Expansion 10 Victorian clubs here to stay: AFL

[1903]

I was always talking about what type of games would maximise a television audience, which is why I was saying whether four clubs (Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond) could do a better job than the 10 combined. I would guess that if the four clubs were always on TV, television ratings outside of Victoria would be higher than if Western or the Kangaroos were involved.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the simple fact that the ratings for 4 teams is always going to be much much much much less than those four teams plus the six others .And even if they did only show those four teams in preference to the current sydtem of sharing they would be less .
There is absolutely no basis what so ever in reducing the number of teams
to boost ratings, in fact the AFL sees expanding the number of teams as a great way of increasing the overall ratings even though the new teams will probably rate the lowest .The only smidgeon of worth in your suggestion would be for ALL the AFL games on FTA therefore maximising the total ratings, but this is where payTV fits in .

 

[genghiskhan]

I watch as much of footy as possible now.

If you got rid of my team, and especially if it was only the 4 clubs you mentioned and flog interstate sides, I'd watch none.

So if no Kangaroos, perhaps Friday night football might have one less viewer in Melbourne but three more viewers Australia wide. Fair trade.

 

[genghiskhan]

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the simple fact that the ratings for 4 teams is always going to be much much much much less than those four teams plus the six others .And even if they did only show those four teams in preference to the current sydtem of sharing they would be less .
There is absolutely no basis what so ever in reducing the number of teams
to boost ratings, in fact the AFL sees expanding the number of teams as a great way of increasing the overall ratings even though the new teams will probably rate the lowest .The only smidgeon of worth in your suggestion would be for ALL the AFL games on FTA therefore maximising the total ratings, but this is where payTV fits in .

Indeed, my point has been related to the value of Free-to-Air television rights and not the value of Pay TV. It would be one for the bean counters to look at how much Western, the Kangaroos and Melbourne bring in via pay TV and whether this is more that the opportunity cost of a broadcaster needing to show them on free-to-air.

 

[1903]

So if no Kangaroos, perhaps Friday night football might have one less viewer in Melbourne but three more viewers Australia wide. Fair trade.

Clutching at straws again aren't we .

Australia wide, viewers are more interested in the importance of the match, the closeness of the match, the potential attractiveness of the styles of play and the ability of the combatants to draw crowds to provide atmosphere. In that order

 

[Papa G]

One of the biggest impediments to northern expansion is and will be perception. The AFL is still percieved by many in the northern states to be a Victorian game not a national one. Keeping too many Victorian teams in what is meant to be a national competition is counter productive. Diluting the Victorianess of the competition will help win the hearts and minds of those in the northern states.

 

[genghiskhan]

Clutching at straws again aren't we .

Australia wide, viewers are more interested in the importance of the match, the closeness of the match, the potential attractiveness of the styles of play and the ability of the combatants to draw crowds to provide atmosphere. In that order

So why does the Kangaroos struggle to draw a crowd or television audience in the northern states even thought they play an attractive style of football (I've been told. I never watch them.) and have played in important matches for two decades?

Maybe things are different in Melbourne where you don't have much choice of sports, but in NSW, there are other things to do than watch a boring Melbourne club.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

So if no Kangaroos, perhaps Friday night football might have one less viewer in Melbourne but three more viewers Australia wide. Fair trade.

Its this kind of glib, inaccurate and frankly ignorant post that destroys any credibility you might have on any other argument.

And I love the way your 'business case' is predicated on getting rid of existing customers in the hope that others, who've already shown a tepid at best interest in the product, might one day come flocking to it.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

One of the biggest impediments to northern expansion is and will be perception. The AFL is still percieved by many in the northern states to be a Victorian game not a national one. Keeping too many Victorian teams in what is meant to be a national competition is counter productive. Diluting the Victorianess of the competition will help win the hearts and minds of those in the northern states.

So we kill the roots to grow the tree?

Interesting notion.

 

[Papa G]

So we kill the roots to grow the tree?

Interesting notion.

Not Roots, overhanging branches. Pruning promotes growth.

 

[genghiskhan]

Its this kind of glib, inaccurate and frankly ignorant post that destroys any credibility you might have on any other argument.

And I love the way your 'business case' is predicated on getting rid of existing customers in the hope that others, who've already shown a tepid at best interest in the product, might one day come flocking to it.

