-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
AFL to lose money because of weekend results!
- Thread starter greatwhiteshark
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #27
Go to the AFL website, its on there on the home page. I got no idea how to link a page to hear. More than happy if you could inform me how to do it? Not the greatest on computers mate.
- Nov 2, 2012
- 3,819
- 3,047
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Man Utd, GSW
lets just blame Poort!! lol
What a joke. This is supposed to be a competition first and foremost, they should not even be considering how much money they can make if certain teams advance. To me, if Demetriou is in any way disappointed in the results (of course he would never say this publicly) then I just find it absolutely disgusting. It will never be a fair and equal competition when the main goal is bringing in the maximum amount of money possible.
- Thread starter
- #30
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Week 1 Category 4 ticket in M6 row T purchased with Club membership code $64
Week 2 Category 4 ticket in M6 row R purchased with Club membership code $44. A 30% discount not 20% as advertised before finals. From AFL brochure on Port's website but was individualized for all 8 finals teams.
The AFL got greedy in 2012, by upping week 1 tickets and closer to 2011's week 2 prices and had the same price for week 1 and week 2 tickets. This year they introduced a 20% discount, because it was BS paying the same price for an EF as you do for a more meaningful QF and SF.
Shit just looked at the prices on ticketek site as my nephew in Melbourne bought a block of tickets both weeks and the AFL has dropped ticket prices.
Category 3, 4 and 5 seats which were $72, $64 and $55 respectively in week 1 at the MCG are now all $55 before the club membership discount. They now all cost $44 if you bought tickets with your club membership barcode in week 1 as well as week 2 for the 20% discount. Shit could be sitting on the wing rather than just around from the point post.
Haha the AFL's greed has caught up with them.
Week 2 Category 4 ticket in M6 row R purchased with Club membership code $44. A 30% discount not 20% as advertised before finals. From AFL brochure on Port's website but was individualized for all 8 finals teams.
The AFL got greedy in 2012, by upping week 1 tickets and closer to 2011's week 2 prices and had the same price for week 1 and week 2 tickets. This year they introduced a 20% discount, because it was BS paying the same price for an EF as you do for a more meaningful QF and SF.
Shit just looked at the prices on ticketek site as my nephew in Melbourne bought a block of tickets both weeks and the AFL has dropped ticket prices.
Category 3, 4 and 5 seats which were $72, $64 and $55 respectively in week 1 at the MCG are now all $55 before the club membership discount. They now all cost $44 if you bought tickets with your club membership barcode in week 1 as well as week 2 for the 20% discount. Shit could be sitting on the wing rather than just around from the point post.
Haha the AFL's greed has caught up with them.
- Feb 5, 2010
- 7,129
- 10,575
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur, Australia
Cry me a river, Andrew.
Boo freakin' hoo. If you didn't want other teams to win, don't let them into the VFL in the first place.
- Sep 5, 2007
- 16,277
- 13,189
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Nashville predators
Why is this such a big shock to people??
Of course the AFL would have been budgeting for a bonanza from this finals series. Collingwood and Richmond in the finals would have been cash cows for the AFL and with them beign dumped in round 1 of the finals, it's no surprise they won't hit their budgets. Surely, purely based off ladder position, they would have anticipated that Collingwood and Richmond would have got through, was that really that big a stretch for them to think?? Even if just one of them got through, it would have been massive. Not to mention the fact that a prelim at the MCG (with Geelong in it) would make more for them than one at Pattisons.
Does it say in the article they budgeted these figures at the start of the season or prior to finals??
Of course the AFL would have been budgeting for a bonanza from this finals series. Collingwood and Richmond in the finals would have been cash cows for the AFL and with them beign dumped in round 1 of the finals, it's no surprise they won't hit their budgets. Surely, purely based off ladder position, they would have anticipated that Collingwood and Richmond would have got through, was that really that big a stretch for them to think?? Even if just one of them got through, it would have been massive. Not to mention the fact that a prelim at the MCG (with Geelong in it) would make more for them than one at Pattisons.
Does it say in the article they budgeted these figures at the start of the season or prior to finals??
