Apple Isle Showdown: Tas Govt threatens to end Hawks, North deals if no plan for 19th side

[chiwigi]

The AFL doesn’t ‘give’ any club money. All the money the AFL has, has been earned by the clubs, through the TV and sponsorship deals the clubs generate by playing each other. The clubs produce all the money for grassroots footy etc.

The AFL exists as custodians of the game, part of this responsibility is to provide representation and expand the game. Not having a team in a state like Tasmania has long been a disgrace. Now is the time to rectify it.

 

[Hawkk]

The AFL doesn’t ‘give’ any club money. All the money the AFL has, has been earned by the clubs, through the TV and sponsorship deals the club generate by playing each other.

The AFL exists as custodians of the game, part of this responsibility is to provide representation and expand the game. Not having a team in a state like Tasmania has long been a disgrace. Now is the time to rectify it.

Any monies that clubs get above the baseline distribution is a handout to the benefiting clubs.

I support an equal distribution of the monies amongst all clubs - do you?

As an aside all clubs should also have the freedom to negotiate their stadium deals independent of the AFL (directly with the MCC, Marvel, Qld State Government etc.)

 

[chiwigi]

Any monies that clubs get above the baseline distribution is given to the clubs.

I support an equal distribution of the monies amongst all clubs - do you?

No it isn’t.

I support an equal distribution of Friday night games and blockbusters. To maximise attendances for all clubs and their ability to attract sponsors.

Do you?

 

[Hawkk]

No it isn’t.

I support an equal distribution of Friday night games and blockbusters. To maximise attendances for all clubs and their ability to attract sponsors.

In doing so you are limiting the broadcast revenue as they have little interest in showing small provincial clubs.

In an ideal world individual clubs really should be able to negotiate broadcasting rights directly with broadcasters and streaming providers...

That’ll seperate the wheat from the chaff...

 

[chiwigi]

In doing so you are limiting the broadcast revenue as they have little interest in showing small provincial clubs.

In an ideal world individual clubs really should be able to negotiate broadcasting rights directly with broadcasters and streaming providers...

That’ll seperate the wheat from the chaff...

Make your mind up, do you want the clubs competing on equal footing or not?

Sounds like you want to advantage certain clubs and not have them pay for the advantage.

keep the foot on their necks eh, then tell them they aren’t working hard enough.

 

[Hawkk]

Make your mind up, do you want the clubs competing on equal footing or not?

Sounds like you want to advantage certain clubs and not have them pay for the advantage.

keep the foot on their necks eh, then tell them they aren’t working hard enough.

An equal footing is an equal distribution from the AFL plus scaling prize money.

The AFL should not be stadium managers or negotiating as intermediaries between clubs and stadium managers.

There is an obvious conflict of interest in the competition and the custodians of the game micro managing stadium arrangements with the MCC, managing the catering rights in Sydney and owning Marvel Stadium at Docklands.

In an ideal world clubs should have the power to negotiate their own broadcasting arrangements

 

[Hawkk]

I should mention that individual broadcast agreements will favour Sydney, plus the 2 WA and SA teams as they can negotiate favourable arrangements in markets that they already saturate with exposure - i.e. SA and WA clubs can sell access to Channel 7 Adelaide and Perth, Newspapers spots in the West and Advertiser etc

The big losers would potentially be the smaller Melbourne clubs which is why the AFL will never allow that model

 

[eastfreo75]

An equal footing is an equal distribution from the AFL plus scaling prize money.

The AFL should not be stadium managers or negotiating as intermediaries between clubs and stadium managers.

There is an obvious conflict of interest in the competition and the custodians of the game micro managing stadium arrangements with the MCC, managing the catering rights in Sydney and owning Marvel Stadium at Docklands.

In an ideal world clubs should have the power to negotiate their own broadcasting arrangements

Conflict of issue is putting it lightly.

AFL could be called the CFL Corruption Football League.

 

[HairyO]

It's not. I've explained why. For all "intents and purposes"? What does that mean? Marketing something as a 'merger' does not make it actually so.



Fitzroy Football Club remained a football club with directors, shareholders, members and revenue streams such as a shop selling Fitzroy mechandise from 1997-2008. It was a football club in recess (in the same as many VFL football clubs went into recess in wartime). In 2009 Fitzroy returned to the playing field fielding a senior and reserves side for the first time since 1996, as well as two Under-19 sides. They are no longer 'the Lions'.

By your measure no clubs could merge ?

 

[Billys Back]

No it isn’t.

I support an equal distribution of Friday night games and blockbusters. To maximise attendances for all clubs and their ability to attract sponsors.

Do you?

Your club needs to earn it. The fact is you can’t simply have any club play Friday nights because if the ratings aren’t consistently high it has a negative financial impact on all clubs in the long term.

This rubbish that it ‘isn’t fair’ that some clubs are at a disadvantage in not having sufficient games in certain blockbuster time slots is total Bull shiit. There is a reason for it.

The AFL needs certain clubs to play in these time slots to maximise revenue.

Can’t afford to have clubs like Port playing more because it places future revenue growth at risk.

 

[Hawkk]

Your club needs to earn it. The fact is you can’t simply have any club play Friday nights because if the ratings aren’t consistently high it has a negative financial impact on all clubs in the long term.

This rubbish that it ‘isn’t fair’ that some clubs are at a disadvantage in not having sufficient games in certain blockbuster time slots is total Bull shiit. There is a reason for it.

The AFL needs certain clubs to play in these time slots to maximise revenue.

Can’t afford to have clubs like Port playing more because it places future revenue growth at risk.

