Jen2310
Premium Platinum
No going anywhere.
I assume it has a broadcast deal that relies on it continuing.
I assume it has a broadcast deal that relies on it continuing.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
AFLW Could this be the end?
- Thread starter Aardvark
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Starburns_
Premium Platinum
- Mar 30, 2011
- 49,604
- 96,703
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Colts, Stars, The Exers
There's a lot of doom and gloom around footy at the moment and it's hard to identify just how much is hyperbole and how much is real.
It really depends on how things play out from here with regard to how much of the AFL season is played in 2020 and how much the bleeding is stemmed throughout the industry. Clubs are looking at slashing costs (and list sizes) in the football department just to keep their AFL team afloat, making discretionary spending of over a million dollars a year irresponsible.
With all that being said, I highly doubt it'll die (unlike the Tassie bid which is absolutely cooked), but a hiatus of a season or 2 (maybe more
) is a very real possibility until the AFL's balance sheets are healthier. Club/season expansion (and pay rises) will certainly be off the table for quite some time.
It's not about equality, it's about financials. The AFLW loses more money than it generates (and that's no small amount), making up that shortfall has always been a luxury that the AFL could afford through it's financial strength. That financial strength is about to be decimated, the league can't (in the short-term) afford to subsidise a competition that can't sustain itself.
The AFLW is about generating medium/long-term growth whilst absorbing short-term losses. Right now the AFL industry are faced with immediately stripping everything back drastically just to keep the lights on, there's no room for a long-term focus.
It really depends on how things play out from here with regard to how much of the AFL season is played in 2020 and how much the bleeding is stemmed throughout the industry. Clubs are looking at slashing costs (and list sizes) in the football department just to keep their AFL team afloat, making discretionary spending of over a million dollars a year irresponsible.
With all that being said, I highly doubt it'll die (unlike the Tassie bid which is absolutely cooked), but a hiatus of a season or 2 (maybe more
) is a very real possibility until the AFL's balance sheets are healthier. Club/season expansion (and pay rises) will certainly be off the table for quite some time.It's not about equality, it's about financials. The AFLW loses more money than it generates (and that's no small amount), making up that shortfall has always been a luxury that the AFL could afford through it's financial strength. That financial strength is about to be decimated, the league can't (in the short-term) afford to subsidise a competition that can't sustain itself.
The AFLW is about generating medium/long-term growth whilst absorbing short-term losses. Right now the AFL industry are faced with immediately stripping everything back drastically just to keep the lights on, there's no room for a long-term focus.
This is my concern for the league. AFLW is already not financially viable, now the mens league is hemorrhaging money. I just don't see any way AFLW can continue to be funded.
It's a real shame because of reasons already outlined in this thread, the growth of the womens leagues around Australia has been amazing and its importance can not be understated. Once things are back up and running it should, and I'd say will, be brought back ASAP.
CURVE
Formally DEVO
- Sep 8, 2000
- 20,579
- 22,474
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Eels, Cumbrians, Staggies & La Viola
Are the VFL and VFLW under the AFL Banner? If so, I think they would be in more trouble than the AFLW. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the AFL extend the AFLW to 10 regular season games next year and a top 6 finals series (like it was supposed to be this year) to compensate for the aborted 2020 season.
Hawkie_McHawkHawk
Cancelled
- Sep 15, 2006
- 2,207
- 3,994
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I don’t see how the AFL will be extending anything that isn’t going to create a profit next season. From my understanding the AFLW puts a dint in the AFLs pocket as it is (with longterm ambitions of creating a profit sure) so I wouldn’t think they will be looking to add any games that will cost them further.
I hope I’m wrong and it will be a backwards step but I think the AFL will and probably can justify anything they need to do to cut costs to protect their product
- Aug 15, 2019
- 752
- 825
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Hull City, Wests Tigers
There's some pretty big name sponsors behind AFLW. how much of a loss it is actually running at? or is this just an assumption? I'd be extremely suprised if the comp does not continue as planned given what it has done for participation and local clubs.
There are local footy clubs that would have gone under in the past few years that have been saved by having women's footy, which has spiked thanks to AFLW. Plenty of clubs with equal numbers in mens and women's sides.
There are local footy clubs that would have gone under in the past few years that have been saved by having women's footy, which has spiked thanks to AFLW. Plenty of clubs with equal numbers in mens and women's sides.
