Blockbusters.

[Fall Out Boy]

The smaller clubs aren't asking for a blockbuster match, they're asking for a match on a blockbuster day, big difference.

No one is saying that a Geelong vs. Melbourne game would be a blockbuster BUT the clubs would like the opportunity to play on the blockbuster days when they're almost guarenteed a extra 15-20000 through the gates.

People say you have to prove you're worth of a blockbuster, how can a side prove it when they never get the opportunity to do so?

Cheers

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Michele

And which team had the vision, innovation and courage to want and did play FRIDAY night footy, when Saturday was still the tradional day?
btw You are not referring to North's 125th Anniversary when North thrashed Collingwood iin a night game - are you?

Sorry Michelle I didn't see this post so I didn't answer you before.

No I was not referring to that game

North didn't take Friday night games and turn them into a market. The AFL slotted them there because they couldn't pull a crowd on a Satdee arvo and Ch.7 promoted it. It became a ratings winner and the AFL slotted other clubs into the time slot. The ratings went up when North didn't play

It wasn't North's idea but to their credit they recognised the potential and ran with it, encouraging the AFL to increase their Friday night games over time.

One final point - I think most clubs that don't need a giimick to pull a crowd prefer traditional Saturday games so their supporters can go. Personally I hate Collingwood playing them unless they are interstate. I would rather go to the footy on a Saturday than wartch it on TV on a Friday night. The long term sponsorship benefits I acknowledge are better for TV games like Friday night.

 

[brampta]

Blockbuster clubs vs blockbuster days?

Hmm. My opinion is that many of the clubs that are squawking about lack of "blockbuster fixtures" should try and fill colonial or optus or whatever before they demand a "blockbuster" at the G. Contrary to what others have already said, it would be foolish to schedule a blockbuster on Anzac day between say Geelong and Melbourne - especially if both sides are in a form slump and a few of their supporters have jumped off the bandwagon. I think form has a considerable baring on attendance...

But also, the genuine "blockbusters" are born not out of tradition but of RIVALRY eg Carlton Collingwood, Eagles v Dockers, maybe even Brisbane vs Bulldogs.

This is just my opinion anyway.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by phatandphreaky
The smaller clubs aren't asking for a blockbuster match, they're asking for a match on a blockbuster day, big difference.

Thay won't make much difference. A St.Kilda vs Bulldogs match at Colonial on Anzac day might get 36,000 instead of 28,000 if it was on a Saturday. The cost of staging a match on a public holiday woud probably mean they'd be better off with a crowd of 28,000 on a Saturday anyway.

Originally posted by phatandphreaky
No one is saying that a Geelong vs. Melbourne game would be a blockbuster BUT the clubs would like the opportunity to play on the blockbuster days when they're almost guarenteed a extra 15-20000 through the gates.

Geelong played Melbourne on Easter Monday 2001. The crowd was 48,000. I'd suggest this would be about 5,000 more than what the crowd would've be on a Saturday. In 2002, Hawthorn play Melbourne in Round 21 on Easter Monday. The so called "lesser" clubs get heaps of public holiday matches. But does it help them? No.

Essendon and Collingwood on Anzac day is not big because of Anzac day. It's big because it's Essendon vs Collingwood. The two clubs regularly get 75,000 plus, whenever they play.

 

[Jethro Q Walrustitty]

Originally posted by Dan25
In 1994, Carlton played Collingwood and Essendon in Rd 21 and 22.

Hint for Daniel: bit more research required!

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Jethro Q Walrustitty
Hint for Daniel: bit more research required!

I made that mistake in the "92,935" thread. I keep getting 1993 and 1994 mixed up. Carlton played Collingwood in Round 21, 1993, not 1994. My apologies.

 

[Michele]

Originally posted by MarkT


Sorry Michelle I didn't see this post so I didn't answer you before.

No I was not referring to that game

North didn't take Friday night games and turn them into a market. The AFL slotted them there because they couldn't pull a crowd on a Satdee arvo and Ch.7 promoted it. It became a ratings winner and the AFL slotted other clubs into the time slot. The ratings went up when North didn't play

It wasn't North's idea but to their credit they recognised the potential and ran with it, encouraging the AFL to increase their Friday night games over time.

