Economic downturn will sink boot in to clubs

[hawker11]

We're not talking about only 3 clubs. We're now talking about Port Adelaide & Sydney as well in the real world. There are very few clubs that are bulletproof.

Remove the three struggling melbourne clubs and the AFL would continue to thrive as a national competition.

Remove Sydney, Port, and lets say the next struggling non-Vic club in Brisbane - and the league goes back 20 years to a VFL like existance - and without anywhere near the same level of corporate support and TV audience appeal.

 

[shintemaster]

Remove the three struggling melbourne clubs and the AFL would continue to thrive as a national competition.

Remove Sydney, Port, and lets say the next struggling non-Vic club in Brisbane - and the league goes back 20 years to a VFL like existance - and without anywhere near the same level of corporate support and TV audience appeal.

Remove zero clubs and the AFL would continue to thrive. You - like many - have blinkers on.

 

[Beaussie]

Demonstrate how the AFL would be 'better off', in terms of revenue, in terms of crowd support, in terms of merchandising, TV ratings, the whole gamut, from this plan of yours.

Lets see, Brisbane merged with Fitzroy and the AFL has, as you yourself have pointed out elsewhere, enjoyed record crowds, merchandise sales and TV rights/ratings since. Strange what the impact of merging a Victorian club has on the overall competition isn't it.

 

[Embers]

Let the clubs be and let the richer clubs spread the wealth to the poorer clubs. Quite simply, a method of cash swap for players/draft picks is the way of the future. I have no doubt Eagles wouldnt mind paying 200k for example to move there draft pick from say pick 10 to pick 2-5 or paying 500k for say David Hale to join the Eagles. Its the only solution really

 

[hawker11]

Remove zero clubs and the AFL would continue to thrive. You - like many - have blinkers on.

I was referring to money spent on propping up struggling clubs within the AFL.

If the struggling club is non-Victorian or a new club in an developing market - IMO it is money well spent.

Pouring money into a vic club that continues to struggle is a different story.

Mind you if a fair and even fixture in terms of game and ground allocation existed, perhaps we wouldn't have quite the scale of 'haves' and 'have nots' in the AFL.

 

[Zvim]

Lets see, Brisbane merged with Fitzroy and the AFL has, as you yourself have pointed out elsewhere, enjoyed record crowds, merchandise sales and TV rights/ratings since. Strange what the impact of merging a Victorian club has on the overall competition isn't it.

Not sure where you get the figures from. in terms of the FTA ratings in 2008 Brisbane had 4,365,600 of the 64,040,320 which represents 6.82% of the AFL ratings. These are ratings to the five major cities.

The games involving Brisbane rate okay, most that don't involve Brisbane likely run at a significant loss given the money they have paid for broadcasting rights and the requirement to broadcast at prime time in the northern markets.

Of the 4,365,600 figure 1,750,000 represents games involving Brisbane (20 games of the 92 broadcast on FTA in Brisbane) 40% of their overall ratings or an average of 87,500 per game. That isn't bad for a developing market.

However, of the 92 games that were broadcast into Brisbane FTA, 72 not involving Brisbane at an average of 36,328 per game. It shows Brisbane are still a very long way off.

Melbourne averages approximately 345k over the 91 games broadcast FTA, we don't get many games not involving two interstate teams on FTA but still generate 31,367,000 from the games here at a very healthy average.

TV stations looking to get the ratings to sell the TV slots aren't doing cartwheels about the overall market in NSW and QLD, the current providers expressing that they are not looking for more games in those markets because they are losing money on putting so many games to air with those overall ratings.

AFL know the markets in Sydney and Brisbane can never reach the kind of numbers for the size of the target audience unless there are a lot more teams in those markets. SA and WA are mature markets and get healthy numbers to non SA and WA games but Brisbane and Sydney still have a long way to go.

The potential broadcasting rights return from NSW and QLD is still a very long way away from returning anything. At present it is costing us money forcing the stations to broadcast low ratings games into prime time slots. But, we do it because of the likely long-term gain.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Remove the three struggling melbourne clubs and the AFL would continue to thrive as a national competition.

Remove Sydney, Port, and lets say the next struggling non-Vic club in Brisbane - and the league goes back 20 years to a VFL like existance - and without anywhere near the same level of corporate support and TV audience appeal.

People keep saying the comp would thrive, nobody can show me how.

Stunning silence from RUNVS here.

 

[Hawkk]

Up until 2 years ago the only way Hawthorn could turn a profit was for them to play some of their home games in Tasmania.

People support Hawthorn when they are winning but when they arent that support falls away very quickly (more so than the listed Melbourne based teams).

I support Sydney/Brisbane's financial support on the basis of the advertising revenue they bring to the league, but that's plain wrong.