Starburns_
Premium Platinum
- Mar 30, 2011
- 49,604
- 96,703
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Colts, Stars, The Exers
Thread needs a poll, what other options should it have?
Indeed. If the worst-case scenarios that keep getting mentioned play out then the AFL won't be able to fund it, but even if it goes away, it'll come back.
If it comes to that, the AFL will take the immediate PR hit and backlash from current players and supporters because their goals with the AFLW are longer term. Pressing pause will halt momentum and upset some people, but doing so is not going to drastically effect the AFL's long-term vision for the AFLW.
They are, but the impact is harder to measure considering that both are over 2/3 comprised by AFL clubs. In VFL's case 80% of the players are on AFL lists and the coach is generally an AFL assistant coach, so it's all just part of the AFL's general money problem. Stand alone clubs and the VFLW are harder to figure out, it probably depends on how the contracts there are worded compared with the AFL ones.
There is no way that the AFLW will undergo any expansion under the current climate. From here even playing the full 17 game AFL season with fans in attendance for half of it will still leave the AFL significantly out of pocket. All expansion that doesn't bring immediate money to the game will be off the table; 4 more AFLW clubs, longer AFLW season, Tasmanian bid, national reserves comp or development leagues? Forget it.
Still nowhere near a break-even point, though I imagine The_Wookie would have the most accurate numbers.
Your point on sponsorship does bring up one of the major issue facing the AFL going forward. Many current sponsors will likely not have the capability to continue to sponsor sporting organisations (though AFLW's Chemist Warehouse might make enough from this to sponsor the AFL itself). Spending big on a small, niche competition (like the AFLW, A-League, NBL, etc.) is going to be hard to justify in an age of worldwide financial belt-tightening, even the smaller AFL clubs (assuming all survive) are going to face this problem attracting major sponsors at a rate anything close to what they're accustomed to.
Moving off topic a bit, those people who hate gambling and alcohol sponsorship in football are going to be furious, because we're only going to have more of that.
Indeed. If the worst-case scenarios that keep getting mentioned play out then the AFL won't be able to fund it, but even if it goes away, it'll come back.
If it comes to that, the AFL will take the immediate PR hit and backlash from current players and supporters because their goals with the AFLW are longer term. Pressing pause will halt momentum and upset some people, but doing so is not going to drastically effect the AFL's long-term vision for the AFLW.
They are, but the impact is harder to measure considering that both are over 2/3 comprised by AFL clubs. In VFL's case 80% of the players are on AFL lists and the coach is generally an AFL assistant coach, so it's all just part of the AFL's general money problem. Stand alone clubs and the VFLW are harder to figure out, it probably depends on how the contracts there are worded compared with the AFL ones.
There is no way that the AFLW will undergo any expansion under the current climate. From here even playing the full 17 game AFL season with fans in attendance for half of it will still leave the AFL significantly out of pocket. All expansion that doesn't bring immediate money to the game will be off the table; 4 more AFLW clubs, longer AFLW season, Tasmanian bid, national reserves comp or development leagues? Forget it.
Still nowhere near a break-even point, though I imagine The_Wookie would have the most accurate numbers.
Your point on sponsorship does bring up one of the major issue facing the AFL going forward. Many current sponsors will likely not have the capability to continue to sponsor sporting organisations (though AFLW's Chemist Warehouse might make enough from this to sponsor the AFL itself
). Spending big on a small, niche competition (like the AFLW, A-League, NBL, etc.) is going to be hard to justify in an age of worldwide financial belt-tightening, even the smaller AFL clubs (assuming all survive) are going to face this problem attracting major sponsors at a rate anything close to what they're accustomed to.Moving off topic a bit, those people who hate gambling and alcohol sponsorship in football are going to be furious, because we're only going to have more of that.
The AFLW has been a luxury afforded by the profits made off the men's competition. Now that those profits have shuddered to a halt, the AFL will need to cut frivolous expenditures to remain above water. It may come down to cutting AFLW or cutting some clubs from the primary competition, which also means a loss in broadcasting revenue.
- Banned
- #34
AFL needs to cut costs. AFLW contributes -$14 million to the AFL.
Crybabies that hate AFLW are worried they'll lose their medallion club seats or something
The broadcast deal is based on the mens Product. Go to channel 9 or 10 to see what they will offer to broadcast the women’s league and it is there you will find out it’s current worth.
