Oppo Camp Non-Eagles Discussion

[briztoon]

Surely she'd understand it for the West Coast BigFooty board meet-up at Baldivis Subway.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

Bro felt disrespected by Freo's apparent contract offer after only playing like six games in four seasons...now I don't like the Dockers as much as the next Eagles fan but even I think that's dumb as hell to crap on them like that when you didn't play at all

 

[Chris_6678]

Bro felt disrespected by Freo's apparent contract offer after only playing like six games in four seasons...now I don't like the Dockers as much as the next Eagles fan but even I think that's dumb as hell to crap on them like that when you didn't play at all

lol yeah he didnt deserve 2 years..

 

[Farang83150]

Bro felt disrespected by Freo's apparent contract offer after only playing like six games in four seasons...now I don't like the Dockers as much as the next Eagles fan but even I think that's dumb as hell to crap on them like that when you didn't play at all

Yeah but if It puts more players off wanting to go to Freo then it can only be a good thing

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

If Hambling was at the Eagles we would have offered him what he wanted and prayed he was a good bloke and retired instead of accept it.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

If they're going to make bank on selling a game to Optus/WA then I fully support them also forcing a rival premiership threat notorious for their lack of travel to get on the bird to WA.

Would probably mean both wce and freo play pies at marvel

 

[Truckosaurus]

Would probably mean both wce and freo play pies at marvel

I'm sure that if it happens the AFL will arrange things so that either Collingwood don't have to play a WA team away or only play one of us away. They're not going to stop being looked after just because Brisbane lose their home ground.

 

[Keys]

The above is a breakdown of North’s revenue. Ignore the first line as all clubs get that as their share of AFL revenue from TV rights etc

Take note of the second line though. AFL funding is what they put in to keep clubs alive which as a general rule we get nothing or next to nothing each year

Even with the AFL tipping in just shy of $9m North only made a profit of about $300k

Tell me again why they’re in this league

 

[Monocle]

Tell me again why they’re in this league

They give vAFL House an opportunity to display their philanthropic disposition.



Mamma Kanes pet hobby, propping up the shinbeggars.

 

[Feeling Groovy]

It also “explains” why there is an opaque two tier priority pick/ draft assistance system where certain clubs heavily funded by the AFL continue to get leg ups. North are unsustainable and the AFL has no integrity.

 

[InTheWings]

View attachment 1868223


The above is a breakdown of North’s revenue. Ignore the first line as all clubs get that as their share of AFL revenue from TV rights etc

Take note of the second line though. AFL funding is what they put in to keep clubs alive which as a general rule we get nothing or next to nothing each year

Even with the AFL tipping in just shy of $9m North only made a profit of about $300k

Tell me again why they’re in this league

$89,000,000 of AFL funding every 10 years...

 

[DanWCE]

It also “explains” why there is an opaque two tier priority pick/ draft assistance system where certain clubs heavily funded by the AFL continue to get leg ups. North are unsustainable and the AFL has no integrity.

I'm convinced they're heading to Tassie armed with a list stacked with concession picks before the real Tassie drafts kick in.

 

[Cuzz09]

$89,000,000 of AFL funding every 10 years...

Port too

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RookiePick]

Port too

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

Port were promised 119,000,000

 

[Ochre]

View attachment 1868223


The above is a breakdown of North’s revenue. Ignore the first line as all clubs get that as their share of AFL revenue from TV rights etc

Take note of the second line though. AFL funding is what they put in to keep clubs alive which as a general rule we get nothing or next to nothing each year

Even with the AFL tipping in just shy of $9m North only made a profit of about $300k

Tell me again why they’re in this league

The ninth game every weekend is surely adding more than $9m a year to the TV rights.

 

[Wedgetailed Westerner]

View attachment 1868223


The above is a breakdown of North’s revenue. Ignore the first line as all clubs get that as their share of AFL revenue from TV rights etc

Take note of the second line though. AFL funding is what they put in to keep clubs alive which as a general rule we get nothing or next to nothing each year

Even with the AFL tipping in just shy of $9m North only made a profit of about $300k

Tell me again why they’re in this league

Off to post this on the tin rattlers board. Wish me luck

 

[dewcefault]

The ninth game every weekend is surely adding more than $9m a year to the TV rights.

It's an interesting question.
The latest TV rights deal is worth $640m / yr. There are 207 regular season games (23 * 9) + 9 finals.
That means that extra game is a little over 10% of the total number of games.
Maximum value of that extra game is $64m/yr significantly more than $9m but as we all know not all games are equal.

Finals are worth significantly more than a normal game. Friday nights carry a huge premium. Saturday nights too. Thursday nights are also marquee.
I'm going to make a few assumptions:
Finals worth 5times a regular season game.
Fri + 2 Sat nights worth double.
I'll ignore other times like thursdays for simplicity.

Using the above the extra game is worth about 7% which is $45m/yr.

If you eliminate a second povo club like st kilda you free up about $18m. You're still shy $27m/yr. Can you capture the remainder of that with less games of a higher quality? Maybe combined with more standalone fixtures it's possible to be close to cost neutral.