How does the Richmond/Carlton one work? Forgive my naivety but are we just talking about losses through attendances here? I'm not sure having Richmond instead of Carlton playing at ANZ (+ possibly Subi the week after) would make that much difference would it? Both teams are highly unlikely to go any further and get another Melbourne game. The Collingwood one I can sort of understand but really, who cares.
I think he's wrong about the Freo win doing anything to the bottom line, if anything it will make the prelim with Geelong and Hawthorn a lot bigger. Same as Swans, they were always going to play at home at some stage which should get a similar crowd to either the semi/prelim. The GF generates a similar amount of money no matter the team.
Maybe he is also assuming like Eddie that Collingwood would knock off Port, followed by Freo to set-up another Big Vic clash in the prelim. That must be why he was referring to the rugby test as "severely compromising" the final series. It severely compromised his bonus if Collingwood didn't make it through.
Maybe he is also assuming like Eddie that Collingwood would knock off Port, followed by Freo to set-up another Big Vic clash in the prelim. That must be why he was referring to the rugby test as "severely compromising" the final series. It severely compromised his bonus if Collingwood didn't make it through.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
Playing the Geelong v Fremantle QF at Simonds was a stroke of genius then, given that the AFL will have made more$$ out of this game than if it had been played at Etihad.
I love that the OP has no relation Andy D's comments at all
The AFL makes less money because big teams are out, it's not rocket science that it would result in a cut to their projected income. AD was just stating the obvious.
The AFL makes less money because big teams are out, it's not rocket science that it would result in a cut to their projected income. AD was just stating the obvious.
Not sure why this discussion can be reduced to "just a WA person with chip on shoulder".
Which every way you look at it - the statements are insulting in the context of a national competition. This after AD and AFL representatives went to the US for a conference on 'equalisation'. This when the AFL has been on the mantra of 'integrity'. It is hard for fans of the game to believe integrity is what administrators are aiming for with statements said in this manner.
Anyone who follows the AFL in just half an astute way will know the results don't lend to the kind of crowds Richmond and Collingwood would. I have no problem with him mentioning revenue as far as games go will be lower. But he could have in the name of respect to the national competition chosen his words more carefully.
He did not need to say: "there's a significant financial hit to the budget of the AFL because of those results... We will be significantly down on budget and when significant I mean seven figures."
He could have said something like - "yes there are losses but the good news is we have four states still being represented in the finals and that is good for the national game. " That is what you would expect from the boss of the AFL in a national competition. As it he is as much as insinuating in one sense that 2013 is a failure. Last weeks finals somewhat have redeemed back the season since the Essendon debacle (he made mention of the Essendon debacle) and he wants to point out 'we have financial losses I mean serious serious losses'. He might as well call 2013 due to that event and this finals series not having certain teams past week 2 a big failure.
His effort to give credit to Port Adelaide and Fremantle were quite pathetic
"After the results on the weekend, and they were great results, Fremantle winning (against Geelong) and of course Port Adelaide very gallant and Collingwood out,
You can emphasise 'Collingwood out' - because he then went on to immediately quite arrogantly point out the 'seven figure loss'. There was no need for that statement - a simple 'substantial loss' would suffice.
Which every way you look at it - the statements are insulting in the context of a national competition. This after AD and AFL representatives went to the US for a conference on 'equalisation'. This when the AFL has been on the mantra of 'integrity'. It is hard for fans of the game to believe integrity is what administrators are aiming for with statements said in this manner.
Anyone who follows the AFL in just half an astute way will know the results don't lend to the kind of crowds Richmond and Collingwood would. I have no problem with him mentioning revenue as far as games go will be lower. But he could have in the name of respect to the national competition chosen his words more carefully.
He did not need to say: "there's a significant financial hit to the budget of the AFL because of those results... We will be significantly down on budget and when significant I mean seven figures."
He could have said something like - "yes there are losses but the good news is we have four states still being represented in the finals and that is good for the national game. " That is what you would expect from the boss of the AFL in a national competition. As it he is as much as insinuating in one sense that 2013 is a failure. Last weeks finals somewhat have redeemed back the season since the Essendon debacle (he made mention of the Essendon debacle) and he wants to point out 'we have financial losses I mean serious serious losses'. He might as well call 2013 due to that event and this finals series not having certain teams past week 2 a big failure.