Not knocking the women’s game just putting some reality to what it’s value is money wise, neither 9 or 10 Woukd have any interest in it.
Who knows the may want it as a disruptive play and where they can be able to use the AFL license or use it as an opening for Men or sign Players
BringBackTorps
Club Legend
- Jan 5, 2017
- 2,963
- 1,827
- AFL Club
- GWS
1. There is virtually no chance the AFLW will be suspended from season 2021 (assuming the covid-19 outbreak has been fully conquered by late 2020) because the AFLW :-
. has generated a HUGE boom in GR female regd. player nos. Aust. -wide. This is crucially important for the short & long term strategic interests of the AFL.
. , in NSW, ACT & Qld., has probably also contributed to an increase in GR AF male player nos.
. has generated much goodwill for the AFL
. is the start of recognising & implementing the rights of females to fully participate in our great Australian game. Females & female players have previously been humiliated & discriminated against. The AFL would be eviscerated in a huge backlash if the AFLW was closed.
. attracts significant commercial sponsorship eg St Kilda has a $5m main sponsor- 5 yrs X $1m pa.
Many of these sponsors have never sponsored the AFL or its clubs before.
The AFL & advertisers want to attract more of the female demographic (who make many decisions on what sports their kids will play, & spending decisions respectively).
. helps the AFL achieve its cherished ambition of "dominating the MSM cycle" for c. 50 weeks of the year (as the AFLW is played in the off- season)
. has awakened GR AF clubs to the huge benefits of having female players ie
- more sponsors
- a better club culture
- more funds form local Councils & state govts.
- more females on Club C'tees, & thus much more valuable expertise brought into GR clubs
- more successful club fundraising events, since more players (& their friends, parents etc. attend) attend, buy raffle tickets, help introduce new sponsors etc.
2. AFL clubs have total AFLW player wage commitments of c. $8m+ pa. across the 14 clubs. This is, relatively, a very small amount.
In comparison, the bloated, greedy, & overpaid AFL club Football Departments spend c. $200m pa (NOT including player wages).
There are too many (excluding medical staff) hangers-on in the "Football Industry" (sic), & the AFL clubs would be much better off slashing their non-player wages by c. half (excluding medical staff) ie reduce the Football Dept. annual expenditure to c. $100 m pa.
The AFL would, accordingly, slash its Club distributions by about half pa.
The AFL pays it 11 executives c. $10.4m pa. This is also very excessive & unwarranted for a Not For Profit organisation, considering its annual revenues. The $10.4m pa is, possibly, one of the highest in the world for NFP total executive pay, & should also be slashed.
(I am excluding the USA, which many consider to be the home of disgraceful corporate greed; & the discredited "trickle down effect" of disgraceful overpaying of directors & executives. Also, US Not For Profit organisations generally have far higher annual revenues pa, cf the AFL)
This slashing of Football Dept. etc. expenditure will secure the existence of all 18 clubs & the AFLW.
3. Re the financial benefits of AF generally, the "...economic impact of Australian Rules Football...generated $6.8 billion in financial contributions to the Australian economy in 2018".
newsroom.unsw.edu.au
EDIT:
4. For every $1 that GR AF clubs spend, an additional $4.40 in value is generated.
www.abc.net.au
Governments, therefore, have strong valid vested interests in ensuring the AFL & AF does not diminish. AF is very good for the Aust. economy.
. has generated a HUGE boom in GR female regd. player nos. Aust. -wide. This is crucially important for the short & long term strategic interests of the AFL.
. , in NSW, ACT & Qld., has probably also contributed to an increase in GR AF male player nos.
. has generated much goodwill for the AFL
. is the start of recognising & implementing the rights of females to fully participate in our great Australian game. Females & female players have previously been humiliated & discriminated against. The AFL would be eviscerated in a huge backlash if the AFLW was closed.
. attracts significant commercial sponsorship eg St Kilda has a $5m main sponsor- 5 yrs X $1m pa.
Many of these sponsors have never sponsored the AFL or its clubs before.
The AFL & advertisers want to attract more of the female demographic (who make many decisions on what sports their kids will play, & spending decisions respectively).