It could work with streaming - broadcasting in 10 years is going to be completely different to now.

In the future time slots will have far less ‘real estate’ value

 

[chiwigi]

An equal footing is an equal distribution from the AFL plus scaling prize money.

The AFL should not be stadium managers or negotiating as intermediaries between clubs and stadium managers.

There is an obvious conflict of interest in the competition and the custodians of the game micro managing stadium arrangements with the MCC, managing the catering rights in Sydney and owning Marvel Stadium at Docklands.

In an ideal world clubs should have the power to negotiate their own broadcasting arrangements

Your club needs to earn it. The fact is you can’t simply have any club play Friday nights because if the ratings aren’t consistently high it has a negative financial impact on all clubs in the long term.

This rubbish that it ‘isn’t fair’ that some clubs are at a disadvantage in not having sufficient games in certain blockbuster time slots is total Bull shiit. There is a reason for it.

The AFL needs certain clubs to play in these time slots to maximise revenue.

Can’t afford to have clubs like Port playing more because it places future revenue growth at risk.

Like Carlton have earned it .
Give over.
And if they are doing it to ‘maximise revenue’ then that needs to be redistributed.
You are arguing against yourself.

 

[the big lebowski]

Your club needs to earn it. The fact is you can’t simply have any club play Friday nights because if the ratings aren’t consistently high it has a negative financial impact on all clubs in the long term.

This rubbish that it ‘isn’t fair’ that some clubs are at a disadvantage in not having sufficient games in certain blockbuster time slots is total Bull shiit. There is a reason for it.

The AFL needs certain clubs to play in these time slots to maximise revenue.

Can’t afford to have clubs like Port playing more because it places future revenue growth at risk.

And all of that is fine. The stupid part is then when people say the smaller clubs get “handouts” as compensation.

 

[Hawkk]

And all of that is fine. The stupid part is then when people say the smaller clubs get “handouts” as compensation.

What about situations where clubs get the ‘handouts’ and a higher than equal proportion of FTA prime time games?

I hazard a guess that the W Bulldogs, St Kilda and Melbourne have had more prime time slots then Fremantle over the last 5 years...

And yet Fremantle are not entitled to any compensation. Go figure

Then again Fremantle (a middle bracket club according to the Carter report) are a commercially viable football organisation so I guess they don’t need compensation?

 

[Billys Back]

Long live the VFL.

Why do we need a team in every state?

Tasmania has a population less than Gold Coast and with population growth a fraction of the Gold Coast.

Should be at least another 15 years before the AFL even considers adding another club.

 

[Hawkk]

Why do we need a team in every state?

Tasmania has a population less than Gold Coast and with population growth a fraction of the Gold Coast.

Should be at least another 15 years before the AFL even considers adding another club.

Depends.

Population density matters little in the 21st century.

It’s really the penetration of the brand and the number of 2nd and 3rd generation Tasmanians on the mainland that would jump on board.

AFL clubs are brands and geography matters little.

Whether this broad base is larger and has greater penetration than the Gold Coast, GWS and arguably the smaller Melb clubs (NM, Melb, St K and WB) I guess is the point of the report.

It’s the same argument for Port Adelaide’s admission to the AFL in 1997

 

[Kwality]

[QUOTE

In doing so you are limiting the broadcast revenue as they have little interest in showing small provincial clubs.

In an ideal world individual clubs really should be able to negotiate broadcasting rights directly with broadcasters and streaming providers...

That’ll seperate the wheat from the chaff...

That also would limit expansion of the game.

 

[Billys Back]

Like Carlton have earned it .
Give over.
And if they are doing it to ‘maximise revenue’ then that needs to be redistributed.
You are arguing against yourself.

No doubt that was a stuff up. But the blues were expected to perform better and they are (maybe not) a big club whereby if they performed they would draw a good audience.

Would be interesting to know how a shiit Carlton has rated over a Port side playing finals. Probably still higher.

 

[Hawkk]

[QUOTE


That also would limit expansion of the game.

Why?

 

[Kwality]

Why do we need a team in every state?

Tasmania has a population less than Gold Coast and with population growth a fraction of the Gold Coast.

Should be at least another 15 years before the AFL even considers adding another club.

The VFL could not afford 12 teams.

 

[Roylion]

By your measure no clubs could merge ?

They could if both clubs voluntarily agreed to merge. As I said, it was ironic that the AFL helped block North and Fitzroy (who had both agreed to merge with each other) from actually doing so.

 

[Kwality]

Why?

Very few of the clubs have a standalone business model.

 

[Hawkk]

No doubt that was a stuff up. But the blues were expected to perform better and they are (maybe not) a big club whereby if they performed they would draw a good audience.

Would be interesting to know how a shiit Carlton has rated over a Port side playing finals. Probably still higher.

Carlton are a huge legacy brand

 

[eastfreo75]

Why do we need a team in every state?

Tasmania has a population less than Gold Coast and with population growth a fraction of the Gold Coast.

Should be at least another 15 years before the AFL even considers adding another club.

Victoria has 10 teams with 5.6m people and Tasmania has 0 teams with a population of 0.5m

Consider the fan base between Collingwood and North Melbourne is huge.

Tasmania is a football state and will be lost in time if another code puts a team there.

 

[Hawkk]

Very few of the clubs have a standalone business model.

How much of that is to do with mismanagement rather than commercial viability.

Given the size of club membership and attendances (in world sport) all AFL clubs should be able to stand on their own feet.

The AFL distribution of funds just props up mismanaged clubs, St Kilda’s problems (and Melbourne pre 2018) being the most notable