It is not ignorant. You have to concede that the Kangaroos have proven that they aren't the most popular club outside of Victoria. They have tried Sydney, Canberra and the Gold Coast and lets be honest, flopped.

You do have a valid point though. Should you look after a loyal customer or hope to by sacrificing that customer you can get three more? For moral reasons alone, I would say look after the loyal customer. But, we must agree, the AFL is guided by money. If they weren't they would have a team in Tasmania before the Gold Coast and they are working on potential not history.

As a somewhat fairweather fan in NSW, I have to say the Kangaroos are boring to watch on TV and I have no desire to watch them. The question for the AFL is whether to look after passionate fans such as yourself, who are currently worth a lot of money to the AFL, or go after fairweathers like me, who are currently worth very little but may one day be worth something.

 

[1903]

So why does the Kangaroos struggle to draw a crowd or television audience in the northern states even thought they play an attractive style of football.

Still trying to flog a dead horse or changing the goal posts?
You don't really care why they rate poorly do you so why try
and explain it to you. Maybe you should ditch Richmond and take up
the GC or is that Richmond in Sydney? take up the WS and forget this Melbourne posturing thing.

 

[1903]

You have to concede that the Kangaroos have proven that they aren't the most popular club outside of Victoria.

Actually they they are surprising well supported outside of Victoria compared to some teams, then again they put more offside inside and outside of Victoria with their approach to playing games outside of Victoria.

 

[Azzballz Deluxe]

It is not ignorant. You have to concede that the Kangaroos have proven that they aren't the most popular club outside of Victoria. They have tried Sydney, Canberra and the Gold Coast and lets be honest, flopped.

You do have a valid point though. Should you look after a loyal customer or hope to by sacrificing that customer you can get three more? For moral reasons alone, I would say look after the loyal customer. But, we must agree, the AFL is guided by money. If they weren't they would have a team in Tasmania before the Gold Coast and they are working on potential not history.

As a somewhat fairweather fan in NSW, I have to say the Kangaroos are boring to watch on TV and I have no desire to watch them. The question for the AFL is whether to look after passionate fans such as yourself, who are currently worth a lot of money to the AFL, or go after fairweathers like me, who are currently worth very little but may one day be worth something.

Well how about the AFL give you a new Sydney club to follow? Perhaps that would garner your interest?

Because thats what the AFLs main objective is, getting fairweather fans interested, or more interested. Instead of being restricted to only 1 team to follow(who are hampered in Sydney by thier Victorian heritage, thier puncy moniker and near-feminine colours), they now have another (who will be home-grown, and if the marketing team gets in right, a bad-ass working class type moniker and "masculine" colours (i'm thinking green, black and white)).

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Not Roots, overhanging branches. Pruning promotes growth.

The overhanging branches are loss making interstate clubs that require continual AFL support.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

It is not ignorant. You have to concede that the Kangaroos have proven that they aren't the most popular club outside of Victoria. They have tried Sydney, Canberra and the Gold Coast and lets be honest, flopped.

The Sydney thing didn't work agreed.

The Canberra thing was going quite nicely until our previous idiot admin decided to drink from the poisoned GC chalice the AFL offered.


You do have a valid point though. Should you look after a loyal customer or hope to by sacrificing that customer you can get three more? For moral reasons alone, I would say look after the loyal customer. But, we must agree, the AFL is guided by money. If they weren't they would have a team in Tasmania before the Gold Coast and they are working on potential not history.

Agreed.


As a somewhat fairweather fan in NSW, I have to say the Kangaroos are boring to watch on TV and I have no desire to watch them. The question for the AFL is whether to look after passionate fans such as yourself, who are currently worth a lot of money to the AFL, or go after fairweathers like me, who are currently worth very little but may one day be worth something

You said above you don't watch North games, so how do you know who is boring.

I'm a Vic, but I have to say I find, in recent years, Richmond excruiciating to watch. I'd rather watch Bris v WCE than Richmond versus say Melbourne.

The second part of the question involves what frustrates me most: the notion that it is a zero sum game where you either have to look after melbourne clubs or go for new markets.

Why can't we do both at the same time? There's certainly enough money sloshing around.

 

[Giants FC]

Although I'm strongly pro-West Sydney, I tend to agree with SweetLeftFoot. If the AFL is to have any hope of talking the TV networks into parting with $1 billion in the next round of TV rights, they'll need to offer some product - an extra game every week will do just fine. That means having both the new teams and the traditional clubs.