One final point - I think most clubs that don't need a giimick to pull a crowd prefer traditional Saturday games so their supporters can go. Personally I hate Collingwood playing them
unless they are interstate. I would rather go to the footy on a Saturday than wartch it on TV on a Friday night. The long term sponsorship benefits I acknowledge are better for TV games like Friday night.

MARK T,

Friday night footy was NOT North's innovation?? Well just who do did 'encourage' Friday night footy?

Why were North labelled "Friday Night Specialists"?

All to often North were told to go and find a niche market. WE DID!!! And when it was so successful, the AFL and the big boys not only wanted a slice of the action, they took it over. North started Friday night footy.

As for a gimmick - Sydney want Saturday night footy. It should be more about assisting teams (where possible) to where each team believes it can maximise supporter base, marketing and sponsorship $s.
Perhaps you overlooked the fact that the AFL is now a 16 team comp. Should ALL games be played on sat arvo?

I can't be bothered replying to the Essendon supporter, but "hello", are you sitting down - good. The North v Adelaide match (this year) beat an Essendon v ??? in RATINGS. :

You supporters of the so-called big 4, drive me nuts.
You can't/don't/wont see past your own cliche or group - so insular.
*throws up hands* in utter frustration.

Michele

NMFC 1869

PS North are also older than Collingwood. :

 

[Portia]

I don't recall the big 4 writing this year's fixture to have all those Friday night games............I thought that was channel nine's idea?

 

[Michele]

Originally posted by Porthos
I don't recall the big 4 writing this year's fixture to have all those Friday night games............I thought that was channel nine's idea?

....and the AFL could have said - NO, but didn't.

Last year, when the TV rights were being discussed, the AFL said that which ever Channel won the rights, they (the AFL) would ALWAYS have control over the fixture.

Lies, damn lies and the AFL.

Michele

 

[Portia]

Well, I hope you're writing to the AFL about it....because the big 4 aren't going to look a gift horse in the mouth.

 

[choppy]

Originally posted by Michele


MARK T,

Friday night footy was NOT North's innovation?? Well just who do did 'encourage' Friday night footy?

Why were North labelled "Friday Night Specialists"?

All to often North were told to go and find a niche market. WE DID!!! And when it was so successful, the AFL and the big boys not only wanted a slice of the action, they took it over. North started Friday night footy.

As for a gimmick - Sydney want Saturday night footy. It should be more about assisting teams (where possible) to where each team believes it can maximise supporter base, marketing and sponsorship $s.
Perhaps you overlooked the fact that the AFL is now a 16 team comp. Should ALL games be played on sat arvo?

I can't be bothered replying to the Essendon supporter, but "hello", are you sitting down - good. The North v Adelaide match (this year) beat an Essendon v ??? in RATINGS. :

You supporters of the so-called big 4, drive me nuts.
You can't/don't/wont see past your own cliche or group - so insular.
*throws up hands* in utter frustration.

Michele

NMFC 1869

PS North are also older than Collingwood. :

Don't waste your breath Michelle (or your keyboard time), the big 4 and their supporters have their heads so far up themselves and each other they no longer have any concept of reality.

I was watching some old Footy record videos the other day and they showed some Sydney games in the early 90's with about 1500 people watching. Thinks do change

In 5 to 10 years when the Kangaroos brand is the first truly national team with 30,000 members in Melbourne, 10,000 in Canberra and another 10,000 in WA and SA we shall have the last laugh.

People have been writing us off ever since I can remember, in the mid 80's, early 90's and now. Don't forget that we have the only commercial structure which will enable us to take advantage of the national concept.

We shall have the last laugh as we always do.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by choppy

In 5 to 10 years when the Kangaroos brand is the first truly national team with 30,000 members in Melbourne, 10,000 in Canberra and another 10,000 in WA and SA we shall have the last laugh.

People have been writing us off ever since I can remember, in the mid 80's, early 90's and now. Don't forget that we have the only commercial structure which will enable us to take advantage of the national concept.

We shall have the last laugh as we always do.

Good luck with that theory.

