Fixture 2025 draw any news or leaks? (Fixture released today)

[BallaratBulldog]

I can't wait for people to say the Dogs don't travel with 5 Melbourne games in a row to finish the season, ignoring they were crammed in earlier in the year.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

You could put North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and St Kilda in prime time every week and they would never have the support of Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon.

The fixture is extremely unfair and nowhere is their balance but clubs selling their home games is on them not the AFL and the club should have some say over what games they sell.

This is true, even if things were always equitable the smaller clubs would stay smaller.

The divide has been made worse by decades of getting the crap timeslots behind a paywall, even when playing well. Without similar levels of exposure, the smaller clubs don't have the chance to grow their supporter base to the same extent. Its not the kids of existing followers (though that too) but the kids of families with no footy background, they end up following the clubs they actually get to see.

The media rights cycle grab for cash boosts the already powerful, and hides the smaller clubs. The unequal funding is largely compensation for the inequities of that year but not the cumulative effect.

 

[Purple Suit]

This is true, even if things were always equitable the smaller clubs would stay smaller.

The divide has been made worse by decades of getting the crap timeslots behind a paywall, even when playing well. Without similar levels of exposure, the smaller clubs don't have the chance to grow their supporter base to the same extent. Its not the kids of existing followers (though that too) but the kids of families with no footy background, they end up following the clubs they actually get to see.

The media rights cycle grab for cash boosts the already powerful, and hides the smaller clubs. The unequal funding is largely compensation for the inequities of that year but not the cumulative effect.

Would it really matter though? When small clubs are winning, they get better prime time and slots. They have more people attend but these are likely existing fans who want to watch them win. When the cycle ends, the same fans disappear and the numbers drop. It doesn’t create more sustainable crowd numbers. We’ve seen this endlessly.

The Melbourne market is saturated, the only way to keep 10 teams is to pump up the most supported clubs to generate income and feed it back to the lesser supported clubs.

If you give the smaller clubs who are not winning the best time slots, significantly less money will be generated & there is less in distributions. They still need to reward success though as even the big clubs fluctuate on form. This mostly happens, except for Carlton who just get ridiculous fixturing.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Would it really matter though? When small clubs are winning, they get better prime time and slots. They have more people attend but these are likely existing fans who want to watch them win. When the cycle ends, the same fans disappear and the numbers drop. It doesn’t create more sustainable crowd numbers. We’ve seen this endlessly.

The Melbourne market is saturated, the only way to keep 10 teams is to pump up the most supported clubs to generate income and feed it back to the lesser supported clubs.

If you give the smaller clubs who are not winning the best time slots, significantly less money will be generated & there is less in distributions. They still need to reward success though as even the big clubs fluctuate on form. This mostly happens, except for Carlton who just get ridiculous fixturing.

Better, but still not what some the big clubs can get when in the lower half (only Richmond ever to even get hidden away among the "big 4"). A few years of average exposure while around the top, then forgotten again, doesn't help build sustained support.
It makes a difference, it would not have made St Kilda or North into Collingwood or even the Bulldogs; but a slightly stronger St Kilda and North off-field.
Significantly less income to the league would also have seen the cost of running a club not increase as much, as has been driven largely by trying to keep up the powerful who would not have been artificially boosted as much.

Its just another point where putting money over sport has had adverse impacts.

 

[Dazb86]

Two years in a row the AFL absolutely take the piss with Carlton's fixture. Could not possibly be trying any harder to get them a flag.

If the Dees don't make the finals with their fixture, wrap the joint up.

Bulldogs also have zero excuses. A very kind run.

Freo fans on the other hand should be burning AFL House to the ground. Reducing the travel inequity shouldn't be used as a smokescreen to screw them on difficulty.

Blame the big Vic clubs. They need to double up against each other every year.

 

[LuckyBounce!]

I can't wait for people to say the Dogs don't travel with 5 Melbourne games in a row to finish the season, ignoring they were crammed in earlier in the year.

Like St. Kilda last year. We play every other week interstate with barely a home game in the first half of the season then come home with a number of games in a row at marvel and the whinging starts!

 

[MisterMarcus]

I don't know why people get so worked up about the draw at this early stage. We have no idea how 2025 will play out.

This time last year, clubs would have been jumping for joy at doubling up against Hawthorn in 2024, and pencilled them in as wins. Whereas doubling up against Collingwood or Carlton would have been marked as probable losses.

It didn't work out that way at all.

 

[Grasshopper17]

This is true, even if things were always equitable the smaller clubs would stay smaller.

The divide has been made worse by decades of getting the crap timeslots behind a paywall, even when playing well. Without similar levels of exposure, the smaller clubs don't have the chance to grow their supporter base to the same extent. Its not the kids of existing followers (though that too) but the kids of families with no footy background, they end up following the clubs they actually get to see.

The media rights cycle grab for cash boosts the already powerful, and hides the smaller clubs. The unequal funding is largely compensation for the inequities of that year but not the cumulative effect.

You've literally contradicted yourself from your first paragraph to your 2nd.

I don't think it's a coincidence that within 2 decades of your club deciding you were going to own Friday nights, you won 2 premierships. And since being subsequently shafted from Friday nights (or any other form of prime time slot) you've achieved next to nothing.

 

[Grasshopper17]

If you give the smaller clubs who are not winning the best time slots, significantly less money will be generated & there is less in distributions.

I think this is a fair comment, but I also think at some stage there has to be some willingness from head office to accept this short term pain for the long term benefit of the competition as a whole.

The AFL is a not-for-profit organisation and it should operate accordingly.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

You could put North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and St Kilda in prime time every week and they would never have the support of Collingwood, Carlton and Ess

The problem is not rewarding these clubs when playing well

The should also be punishing the big clubs when they play badly.

 

[L_W_P]

You do realise that low drawing clubs only sell their low drawing matches against low drawing clubs for a reason yeah?

It’s not to grow the game, it’s not about spreading the great game to different parts of the country.

It’s entirely putting dollars in the bank.

Now let’s say the Hawks play Collingwood in Launceston. That’s now a double kick in the guts to the hawks not only does it take a low drawing game away from Launceston that would make money it also loses them a shit load of money not playing at the mcg.

Make no mistakes clubs sell games to make money and for no other reason so why the hell would you sell a high drawing game.

I always find the "clubs sell low drawing games for $$" argument strange. Three reasons mostly:

1 - Don't you think the Tassie Govt would pay extra to get say Collingwood down to Launceston or Hobart?

2 - We also live in an era where the AFL eternally prop teams up. So the idea of having to sell games for revenue is flawed because the AFL cover the costs anyway.

3 - The clubs having to sell games are, generally, the clubs that get stuffed on the fixture. Give those teams a decent run on FTA and in better timeslots during the season for a few years and let them build a better foundation.