. helps the AFL achieve its cherished ambition of "dominating the MSM cycle" for c. 50 weeks of the year (as the AFLW is played in the off- season)
. has awakened GR AF clubs to the huge benefits of having female players ie
- more sponsors
- a better club culture
- more funds form local Councils & state govts.
- more females on Club C'tees, & thus much more valuable expertise brought into GR clubs
- more successful club fundraising events, since more players (& their friends, parents etc. attend) attend, buy raffle tickets, help introduce new sponsors etc.
2. AFL clubs have total AFLW player wage commitments of c. $8m+ pa. across the 14 clubs. This is, relatively, a very small amount.
In comparison, the bloated, greedy, & overpaid AFL club Football Departments spend c. $200m pa (NOT including player wages).
There are too many (excluding medical staff) hangers-on in the "Football Industry" (sic), & the AFL clubs would be much better off slashing their non-player wages by c. half (excluding medical staff) ie reduce the Football Dept. annual expenditure to c. $100 m pa.
The AFL would, accordingly, slash its Club distributions by about half pa.
The AFL pays it 11 executives c. $10.4m pa. This is also very excessive & unwarranted for a Not For Profit organisation, considering its annual revenues. The $10.4m pa is, possibly, one of the highest in the world for NFP total executive pay, & should also be slashed.
(I am excluding the USA, which many consider to be the home of disgraceful corporate greed; & the discredited "trickle down effect" of disgraceful overpaying of directors & executives. Also, US Not For Profit organisations generally have far higher annual revenues pa, cf the AFL)
This slashing of Football Dept. etc. expenditure will secure the existence of all 18 clubs & the AFLW.
3. Re the financial benefits of AF generally, the "...economic impact of Australian Rules Football...generated $6.8 billion in financial contributions to the Australian economy in 2018".
Economic windfall thanks to AFL
newsroom.unsw.edu.au
EDIT:
4. For every $1 that GR AF clubs spend, an additional $4.40 in value is generated.
Grassroots football clubs 'boosting mental heath, creating jobs'
For every $1 spent on local football clubs, at least $4.40 is returned in social value, improving employment outcomes, mental wellbeing and personal development, a study finds.
www.abc.net.au
Governments, therefore, have strong valid vested interests in ensuring the AFL & AF does not diminish. AF is very good for the Aust. economy.
Last edited:
Another pressure when things resume will likely be a reduction in sponsorship right across the game.
Most companies will be hurting badly and will be looking to rebuild. I doubt that sponsorship of sport will be high on the agenda of many companies.
This would affect all of football from grass roots to the AFL. I hope I am wrong.
Most companies will be hurting badly and will be looking to rebuild. I doubt that sponsorship of sport will be high on the agenda of many companies.
This would affect all of football from grass roots to the AFL. I hope I am wrong.
Hawkie_McHawkHawk
Cancelled
- Sep 15, 2006
- 2,207
- 3,994
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
will be interesting to see how much the AFL really values it’s social causes after the dust settles. They could very well see standing down the AFLW as a dicey move that would undo lots of goodwill with fans. If I know anything about big business though they will be sitting in a boardroom and the only thing that will be spoken about is drawing profit from their core business (ie. The Australian Football League)1. There is virtually no chance the AFLW will be suspended from season 2021 (assuming the covid-19 outbreak has been fully conquered by late 2020) because the AFLW :-
. has generated a HUGE boom in GR female regd. player nos. This is crucially important for the short & long term strategic interests of the AFL.
. , in NSW, ACT & Qld., has probably also contributed to an increase in GR AF male player nos.
. has generated much goodwill for the AFL
. is the start of recognising & implementing the rights of females to fully participate in our great Australian game. Females & female players have previously been humiliated & discriminated against. The AFL would be eviscerated in a huge backlash if the AFLW was closed.
. attracts significant commercial sponsorship eg St Kilda has a $5m main sponsor- 5 X $1m pa.
Many of these sponsors have never sponsored the AFL or its clubs before.
. helps the AFL achieve its cherished ambition of "dominating the MSM cycle" for c. 50 weeks of the year (as the AFLW is played in the off- season)
. has awakened GR AF clubs to the huge benefits of having female players ie
- more sponsors
- a better club culture
- more funds form local Councils & state govts.
- more females on Club C'tees, & thus much more valuable expertise brought into GR clubs
- more successful club fundraising events, since more players (& their friends, parents etc. attend) attend, buy raffle tickets, help introduce new sponsors etc.