Footy started as suburban rivalry. Not that much has changed. The world has got smaller and the suburbs replaced in some cases with States or wider regions. If you think going outside of that and getting supporters from enemy territory will be your savior, I think you are mistaken.

An untapped market like Canberra is a different proposition to WA or SA. I doubt you will get 10,000 members in SA or WA if you work at it for 100 years. Unfortunately there are not many more untapped markets with a population and economy that could support an AFL team.

A "Truly National Team" is an unworkable concept and pursuing it will see you loose your identity and your Melbourne base will erode even further because even the kids of North Supporters will not identify with the television club on the other side of the country. Well that's what I recon anyway.

Originally posted by Michele
Friday night footy was NOT North's innovation?? Well just who do did 'encourage' Friday night footy?

Why were North labelled "Friday Night Specialists"?

No - as I said - The AFL.

North were labeled the Friday night specialists by THE MEDIA because they played more at that time slot than other teams and they had a good record at night. I recall when I was a kid St.Kilda were the mud specialists because they watered the ground at Moorabin and had a better record there than elsewhere. I don't think they invented mud or wet weather football and I would say they have any claim to that niche market. A time slot is not a rivalry like the blockbuster concept. It is a scheduling matter between the AFL and TV. If the games were scheduled differently, the money would be reduced. If you don't think rating are what the draw is all about you are either naive or gullable.

 

[choppy]

Originally posted by MarkT


Good luck with that theory.

Footy started as suburban rivalry. Not that much has changed. The world has got smaller and the suburbs replaced in some cases with States or wider regions. If you think going outside of that and getting supporters from enemy territory will be your savior, I think you are mistaken.

An untapped market like Canberra is a different proposition to WA or SA. I doubt you will get 10,000 members in SA or WA if you work at it for 100 years. Unfortunately there are not many more untapped markets with a population and economy that could support an AFL team.

A "Truly National Team" is an unworkable concept and pursuing it will see you loose your identity and your Melbourne base will erode even further because even the kids of North Supporters will not identify with the television club on the other side of the country. Well that's what I recon anyway.

As I said the big four have thier head so far up thier ar se they no longer have any concept of reality. The big four think they know everything about North when in fact the only thing they know is to repeat the misinformed and biased propaganda espoused by certain members of the Melbourne media who are part of in bed with the big four.

Suburban football is dead. No arguement, gone buried forever. People now support an entity not a suburb. The only advantage the big four have is by some quirk of history which has given them a larger supporter base in Melbourne. This will work to Norths advantage as it has always done because it has made the big 4 lazy. They sit back in the knowledge that yes we only have to alter the draw to suit ourselves and play each other a couple of times and we will make a couple of million and oh yes therefore we are superior financial managers and therefore clubs like north should not continue to exist. We shall see what happens that as costs continue to go up and they no longer have this luxury of printing money. We shall see what happens.

With regard to getting members from interstate North allready has approximately 2000 members in WA and aound 500 in SA. In the first year of the Sydney experiment, some 2500 people signed up. The support for North at WA games is very high, ask any West Coast supporters.

The concept of getting 10,000 members in Canberra, 30,000 in Melbourne and 10,000 in the rest of Australia is not unrealistic.

As for our Melbourne base eroding nothing could be further from the truth. Our membership has increased from less than 7,000 in the early 90's to up around 25,000 this year. Their is some dissatisfaction amongst many Melbourne based supporters about the clubs direction but in 3 to 5 years, these people will come back to the fold similiar to Swans and Fitzroy supporters.

The continued success that North had during the nineties will come to fruition from 2005 onwards similiar to Hawthorn whose membership numbers were lower than north in the mid 80's. I can remember only a few years back trying to obtain a Norths childrens football jumper and a Wayne Carey video and going all around Melbourne and not being able to get any because they had all sold out because they were so popular amongst the kids.

I see the same thing at Auskick, sure thier are always the Essendon and Collingwood jumpers but thier is always a handful of kids in North jumpers whereas clubs like Geelong, STKilda, Richmond, etc are not represented.

We shall see who the smart ar ses amongst the big four are in 5 years.

 

[choppy]

Originally posted by MarkT

Originally posted by Michele
Friday night footy was NOT North's innovation?? Well just who do did 'encourage' Friday night footy?

