13 minutes ago, one_demon said:

Yep.  The AFL is constant fodder for perennial wingers, but it's the the most successful sporting competition in the country.   You don't get that unless it's well run.

Sadly I don’t share your enthusiasm od.

i think we can all agree that the afl is the most professionally run sporting organisation in oztraya?

certainly the most successful

Apparently we're eyeing off two "perennial wingers" in Isaac Smith and Tom Phillips.

Doesn't matter what anybody except Channel 7 want. They own the league now. I suspect they don't want any less games, so either it stays the same or teams play each other more often.

Still, I look forward to hearing more from fans of clubs who can be 99.9% sure their side will never fold, merge or relocate.

Edited October 17, 20204 yr by Supermercado

28 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

Doesn't matter what anybody except Channel 7 want.

Channel 7 don't even pay for half of the media rights.

"Seven is paying $840 million in cash and $60 million in contra for the rights, with Foxtel paying $1.3 billion and Telstra paying about a reported $300 million."

https://www.ausleisure.com.au/news/afl-looks-to-extend-seven-network-broadcast-deal/

My only take on this question is that if JKennett thinks its a good idea, then the only person who would benefit and then only in the short term is JKennett and the Dorks.

Think the same for the Sydney Swans. I doubt very much if anyone from the Melbourne based clubs. Apart from those with the biggest fan bases would gain much at all. The clubs pushing this are not interested in the whole of the competition  success rather their own individual success.

They should structure the games so we all play each other twice, Home and Away.  Increase the number of games played, and the players can keep being paid too much.

If you can get Tassie in there so much the better,

Just my take !

3 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Channel 7 don't even pay for half of the media rights.

"Seven is paying $840 million in cash and $60 million in contra for the rights, with Foxtel paying $1.3 billion and Telstra paying about a reported $300 million."

https://www.ausleisure.com.au/news/afl-looks-to-extend-seven-network-broadcast-deal/

That's the sort of deal that has got them where they are today - financially clinging on by a thread. $1.3 billion for exclusive rights to Freo vs Gold Coast at 4.40 on a Sunday, good thinking. 

It's pretty amusing when people talk about Clubs needing to be being financially independent of AFL funds.

It seems to me that they're forgetting that the Clubs playing in the AFL are the ones generating all the 'AFL' money, including the broadcast agreements - without the Clubs there's no 'AFL money' worth talking about.

Split the broadcast money 18 ways and all the Clubs are looking pretty financially independent, even if COVID meant you couldn't have crowds.

Edited October 17, 20204 yr by Rogue

On 10/15/2020 at 9:11 PM, Better days ahead said:

The AFL in its current guise is unsustainable. The suns are a waste of time and money. A drain. GWS not much better. All the while, Tasmania, a genuine footy state and capable of supporting a team with a leg up is ignored.

HQ full of suits, consultants and hangers on that contribute zip to the game. I mean, half those roles have gone as a result of the pandemic and you wouldn’t notice.

The AFL is run by a few for the benefit of a few. All that money flows to the top to pay an elite group of administrators and players. It’s wrong. I’d much prefer to see a model whereby much more funds were distributed to local footy clubs and facilities, coaching for kids, grassroots. The game is for the people not for a few to enrich themselves.

It would be a silver lining if the pandemic forced a re-think and a more egalitarian model. Won’t happen though. Too many powerful clubs and vested interests. Too much money at stake. All that'll happen is a couple of clubs get squeezed out and their share divvied up amongst the remainder.

I've never understood this argument about Tassie. You'd literally need a quarter of the capital city's population to turn up each week. 

Also, those other markets are a long term project with a far greater potential for growing the game. If you were thinking that in 50 years time we might have a team outside of Australia, you've got to break into the largest and toughest markets here first.

Tassie already supports the AFL and you could make a sentimental argument that they deserve a team (and I would agree), but if you're wanting to grow the game, Tassie is inconsequential.

44 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

That's the sort of deal that has got them where they are today - financially clinging on by a thread. $1.3 billion for exclusive rights to Freo vs Gold Coast at 4.40 on a Sunday, good thinking. 

spot on ... but it also underscores that the media money is heading down not up

Foxtel might put up the money if they got the prime games and 7 got the crumbs

On 10/17/2020 at 8:38 PM, Cheesy D. Pun said:

I've never understood this argument about Tassie. You'd literally need a quarter of the capital city's population to turn up each week. 

Also, those other markets are a long term project with a far greater potential for growing the game. If you were thinking that in 50 years time we might have a team outside of Australia, you've got to break into the largest and toughest markets here first.

Tassie already supports the AFL and you could make a sentimental argument that they deserve a team (and I would agree), but if you're wanting to grow the game, Tassie is inconsequential.

Given the people of VIC already support AFL, they're going to support the AFL regardless, so we should probably permanently relocate the 10 teams somewhere there's a far greater potential for growing the game ;)

56 minutes ago, Rogue said:

Given the people of VIC already support AFL, they're going to support the AFL regardless, so we should probably permanently relocate the 10 teams somewhere there's a far greater potential for growing the game ;)

I understand what you're getting at and you're right but unscrambling the egg is a lot harder than not cracking it in the first place.

Edited October 18, 20204 yr by Cheesy D. Pun

On 10/16/2020 at 3:36 AM, drdrake said:

Geelong is a successful club as they have a hole region of supporters

Freudian slip...?