In one of life's strange ironies, North Melbourne may have done more to expand the game by staying where they are than they ever would have had they relocated.
Had they accepted the Gold Coast offer a year ago, we'd be retaining a 16-team competition. But by knocking it back, the AFL needed to create a new license to get a presence on the Gold Coast. But they don't want the bye for more than one season, so that meant an 18th team had to come into being - enter WS18.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Although I'm strongly pro-West Sydney, I tend to agree with SweetLeftFoot. If the AFL is to have any hope of talking the TV networks into parting with $1 billion in the next round of TV rights, they'll need to offer some product - an extra game every week will do just fine. That means having both the new teams and the traditional clubs.

In one of life's strange ironies, North Melbourne may have done more to expand the game by staying where they are than they ever would have had they relocated.
Had they accepted the Gold Coast offer a year ago, we'd be retaining a 16-team competition. But by knocking it back, the AFL needed to create a new license to get a presence on the Gold Coast. But they don't want the bye for more than one season, so that meant an 18th team had to come into being - enter WS18.

Good points. I'm all for a second Sydney team as long as it is sustainable and doesn't end up being a decades long disaster like the Swans. Hopefully lessons have been learned from that.

 

[duffman324]

With the gold coast with no nickname I think it could be a vic club moving

 

[fairdinkum]

So why does the Kangaroos struggle to draw a crowd or television audience in the northern states even thought they play an attractive style of football (I've been told. I never watch them.)

As a somewhat fairweather fan in NSW, I have to say the Kangaroos are boring to watch on TV and I have no desire to watch them.

Credibility = zero.

 

[grayham]

Good points. I'm all for a second Sydney team as long as it is sustainable and doesn't end up being a decades long disaster like the Swans. Hopefully lessons have been learned from that.

I hope so too. The first 15 years of the swans was a waste of everyones time. Not that it cost the AFL much. Most money lost was private. More a lost opporunity.

I'm all for a 2nd Sydney team as long as it doesnt end up being a decades long charity case like North, with no end in sight.

 

[trueroo]

I hope so too. The first 15 years of the swans was a waste of everyones time. Not that it cost the AFL much. Most money lost was private. More a lost opporunity.

I'm all for a 2nd Sydney team as long as it doesnt end up being a decades long charity case like North, with no end in sight.

NM due to the afl rorting of the payment arrangements are paying off an afl assett (telstra dome ) Why are the melb clubs only doing this ?

The only reason the afl changed its mind about the need for the 10 clubs in melb is the tv stations recently told them that the existing ratings in nsw and qld devalued the overall $ and vic was the greatest value and you need to have 10 teams

Why the afl did not know the value of each segment of its bigest income source is beyond me .

Sydney and the new teams will cost the afl for 10 years, however for long term development and future ratings a necessity

 

[sturtman]

I hope so too. The first 15 years of the swans was a waste of everyones time. Not that it cost the AFL much. Most money lost was private. More a lost opporunity.

I'm all for a 2nd Sydney team as long as it doesnt end up being a decades long charity case like North, with no end in sight.

Unfortunately the keeping of so many clubs from Melbourne is stifling the development of a truly strong national league. The salary cap keeps costs on a reign, but the truth is Adelaide, West Coast, Fremantle and Port Adelaide are being held back through lack of free market competition and restraint of trade. As a result interest in the competition is showing serious signs of being on the wane and will have dire cosequences if simply ignored.

Sydney was a knee jerk response by the VFL to a crisis. It was not thought through properly and there are real issues with identification as a genuine Sydney based team in that state. The VFL really needed to sit down calmly and quietly with both the SANFL and the WAFL to formulate a strong national competition in which all three football states state leagues remained fully intact, strong and used to support the new competition. Expansion into NSW and Qld should have occured only after Tasmania which also has strong grass roots support for aussie rules.

Today we have a mish-mash under performing league that more than half the country has little interest in. Is losing ground in some of the heartland states, refuses to consider other heartlands, and wants to dilute the talent ever further by introducing two new franchise from non heartland states.