Why were North labelled "Friday Night Specialists"?

No - as I said - The AFL.

North were labeled the Friday night specialists by THE MEDIA because they played more at that time slot than other teams and they had a good record at night. I recall when I was a kid St.Kilda were the mud specialists because they watered the ground at Moorabin and had a better record there than elsewhere. I don't think they invented mud or wet weather football and I would say they have any claim to that niche market. A time slot is not a rivalry like the blockbuster concept. It is a scheduling matter between the AFL and TV. If the games were scheduled differently, the money would be reduced. If you don't think rating are what the draw is all about you are either naive or gullable.

A time slot is not a rivalry like the block buster concept. If this is the case then why the thuck do the big 4 want to play on Friday nights. Why do Essendon and Collingwood want to play on Anzac day if it is not the time slot.

If a blockbuster depends on rivalry and it is not the time slot, given the AFL's main focus is to increase attendances why don't the big four play on a Sunday afternoon. They would draw big crowds because they are blockbusters and clubs like north could play on a Frdiay night.

We were labelled the Friday night specialists because we asked to play on Friday night. I can recall two of the big four complaining about having to play on Friday nights.

It is a complete lie to say that North did not ask to play on Friday nights. North had to convince the AFL that playing on Friday nights was the way to go. The AFL actively discouraged North from playing on Friday nights.

THE AFL did not pioneer Friday night football. To say the AFL pioneered Friday night football is a complete lie!!!!!!!

North was the one who pioneered the concept and over the last 4 years have been pushed aside by the big 4 when they have realised what the benefits are.

That is the truth, anything to the contrary is either a deliberate lie espoused by the big 4 to justify themselves or they have thier head so far up thier collectives ar ses that they no longer have any concept of the truth.

 

[Michele]

Originally posted by MarkT


Footy started as suburban rivalry. Not that much has changed.

WHAT are you talking about? Surburban clubs!!!
Did I miss something relevant?- like a team playing Australian Rules in SYDNEY and BRISBANE - the heart and soul of AFL!!



North were labeled the Friday night specialists . ........
I recall when I was a kid St.Kilda were the mud specialists because they watered the ground at Moorabin and had a better record there than elsewhere. I don't think they invented mud or wet weather football and I would say they have any claim to that niche market.


I am not sure ANY team claims they "invented" mud. What a stupid argument.

As to wet weather football - ask "THE DUCK"

Michele

PS Way to go CHOPPY

 

[eagleskickass]

Collingwood Essendon is good for Anzac day, but why won't the AFL also let the Dockers have a home game on tha day, or that weekend. They do a MAGNIFICENT job comemorating it, yet the AFL won't give them the game. They'll just have to do it a week early or late

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Blockbusters are like the State of Origin, if people stop going, they won't exist anymore.

The fans have as much to do with what constitutes a blockbuster as the AFL scheduling decisions do.

I can see potential blockbusters all over the place. If the AFL scheduled them, would the fans support them though.

*Roos v Sydney is obvious
*Roos v Bombers - mainly because of the canings and comeback last year by the Bombers, also because of the implication that Essendon would have won the 99 GF if they had have made it.
*Hawks v Bombers - 1983 to 1985 revisited
*Dogs v Lions - bad blood
*Dogs v Tigers - see above
*Dogs v Crows - 1997 prelim anyone
*Blues v Eagles - Greg Williams and several close physical clashes
*Port v Magpies - naming rights
*Cats v Blues - If ever a rivalry was going to eventuate from a H&A game then this is one. Murphy v Milburn 2002, (order on pay per view).

Port and Crows, Dockers and Eagles should be promoted more with telecasts in other states to give them a feel of what it is all about. Must say, 2001 has once again reminded me about the Carlton v Richmond rivalry. It's back on with a vengeance!!!

Would the fans support these blockbusters. Instead of removing tradition in favour of money and a more equitable market share, are fans of the non 'big 4' clubs prepared to show commitment to building their own blockbusters? Then the AFL could pull back on the other blockbusters because the sense of occasion and financial rewards would not be less.