His effort to give credit to Port Adelaide and Fremantle were quite pathetic
"After the results on the weekend, and they were great results, Fremantle winning (against Geelong) and of course Port Adelaide very gallant and Collingwood out,
You can emphasise 'Collingwood out' - because he then went on to immediately quite arrogantly point out the 'seven figure loss'. There was no need for that statement - a simple 'substantial loss' would suffice.
I still remember that first half in a final a few years you guys copped an absolute reaming against Geelong to the point it destroyed all hope . Geelong outplayed you but it was evident in the Cats vs Freo game again last week in the first half . It sets the tone ! There is way too much biased umpiring in the AFL . It is the worst officiated professional sport in the world by a fair margin IMO .
- Thread starter
- #44
The link is now there in the OP mate, I just did not know how to do it but have been told how.
It is rocket science because how can you project income without knowing who the finalists are? Or are they doing yearly budgets now on the run also?
If you bank on the big teams playing finals then you are an idiot. You should try and bank on the best teams playing finals based on previous year ladder positions because thats about all you can do.
- Sep 21, 2004
- 46,795
- 53,691
- AFL Club
- GWS
This is my concern. The draw is already one-sided enough.
I shocked he would even mention this. It's as if he's bemoaning the fact higher drawing clubs were beaten.
A great fear of mine is that the AFL becomes like the NBA; a glorified marketing vehicle for big market teams where the integrity of the comp is shelved solely to benefit them.
Explains why North led the comp for most free kicks this year
I think the Op would be hundred percent right to assume a big profit over the whole final series as well. Even if it didn't reach the expected figure AD had assumed for.
AD needs to think bigger than 2013 and see this not from a linear picture but in the big picture. See what happens here can have carry on effect into next season for good (from a financial point of view among other things).
He can look at the immediate losses - or he can look at the benefits of five Victorian Teams participating in the finals series, three still remain (one a powerhouse membership wise) alongside three interstate teams. The three interstate teams give evidence the national competition is functioning as it should.
We have the emergence of Port Adelaide who were in dyer straights and who were losing spectators each week- playing at Adelaide Over in line with this season will only do memberships good.
You have Sydney - everyone knows the AFL is in trouble if Sydney is under-performing because of the nature of the fan base.
And Fremantle have been under achievers for so long. In the big picture the AFL could hardly want that to continue.
AD needs to look at the big picture.
AD needs to think bigger than 2013 and see this not from a linear picture but in the big picture. See what happens here can have carry on effect into next season for good (from a financial point of view among other things).
He can look at the immediate losses - or he can look at the benefits of five Victorian Teams participating in the finals series, three still remain (one a powerhouse membership wise) alongside three interstate teams. The three interstate teams give evidence the national competition is functioning as it should.
We have the emergence of Port Adelaide who were in dyer straights and who were losing spectators each week- playing at Adelaide Over in line with this season will only do memberships good.
You have Sydney - everyone knows the AFL is in trouble if Sydney is under-performing because of the nature of the fan base.
And Fremantle have been under achievers for so long. In the big picture the AFL could hardly want that to continue.
AD needs to look at the big picture.
This.
I like bagging AD as much as the next bloke but he's simply stating the obvious and logical truth.
^ As I said I know he is stating the truth Underdog - but it is the way he said it.
He undermined the national competition and made it hard for fans to believe he has the best interests of equity at heart for the national competition.
He could have been more tactful with his words.
He undermined the national competition and made it hard for fans to believe he has the best interests of equity at heart for the national competition.
He could have been more tactful with his words.
Plugger35
Umpiring Expert
- Sep 27, 2008
- 139,981
- 162,532
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Black Caps, Sea Eagles, Subiaco
Certainly lends weight to the theory that the AFL instructs the umpires to favour one team over another to get the result which benefits them the most financially. It can't be a coincidence that the bigger clubs with the most drawing power tend to get more favourable umpiring than the smaller clubs.