2. AFL clubs have total AFLW player wage commitments of c. $8m+ pa. across the 14 clubs. This is, relatively, a very small amount.
In comparison, the bloated, greedy, & overpaid AFL club Football Departments spend c. $200m pa (NOT including player wages).
There are too many (excluding medical staff) hangers-on in the "Football Industry" (sic), & the AFL clubs would be much better off slashing their non-player wages by c. half (excluding medical staff) ie reduce the Football Dept. annual expenditure to c. $100 m pa.
The AFL would, accordingly, slash its Club distributions by about half pa.
The AFL pays it 11 executives c. $10.4m pa. This is also very excessive & unwarranted for a Not For Profit organisation, considering its annual revenues. The $10.4m pa is, possibly, one of the highest in the world for NFP total executive pay, & should also be slashed.
(I am excluding the USA, which many consider to be the home of disgraceful corporate greed; & the discredited "trickle down effect" of disgraceful overpaying of directors & executives. Also, US Not For Profit organisations generally have far higher annual revenues pa, cf the AFL)
This slashing of Football Dept. etc. expenditure will secure the existence of all 18 clubs & the AFLW.
3. Re the financial benefits of AF generally, the "...economic impact of Australian Rules Football...generated $6.8 billion in financial contributions to the Australian economy in 2018".
Economic windfall thanks to AFL
EDIT:
For every $1 that GR AF clubs spend, an additional $4.40 in value is generated.
Grassroots football clubs 'boosting mental heath, creating jobs'
For every $1 spent on local football clubs, at least $4.40 is returned in social value, improving employment outcomes, mental wellbeing and personal development, a study finds.
Governments, therefore, have strong valid vested interests in ensuring the AFL & AF does not diminish. AF is very good for the Aust. economy.
BringBackTorps
Club Legend
- Jan 5, 2017
- 2,963
- 1,827
- AFL Club
- GWS
Good news for the AFLW- all 14 AFLW clubs are safe in 2021.
Mr TV Australia 16.3.20
" Caroline Wilson The Age Reporting Seven and Foxtel set to agree on 2 year extension of the AFL Broadcast rights".
(No quantum stated- but the MSM recently reported the AFL was seeking a 2 year extension only, at the current $418m pa, + CPI)
twitter.com
(Go to Sports Industry 16.3.20- then click on "Mr TV Australia").
I find it strange that I have found no MSM report of this important Rights' breakthrough.
If correct, this is strong evidence the 18 AFL clubs will survive the current crisis, plus all 14 AFLW teams.
EDIT:
The Age M. Gleeson 20.3
More good news for the AFL & Clubs- & the AFLW.
Gleeson said
"Marvel Stadium is not only a valuable asset, but it promises future cash flows for parties willing to offer credit. The League is in a strong credit position to access debt (at very low interest rates- my words)...Clubs are also examining the equity in their own assets to be able to draw against...".
www.theage.com.au
There have also been reports the AFL is seeking interest-free govt. loans.
EDIT 2:
The Age P. Ryan 22.3
"...the AFL would take a minimum of 5 years to recover financial ground with many...predicting the games economic model would look different forever".
"...Marvel Stadium being raised as a potential asset they could use to securitise loans (ie ofer DS as collateral to access low interest loans for the AFL- my words).
www.theage.com.au
It was very prescient that the AFL bought out DS early, before 2025. Since the AFL is now the owner, it can be used as security for very cheap loans; & the AFL's salvation.
EDIT 3:
SEN Radio Melb. 24.3
www.sen.com.au
AFAIK, DS land & stadium have a total value of c. $1.25 billion.
Docklands Stadium likely to bail out AFL from any serious long term damage. All 18 AFL Clubs & 14 AFLW teams are likely to survive.
Will the likely AFL "limited & manageable" effects of covid-19, cf other Aust. sports, place it in a stronger relative position to the other pro sports? And a relative boost for GR AF?
EDIT 4:
The AFL is seeking a $500m loan- DS will be offered as collateral, thus being able to achieve a loan at low interest rates.
This will ensure the long term security of ALL 18 AFL clubs & 14 AFLW teams.
www.theage.com.au
Mr TV Australia 16.3.20
" Caroline Wilson The Age Reporting Seven and Foxtel set to agree on 2 year extension of the AFL Broadcast rights".