The other thing in my view is that the product has been diluted with the extra teams, we don't have the talent to sustain 18/19 teams and a 16 or 14 team comp would be significantly higher quality which long term will probably maintain a higher value for the league

 

[ZergMinion]

It's an interesting question.
The latest TV rights deal is worth $640m / yr. There are 207 regular season games (23 * 9) + 9 finals.
That means that extra game is a little over 10% of the total number of games.
Maximum value of that extra game is $64m/yr significantly more than $9m but as we all know not all games are equal.

Finals are worth significantly more than a normal game. Friday nights carry a huge premium. Saturday nights too. Thursday nights are also marquee.
I'm going to make a few assumptions:
Finals worth 5times a regular season game.
Fri + 2 Sat nights worth double.
I'll ignore other times like thursdays for simplicity.

Using the above the extra game is worth about 7% which is $45m/yr.

If you eliminate a second povo club like st kilda you free up about $18m. You're still shy $27m/yr. Can you capture the remainder of that with less games of a higher quality? Maybe combined with more standalone fixtures it's possible to be close to cost neutral.

The other thing in my view is that the product has been diluted with the extra teams, we don't have the talent to sustain 18/19 teams and a 16 or 14 team comp would be significantly higher quality which long term will probably maintain a higher value for the league

Has the population of Australia grown by more than total players on AFL lists have grown?

I feel like this gets ignored when people talk about dilution. Though I guess only half the population is eligible to play for the men's teams, and other sports need to be considered.

Either way the talent might eventually catch up if the AFL maintains top spot on the Australian sporting pile.

 

[southcoast]

It's an interesting question.
The latest TV rights deal is worth $640m / yr. There are 207 regular season games (23 * 9) + 9 finals.
That means that extra game is a little over 10% of the total number of games.
Maximum value of that extra game is $64m/yr significantly more than $9m but as we all know not all games are equal.

Finals are worth significantly more than a normal game. Friday nights carry a huge premium. Saturday nights too. Thursday nights are also marquee.
I'm going to make a few assumptions:
Finals worth 5times a regular season game.
Fri + 2 Sat nights worth double.
I'll ignore other times like thursdays for simplicity.

Using the above the extra game is worth about 7% which is $45m/yr.

If you eliminate a second povo club like st kilda you free up about $18m. You're still shy $27m/yr. Can you capture the remainder of that with less games of a higher quality? Maybe combined with more standalone fixtures it's possible to be close to cost neutral.

The other thing in my view is that the product has been diluted with the extra teams, we don't have the talent to sustain 18/19 teams and a 16 or 14 team comp would be significantly higher quality which long term will probably maintain a higher value for the league

Interesting to note BBL & broadcasters (Ch7?) have, this season, worked out that more is not necessarily better. Wonder if AFL house and 7 will see similarities in AFL.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[dewcefault]

Has the population of Australia grown by more than total players on AFL lists have grown?

I feel like this gets ignored when people talk about dilution. Though I guess only half the population is eligible to play for the men's teams, and other sports need to be considered.

Either way the talent might eventually catch up if the AFL maintains top spot on the Australian sporting pile.

Yes but disagree entirely with this thought for a couple of key reasons.
1) elite talent is less about total population and more about junior participation and funding . The junior pathways for other sports is catching up to afl.
2) if you look at international sports the gap between the absolute elite, the very good and the above average can kick is evident. For example in the NFL there are probably at most 5 truly elite QBs at any point, 15 or so very good ones and then a remaining 10-12 journeyman/rookies who just aren't very good (relatively) from 400m people. This applies to most sports and in afl you can see the talent drop with plenty of non AFL quality players getting a guernsey each week. .

Commercially I don't think we'll ever go down to 10-12 teams but if you think about the elite and very good talent we probably only have enough players for a 10-12 team high quality league. Ideally I think 14 teams would work well balancing quality of games and commercial reality but will never happen

 

[Cuzz09]

The quicker we get an AFL reserves comp the better.

Hopefully all reserves teams play Curtain raisers before the AFL teams.



On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DJMac]

Limited talent for the AFL is definitely a factor And less teams would raise the standard. I think another way of raising the standard would be to allow ALL clubs to have an academy. If there was a fair way of choosing who goes into the academy then instead of 4 clubs investing in elite junior programs there would be 18 and it would be fair to assume more talent at draft time.
the hard part would be coming up with a fair way of determining which academy a kid goes to.

 

[FKASC]

Hopefully all reserves teams play Curtain raisers before the AFL teams.

Not sure what Adelaide’s depth is like, but I can’t see him playing reserves

 

[twadds]

Not sure what Adelaide’s depth is like, but I can’t see him playing reserves

I’m Dan Curtin you’ve got your drapes mixed up.

 

[KERRPOW]

View attachment 1868223


The above is a breakdown of North’s revenue. Ignore the first line as all clubs get that as their share of AFL revenue from TV rights etc

Take note of the second line though. AFL funding is what they put in to keep clubs alive which as a general rule we get nothing or next to nothing each year

Even with the AFL tipping in just shy of $9m North only made a profit of about $300k

Tell me again why they’re in this league

Dont forget the 7mill government funding over 2 years also