entirely for Broadcast reasons. Straight up the East Coast, where the Population lives. 
Games on each weekend 

it’s that simple 

You hear that mantra discussed often but given the crowds of the second team in Sydney and Brisbane it doesn't really hold water. When the TV ratings for the second team are published they rarely score well.

They also used to agrue that it got them media coverage but that is probably not borne out by reality either.

Knowing a few Swans supporters in Sydney they have no interest whatsoever in GWS.

One other point...big revenue growth in the next ten years will be in crowds and sponsorship not media money. Fewer teams the bigger the crowds between the surviving teams.

PS...one good thing is that this has spelled the end of the China junkets

Edited October 16, 2020 by Diamond_Jim

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

I created a thread when Kennett first raised this a few months back. The AFL has pursued agendas for 27 years that have benefited the big clubs at the expense of the smaller clubs. They have an agenda to maximise crowds/ratings at the expense of the middle-smaller clubs who have been hamstrung by these policies to be able to grow their brand. They also did not put in place a revenue sharing model which meant that the ones who benefited from these policies were those clubs who were preferences by the AFL. Now the piper has come calling they want these smaller clubs to explain why they are in financial strife! Decades of poor scheduling has led to this, minimal exposure on tv, constantly fixtured for dead timeslots against interstate clubs, big clubs getting return fixtures each year against each other, clubs sold a lemon with ground rationalisation and being stuck with poor stadium deals so they AFL could meet their own contractual obligations etc etc The small clubs did not stand up for themselves at the time and push back on this and now they are at the mercy of the big clubs

The WA clubs and Adelaide will no doubt join Thai chorus as they are tired of what is seen as their financial success propping up the Vic clubs. Reducing the number of Vic clubs will also swing the balance in their favour so they have greater control over the commission's decisions particularly when it comes to decisions such as the location of the Grand Final for example

[Sir Why You Little 37,054]

3 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

You hear that mantra discussed often but given the crowds of the second team in Sydney and Brisbane it doesn't really hold water.

They also used to ague that it got them media coverage but that is probably not borne out by reality either.

Knowing a few Swans supporters in Sydney they have no interest whatsoever in GWS.

One other point...big revenue growth in the next ten years will be in crowds and sponsorship not media money. Fewer teams the bigger the crowds between the surviving teams.

It’s 9 games a weekend on TV. That pays a lot more than 8 games

It’s that simple. It’s got nothing to do with Crowds or Membeships, it is advertising revenue on the East Coast of Australia 

the $ Billion deals pay for The $uns and GW$ with small change

That is why they exist

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

8 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

You hear that mantra discussed often but given the crowds of the second team in Sydney and Brisbane it doesn't really hold water. When the TV ratings for the second team are published they rarely score well.

They also used to agrue that it got them media coverage but that is probably not borne out by reality either.

Knowing a few Swans supporters in Sydney they have no interest whatsoever in GWS.

One other point...big revenue growth in the next ten years will be in crowds and sponsorship not media money. Fewer teams the bigger the crowds between the surviving teams.

PS...one good thing is that this has spelled the end of the China junkets

They point to participation rates as the key metric of success. Their strategy is over the course of 2-3 decades to get the kids playing footy and grow up to be adults who support the Sun's/GWS. On that metric (participation rates) the expansion clubs have been a success and I think they should remain where they are so they can reap the benefits of this in the future.

Edited October 16, 2020 by Dr. Gonzo

[Sir Why You Little 37,054]

9 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:big revenue growth in the next ten years will be in crowds and sponsorship not media money. Fewer teams the bigger the crowds between the surviving teams.

 

No. If anything Media deals will get bigger. It’s all about TV and Streaming Deals. Crowds at games will probably get smaller

It’s too expensive to take a family to a game now. Easier to watch on the HD Screen

[Diamond_Jim 12,600]

Show Replies

22 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It’s 9 games a weekend on TV. That pays a lot more than 8 games

do you really believe that ?? when the ninth game is GCS playing Freo??

Australia wide ratings 200k at most

Half decent Youtubers get more views

[Cards13 9,117]

2 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

i have always heard that the afl hierarchy was more focused on expansion rather than contraction

i personally can't see the new northern franchises disappearing, which means it's the small vic clubs which are under pressure: north, saints, footscray, and us are the obvious low hanging fruit

fingers crossed we survive any impending cull

Footscray won’t go, it’s North, Saints and us under the pump I’m Vic I’d suggest. 
 

I would watch almost every game, every week. I’d watch as many of the footy related shows as I could along with playing local footy. I’ve not watched a whole game this season unless it’s been a Dees game. I’ve not watched more than 5 mins of a game since the Dees last match. I don’t even know who is playing the Prelims... the competition needs a looking at and not just to appease rich clubs and keep them in business at the expense of smaller clubs. 

[Diamond_Jim 12,600]

19 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

No. If anything Media deals will get bigger. It’s all about TV and Streaming Deals. Crowds at games will probably get smaller

No they wont

Do the sums...AFL is a loss leader for Foxtel which has said that it won't pay more.

The FTA channels are all making a loss.

 

[Cards13 9,117]

2 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

No they wont

Do the sums...AFL is a loss leader for Foxtel which has said that it won't pay more.

The FTA channels are all making a loss.

 

Depends if it is Amazon vs Apple vs Netflix bidding for the rights?

[Sir Why You Little 37,054]

9 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Show Replies

do you really believe that ?? when the ninth game is GCS playing Freo??

Australia wide ratings 200k at most

Half decent Youtubers get more views

Yes i do believe it. It is why the 2 clubs were invented 

i hate them. But i know why they were created

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,865]

49 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The Swans!! That is bloody rich coming from them

Swans eh?

Is that the club that used to regularly get 5,000 to their home games (and we're not talking a COVID restricted 5,000) 

[Sir Why You Little 37,054]

8 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

No they wont

Do the sums...AFL is a loss leader for Foxtel which has said that it won't pay more.

The FTA channels are all making a loss.

 

FTA may be making a loss, but not with AFL. 

The AFL is keeping Ch 7 and Fox functioning

 

[Diamond_Jim 12,600]

5 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Depends if it is Amazon vs Apple vs Netflix bidding for the rights?

If it was the NBA you might be right but why would those behemoths care about the additional subs they could get from AFL.

The bidders are more likely the Phone companies Telstra and Optus to support their digital presence but at present they have only committed small money. 

[deegirl 1,578]

2 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

I have heard a bit of chatter around that in one form or another North will be pushed to Tassie, and that internally the AFL are keen on a StK/Footscray merger

 

Footscray & St Kilda.  That's hipster supporter paradise.

[Age 485]

AFL has continually said that the need to produce the number of games that they do is how they get the current TV money. This year may have shown them that it they reduce the number of teams but increase the number of rounds, they could still get the same number of games televised and across more nights of the week which keeps the broadcasters even happier. Even being able to have rolling fixtures where they can maximise viewership by scheduling the bigger games has shown it can be done, such as how the NRL does. 

Who knows how long we may have to keep dealing with COVID and have restrictions on crowd numbers. If we can never have a full MCG again then the need to maximise crowds doesn't have to be a priority, leaving it solely to maximise viewership. 

It will be interesting to see the direction the AFL takes, more than likely they will head down the viewership path, whether clubs survive that shift will be another matter.