The trouble is that the AFL is guilding the lilly, and desperate Vic supporters are swallowing it hook line and sinker. If you think I'm wrong look at what is happenning outside the AFL to see how the current situation is on the nose. There is no need for any Vic club to fold, yet anyway, however most of them do not belong in a national competition. This needs to be addressed before we all drown.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Unfortunately the keeping of so many clubs from Melbourne is stifling the development of a truly strong national league. The salary cap keeps costs on a reign, but the truth is Adelaide, West Coast, Fremantle and Port Adelaide are being held back through lack of free market competition and restraint of trade. As a result interest in the competition is showing serious signs of being on the wane and will have dire cosequences if simply ignored.

If you guys think you can go it alone and fund a league where you take the game to embrace the Cairns Crocodiles, the Newcastle Coal Depots and the Heard Island Orcas, you guys go for it.

I'm sure WIN and Prime will be willing to bid literally dozens of thousands of dollars for the rights.

It might even be as successful as the South Australian NationLOL Football League.

 

[Hawkk]

According to the Herald Sun the only thing holding back the SA based clubs is living in Adelaide - and I can't say I don't blame them

City of Adelaide on the nose

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,24468552-19742,00.html

SALARY? Check. Length of contract? Check. Living in Adelaide? Well . . . When it comes time to sit down at the trade table each year, there's only one thing the Crows can't sell - Adelaide.

As the South Australian club has found, the City of Churches doesn't ring the players bells when it comes to pulling on their boots at AAMI Stadium.

Crows recruiting manager Matt Rendell says the Crows struggle to recruit players because there is a "stigma" about living in Adelaide.

And trade week again looks like being quiet for the Crows.

Related LinksSuperFooty Forum: Is Adelaide on the nose?
"There's just a stigma about Adelaide in this business and we have to get over that," Rendell told Adelaide radio station 5AA.

"Once the players get here they love it. It's just a matter of getting their heads around the idea of going to Adelaide."

But when the big cities of Melbourne and Sydney are an option, or the sunshine and surf of Perth and Brisbane beckon, the AFL's elite don't seem to require any thinking music.

In recent years the cashed-up Crows have made plays for South Australian-born stars such as Matthew Pavlich, Brad Ottens and Scott Camporeale, but have struck out.

"The fact of the matter is - and if you want to look through our trade choices over the last 18 years -- we just can't get players here," Rendell said.

"Now we can't even get the South Australians out of Victoria back here, they don't want to come back. They want to stay in Victoria because they love it there."

The anti-Adelaide sentiment has spread to AFL draftee level, with some under-18 kids openly telling the Crows' recruiting staff they are not interested in moving to the city.

Even with free market competition, who'd want to live in Adelaide?

 

[sturtman]

What a load of trot this article is. You had better go and read the current SANFL lists and see how many players from interstate are currrently playing and living in Adelaide, and you would come to the immediate conclusion that this article is total BS.

Crikey this is the town that attracts Lance Armstrong to restart his cycling career in the Tour Downunder, and you're basing your judgement on Mathew Pavlich and few expats who have set up homes and lives in other states. Now I know you have lost the plot. Believe it if you will, but don't forget that when Wayne Carey and Ronnie Burnes came available and Gary Ayres wanted them they were in Adelade within 48 hours. If Adelaide wanted Buddy Franklin and Fevola in a free market they'd be in the tri-colours to.

Adelaide is a tough football market, you need to be good at your trade, not prancing around like an overfed peacock. The draft rewards mediocrity at best, and masks downright incompetence at worst. Adelaide is paying the price for consistent competitive performances while the other poorer performing sides are rewarded for their pathetic efforts with first pick of the best available players.

For years the SANFL has wanted a show case match for the best football and tried a number of things that haven't made the ticket. With the intro of PORT they had a gift in a ready made rivalry that broke up the parocial nature of the Adelaide fooball market. It should have/can be a win all round, but it's getting harder to flog the slock (AFL) in town because it's not being seen as the best product for the asking price.

If we can't come up with anything better than the draft, then for goodness sake let SA & WA have access to their state leagues and stop trying to treat Adelaide and Perth like outer suburbs of Melbourne.

Thank the lord that soccer is going well at the moment, another 3-0 win for Adelaide in the Asian league. Needless to say we are not getting the same patronising attitues from Asia and Europe as what we experience when dealing with Melbourne. There were around 20,000 spectators there last night. So now during the final series in 2008 both the SANFL and Adelaide United have had larger spectator interest than the AFL here. The writing is on the wall, you'd better start learning to read.