(No quantum stated- but the MSM recently reported the AFL was seeking a 2 year extension only, at the current $418m pa, + CPI)
sportsindustry (@footyindustryAU) | Twitter
The latest Tweets from sportsindustry (@footyindustryAU): "News Wrap | Friday, May 8th | WA AFL teams miss out on home games early, India still plan on coming to Australia, Kayo subs take a 30% hit, RA solvency questions https://t.co/ZI3V1TYArR"
twitter.com
I find it strange that I have found no MSM report of this important Rights' breakthrough.
If correct, this is strong evidence the 18 AFL clubs will survive the current crisis, plus all 14 AFLW teams.
EDIT:
The Age M. Gleeson 20.3
More good news for the AFL & Clubs- & the AFLW.
Gleeson said
"Marvel Stadium is not only a valuable asset, but it promises future cash flows for parties willing to offer credit. The League is in a strong credit position to access debt (at very low interest rates- my words)...Clubs are also examining the equity in their own assets to be able to draw against...".
Marvel Stadium key asset as AFL acts to survive financial calamity
With revenues falling off a cliff due to games being played in front of no crowds the AFL is working on an emergency response.
There have also been reports the AFL is seeking interest-free govt. loans.
EDIT 2:
The Age P. Ryan 22.3
"...the AFL would take a minimum of 5 years to recover financial ground with many...predicting the games economic model would look different forever".
"...Marvel Stadium being raised as a potential asset they could use to securitise loans (ie ofer DS as collateral to access low interest loans for the AFL- my words).
Five-year recovery as smaller Victorian AFL clubs battle for survival
Industry analysts say the AFL will need to assist smaller Victorian clubs such as Melbourne and St Kilda so they can survive coronavirus epidemic
It was very prescient that the AFL bought out DS early, before 2025. Since the AFL is now the owner, it can be used as security for very cheap loans; & the AFL's salvation.
EDIT 3:
SEN Radio Melb. 24.3
The asset that puts the AFL in a much stronger survival position than the NRL
“It might ultimately save the game."
www.sen.com.au
AFAIK, DS land & stadium have a total value of c. $1.25 billion.
Docklands Stadium likely to bail out AFL from any serious long term damage. All 18 AFL Clubs & 14 AFLW teams are likely to survive.
Will the likely AFL "limited & manageable" effects of covid-19, cf other Aust. sports, place it in a stronger relative position to the other pro sports? And a relative boost for GR AF?
EDIT 4:
The AFL is seeking a $500m loan- DS will be offered as collateral, thus being able to achieve a loan at low interest rates.
This will ensure the long term security of ALL 18 AFL clubs & 14 AFLW teams.
AFL to seek $500m plus loan during unprecedented crisis
The bank loan that the AFL is seeking to secure the game's future as the coronavirus takes a stranglehold on the 2020 season is expected to exceed half a billion dollars.
Last edited:
gingernuts
binlicker
games in China, proposed games in USA, NZ failure ,aflx .none of those profitable for the AFL
The AFLW is only in serious trouble if the AFL is in serious trouble, and AFLW teams will be lost only if clubs are lost, eg No St Kilda AFLW taam if you have no St Kilda. By serious trouble, I mean, about to totally die trouble. Not, we all have to tighten our belts significantly, trouble.
It costs money to run, but jettisoning it will also cost, especially if there is significant fall out, which there would be.
Not only do you lose the sponsors of the AFLW, it may cost you with sponsors of the AFL.
It costs money to run, but jettisoning it will also cost, especially if there is significant fall out, which there would be.
Not only do you lose the sponsors of the AFLW, it may cost you with sponsors of the AFL.
That’s only because your teams not in it
It ain’t going anywhere
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,287
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Errr, no.
Hawkie_McHawkHawk
Cancelled
- Sep 15, 2006
- 2,207
- 3,994
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
[
I don’t care the Hawks aren’t in it honestly. My wife has a friend that plays in it and we’ve been to a couple of games of hers, my support lies there in honesty even if the Hawks were to start a team up.
The mighty Hawks
Debutant
- Mar 23, 2020
- 95
- 106
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Banned
- #49
Hard to see it continuing when you consider it loses about 15 million annually for the AFL.
Source??
- Status
Similar threads