On 10/16/2020 at 6:09 AM, Dr. Gonzo said:

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.

According to my cousin, an awful lot of kids playing footy in SW QLD, including the son of a league legend....

On 10/16/2020 at 5:27 PM, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Simple solution - just get rid of the bottom 4 teams from this season.

Serously, Jeff Kennett is vulture like.  F@#% off Jeff.

Was up by Parliament House one afternoon, and happened to see Jeff giving a press conference. Back in the 90's sometime. He does resemble an animal, but not a vulture ... a much more lizard-like creature. Anyone remember V?

On 10/17/2020 at 4:37 AM, Rab D Nesbitt said:

There's a wee bit of relatively flat land that could be levelled just up from the beach. There'd be no need to turn on the sprinklers the night before a game. 

But they would anyway. Fed with whiskey, or so I have read....

On 10/17/2020 at 5:11 AM, old dee said:

Until there is an effective vaccine I cannot see crowds being allowed into games in Victoria I.e. if we have any games here. I am in the kill zone of the virus and I am simply not going to big crowd events. Will need a miracle IMO for our lives to return to the old “normal” in 2021. I will just have to be happy with 1 in 3 games on FTA tv. I live in hope that this review / discussions by  the clubs On the AFL produces some changes. It is time for a new  crew at HQ level the old boys club must go. The future needs people who are not wedded to their high  salaries and perks. As an example the number they took to QLD for the finals is ridiculous, half that number should have gone for half the period. 

For those on tight budgets, a VPN will let you 'locate' your device outside Australia, and the MFC has a membership which includes subscription for the WatchAFL app. Not sure on the legal aspect... I'll have to delve into that and get back to you... oh..... sometime next year....  

Kills two birds....

1 hour ago, Grr-owl said:

According to my cousin, an awful lot of kids playing footy in SW QLD, including the son of a league legend....

Exactly. Their trying to get into the schools and getting kids playing footy instead of league. They give out free tickets so the kids get their parents to bring them along to games. It's a bold long term strategy and one I agree with. Sydney and Brisbane are the two major markets for advertiser's next to Melbourne, they don't care about Perth, Adelaide, Tassie or Darwin. Its the best way of ensuring the long term viability of the code financially as well as opening up development opportunities for talent in those areas which will ultimately increase the player pool and benefit everyone.

That's not to say it should be at the expense of Tassie, I'd love to see a Tassie side in the AFL. But there's no reason both things can't happen.

1 hour ago, Grr-owl said:

For those on tight budgets, a VPN will let you 'locate' your device outside Australia, and the MFC has a membership which includes subscription for the WatchAFL app. Not sure on the legal aspect... I'll have to delve into that and get back to you... oh..... sometime next year....  

Kills two birds....

There is no legal aspect. What you are referring to is perfectly legal, I do the same thing with my NFL gamepass subscription and save about $150 a year.

I made reference to this 2 weeks ago. Dogs and Saints are getting pressured to merge. North Melbourne heading South. The other leak of Blakey coaching with Roos mentoring at the Roos has come about, maybe St. Dogs could be a thing... or Dogma anyone?

9 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

But they would anyway. Fed with whiskey, or so I have read....

If it's whiskey Grr-owl that would make it irish. In Scotland it's whisky. Just a subtle difference. 

10 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

For those on tight budgets, a VPN will let you 'locate' your device outside Australia, and the MFC has a membership which includes subscription for the WatchAFL app. Not sure on the legal aspect... I'll have to delve into that and get back to you... oh..... sometime next year....  

Kills two birds....

I Never cease to be amazed at the ways people have to get around the “system” . Thanks for the advise. Really there is so much we don’t know and won’t know for months yet that I am not sure why I bother  thinking of the alternatives. Perhaps it is having nothing to do and speculation is the only form of amusement. 

I heard Andrew Pridham interviewed over the weeked. His proposal is much more than the number of teams in the competition. He wants everything looked at - governance, structure, rules, revenue streams, etc. And I think he's right. The last comprehensive review of this type was done 27 years ago by David Crawford. A lot has changed since, and not just in the AFL.

There are different technologies (streaming, social media); there's more competition for people's time (does game time need to be shortened? for example); the big cities have grown at the expense of rural areas (what impact has this had on grass roots football?), AFL now has significant competition from other codes (such as NRL and soccer in Melbourne) which didn't exist 27 years ago, the game style has changed so much in the last 27 years to the extent that many claim it is unwatchable, the second-tier competition chops and changes all the time, etc. And all that is before the financial effects of Covid-19. A proper review needs to look at all these things and more to ensure a wholistic approach is taken to the next 25 years of the AFL.

The AFL can't sit on its hands and say that all wisdom resides within the current Commission.

On 10/17/2020 at 8:12 PM, Rogue said:

It's pretty amusing when people talk about Clubs needing to be being financially independent of AFL funds.

It seems to me that they're forgetting that the Clubs playing in the AFL are the ones generating all the 'AFL' money, including the broadcast agreements - without the Clubs there's no 'AFL money' worth talking about.

Split the broadcast money 18 ways and all the Clubs are looking pretty financially independent, even if COVID meant you couldn't have crowds.

In the NFl every club get 260 million each every season from broadcast deal

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

In the NFl every club get 260 million each every season from broadcast deal

If our clubs each got $260 million every year, they'd have NFI what to do with it.