 

[brampta]

Originally posted by choppy



In 5 to 10 years when the Kangaroos brand is the first truly national team with 30,000 members in Melbourne, 10,000 in Canberra and another 10,000 in WA and SA we shall have the last laugh.

People have been writing us off ever since I can remember, in the mid 80's, early 90's and now. Don't forget that we have the only commercial structure which will enable us to take advantage of the national concept.

We shall have the last laugh as we always do.

According to today's papers, Westpac might have something to say about that

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Michele
WHAT are you talking about? Surburban clubs!!!
Did I miss something relevant?- like a team playing Australian Rules in SYDNEY and BRISBANE - the heart and soul of AFL!!
[/B]

As I said, now it's regions or cities in some cases.

Originally posted by Michele
North were labeled the Friday night specialists . ........
I recall when I was a kid St.Kilda were the mud specialists because they watered the ground at Moorabin and had a better record there than elsewhere. I don't think they invented mud or wet weather football and I would say they have any claim to that niche market.


I am not sure ANY team claims they "invented" mud. What a stupid argument.
[/B]

EXACTLY!

 

[Michele]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's
Blockbusters are like the State of Origin, if people stop going, they won't exist anymore.

The fans have as much to do with what constitutes a blockbuster as the AFL scheduling decisions do.

I can see potential blockbusters all over the place. If the AFL scheduled them, would the fans support them though.

*Roos v Sydney is obvious
*Roos v Bombers - mainly because of the canings and comeback last year by the Bombers, also because of the implication that Essendon would have won the 99 GF if they had have made it.
*Hawks v Bombers - 1983 to 1985 revisited
*Dogs v Lions - bad blood
*Dogs v Tigers - see above
*Dogs v Crows - 1997 prelim anyone
*Blues v Eagles - Greg Williams and several close physical clashes
*Port v Magpies - naming rights
*Cats v Blues - If ever a rivalry was going to eventuate from a H&A game then this is one. Murphy v Milburn 2002, (order on pay per view).

Port and Crows, Dockers and Eagles should be promoted more with telecasts in other states to give them a feel of what it is all about. Must say, 2001 has once again reminded me about the Carlton v Richmond rivalry. It's back on with a vengeance!!!

Would the fans support these blockbusters. Instead of removing tradition in favour of money and a more equitable market share, are fans of the non 'big 4' clubs prepared to show commitment to building their own blockbusters? Then the AFL could pull back on the other blockbusters because the sense of occasion and financial rewards would not be less.

ODN,

I have ambivalent feelings towards the ANZAC day 'blockbuster'. The game itself, on that day, is only a very recent innovation and WAS promoted heavily by the AFL, so they could state at the end of the year xxxxthousand attended AFL - up by xxxxthousand on last year.

If the AFL wish to continue with ANZAC day - fine - but why MUST there be a RETURN match?
Could it be that match between Cool and Ess is remembered because it ended in a draw?
What if that game have been a 'blow-out'.
Remember it is a PUBLIC holiday and supporters from other clubs do attend, because after paying respects to the ANZACs in the morning, there is little else to do and no other game in Melbourne.

Both clubs enrage me with their "we are carrying on the ANZAC tradition". What utter garbage. Put ONE player or club official at Gallipoli and then let's see the hyprocisy. It had a huge effect on S Waugh, but he didn't 'claim' that they were "carrying on the tradition."

The same with Carlton v Collingwood. Those matches are traditional but both teams INCLUDED the Peter Mac Cup. Those teams also have return matches. WHY??

By fixturing these games - every year - the "fixture" is already heavily compromised.

You raise a pertinent question re fans of the other clubs and would they support a 'blockbuster'.
Coll Ess Carl and Rich have traditionally, BUT NOT ALWAYS, had a large supporter base. Apart from Easter Monday, Anzac Day and the Queen's Birthday are the only 2 public holidays in a footy season. And both holidays are alloted to teams with a 'traditionally' larger supporter base (Richmond were nearly extinct - Save our Skins).

It is nearly impossible for smaller clubs to build a 'blockbuster' type game without the help of the AFL ie promoting, encouraging etc. because in the short term, (yearly) the AFL want to say what a great job for that year.
Where is the vision?
WHERE is the money from the sale of Waverley?
Where is the money (yearly) money from the TV rights?

The bigger clubs are getting richer AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SMALLER CLUBS

Michele

NMFC 1869

PREMIERS 2002

ps Sorry about the long post

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Michele

If the AFL wish to continue with ANZAC day - fine - but why MUST there be a RETURN match?

Remember it is a PUBLIC holiday and supporters from other clubs do attend, because after paying respects to the ANZACs in the morning, there is little else to do and no other game in Melbourne.

Both clubs enrage me with their "we are carrying on the ANZAC tradition". What utter garbage. Put ONE player or club official at Gallipoli and then let's see the hyprocisy. It had a huge effect on S Waugh, but he didn't 'claim' that they were "carrying on the tradition."

There is a return match because it draws a capacity crowd at the G. That is the only reason. The effect is money and promotion of the game. There is no doubt that the competing clubs benefit and that is why they want the return game (as well as the ANZAC Day game) but that is not why the game occurs. It occurs because the AFL want the money and promotional benefits. The carry on you refer to is called marketting. Believe it or not it is the single most important aspect of success in the offield activities of clubs and likewise with other business. It is actually what YOUR CLUB must do to survive. That is a non negotiable component of survival. The rest of that paragraph is just plain naive and silly.

The Peter Mac. BTW is a charitable event accompanying the Collingwood v Carlton games. It is actually the Peter McCallum organisation that "uses" the clubs here and I for one am glad. Once again, they play twice for the same reasons as above.

Belive it or not, as a Collingwood supporter, over the last few years I would have preferred not to play Essendon and Carlton twice. It has made our season that much more difficult. It probably even cost us a finals appearance last season. To me, nothing is more important than that.

Originally posted by Michele

Where is the vision?
WHERE is the money from the sale of Waverley?
Where is the money (yearly) money from the TV rights?

The bigger clubs are getting richer AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SMALLER CLUBS

Good questions.
The vision, if it exists, is very poorly communicated and what is let out is trearted with suspicion because the AFL are noted liars and keepers of secret agendas.

Your last line there is, again, naive. Firstly, no clubs are getting rich because we have engineered a competition which cost too much to run. That is not because of player payments either. The players deserve the lion's share of the money generated by football because they put on the show. Secondly, if clubs were getting rich, or maybe I should say are going less broke, it is not at the expense of smaller clubs, it is as opposed to smaller clubs who do not have a sustainable business in the current competition due to my first point relative to their drawing power and promotional value.

You can complain all you want about big clubs this and big clubs that, but it will not get you anywhere. In every field of nature and human endevour, the aim is to be the survivor. It is a combatative arena and you have to make your own way. Did North try and help Fitzroy? No they tried to rape them after everyone else had a go. They would have succeeded too, except that the AFL wanted them to be r*ped by another club due to a different agenda.

 

[choppy]

Originally posted by MarkT

Did North try and help Fitzroy? No they tried to rape them after everyone else had a go. They would have succeeded too, except that the AFL wanted them to be r*ped by another club due to a different agenda.

Actually the deal between North and Fitzroy was signed and sealed but a faction of Melbourne based presidents led by Leon Daphne of Richmond veteoed the arrangement because they did not want the combined North and Fitzroy clubs to become to powerful. ie as competitive as the big 4.

Classic example of the hypocritical so called big 4.

 

[windyhill]

Originally posted by MarkT


Did North try and help Fitzroy? No they tried to rape them after everyone else had a go. They would have succeeded too, except that the AFL wanted them to be r*ped by another club due to a different agenda.

Essendon (and i`m backing up mad man sheedy here) never looked at merging (raping) with Fitzroy (not even in a joking "We will put their lion on our shorts" sort of way) touched any of their players....so Essendon are to be left out of any rape allegations i would think.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Michele
The bigger clubs are getting richer AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SMALLER CLUBS

Imagine that, clubs actually getting some benefit from having a large supporter base. Shocking.

 

[Portia]

Nonono, you don't understand.

Apparently its not supporters making Essendon rich, its Essendon stealing money from North Melbourne on the sly, because you know....money spent by Essendon supporters is North's birthright that they're being deprived of.