2 years ago Hawthorn had 31,000 members (which at the time was more then respectable) and made a $3.6m profit, today we've got the most members in the league and possibly on the way to the most in all VFL/AFL history

To suggest that Hawthorn supporters are more fickle then Carlton, Essendon or Richmond supporters is unfounded and ridiculous

 

[Hawkk]

People keep saying the comp would thrive, nobody can show me how.

Stunning silence from RUNVS here.

Rationally the AFL should have 4 Victorian clubs (East/South/North and West) and 2 Perth/Adelaide/Sydney and Brisbane clubs, but we know an NFL based system of relocating 'franchises' just doesn't work in the VFL.

Under such a system all Victorian clubs should fold and the fans should support hybrid clubs vaguably representing their old VFL clubs - ala West Coast, Fremantle and Adelaide

The AFL doesn't work like that though, it mixes American based franchises (SANFL/WAFL licenses) with traditional suburban clubs.

I doubt we'll see any brash relocations/merges of Victorian clubs over the next 20-30 years, remember there have only been 3 significant changes to existing VFL/AFL clubs since foundation.

University, South Melbourne and Fitzroy

None of the struggling clubs today are in the positon that these former clubs found themselves in and therefore (unlike the NRL) we will never see 2-3 clubs leave the competition at the same time.

If anything at all you're more likely going to find the weaker clubs struggling to compete with the wealthier clubs (regardless of the salary cap) and finding niche markets to tap into more and more support to compete with the stronger WA and SA clubs.

 

[Hawkk]

Not sure where you get the figures from. in terms of the FTA ratings in 2008 Brisbane had 4,365,600 of the 64,040,320 which represents 6.82% of the AFL ratings. These are ratings to the five major cities.

The games involving Brisbane rate okay, most that don't involve Brisbane likely run at a significant loss given the money they have paid for broadcasting rights and the requirement to broadcast at prime time in the northern markets.

Of the 4,365,600 figure 1,750,000 represents games involving Brisbane (20 games of the 92 broadcast on FTA in Brisbane) 40% of their overall ratings or an average of 87,500 per game. That isn't bad for a developing market.

However, of the 92 games that were broadcast into Brisbane FTA, 72 not involving Brisbane at an average of 36,328 per game. It shows Brisbane are still a very long way off.

Melbourne averages approximately 345k over the 91 games broadcast FTA, we don't get many games not involving two interstate teams on FTA but still generate 31,367,000 from the games here at a very healthy average.

TV stations looking to get the ratings to sell the TV slots aren't doing cartwheels about the overall market in NSW and QLD, the current providers expressing that they are not looking for more games in those markets because they are losing money on putting so many games to air with those overall ratings.

AFL know the markets in Sydney and Brisbane can never reach the kind of numbers for the size of the target audience unless there are a lot more teams in those markets. SA and WA are mature markets and get healthy numbers to non SA and WA games but Brisbane and Sydney still have a long way to go.

The potential broadcasting rights return from NSW and QLD is still a very long way away from returning anything. At present it is costing us money forcing the stations to broadcast low ratings games into prime time slots. But, we do it because of the likely long-term gain.

You don't understand, the actual market for AFL in these markets is small, but its hugely important to the overall media rights deals.

The commerical markets only care about 3 markets - NSW, SEQ and Victoria. Without the Lions/Swans the AFL would only have a presense in 1/3 of the major markets and the NRL would almost certainly get more revenue for their media rights deal then us, regardless of having half the support that we do.

The only reason why the Storm exist in Melbourne (with their massive financial losses) is so the league can cover the 3 major markets for their media deal

If you took a straw poll of supporters on the street, Sydney and Brisbane would probably be at the bottom, but aside from possibly Collingwood and Essendon they hold the most influence with the AFL

 

[Demonheart]

Remove the three struggling melbourne clubs and the AFL would continue to thrive as a national competition.

Remove Sydney, Port, and lets say the next struggling non-Vic club in Brisbane - and the league goes back 20 years to a VFL like existance - and without anywhere near the same level of corporate support and TV audience appeal.

If the AFL were to historically operate by your values then the Hawks wouldn't exist today

How quickly they forget

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Shame all these idiots are directly at odds with demetriou - and reality.

"Make no mistake, the AFL is absolutely committed to a 16-team competition and absolutely committed to 10 teams in Melbourne," Demetriou said.

"The football economy in this country is generated by 10 clubs in Melbourne. Our broadcast rights are generated because we have 10 teams out of Melbourne and we play here week in and week out.

"Make no mistake, we will do everything to make sure into the future we have 16 teams, or 17 teams, or 18 teams, because the economy that is driven by the MCG and Telstra Dome - or whatever you want to call it - is only possible because we have 10 teams operating out of Melbourne."

 

[FOOOOTY]

RUNVS, you may wish to incorporate this new development into your considered reply which I await with interest.

Age: Swans Warn of Funds Struggle

(tumbleweeds blow through RUNVS's brain)

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

And as you see above, Andy D has once and for all put to the sword the whole TV rights argument too.

 

[hawker11]

If the AFL were to historically operate by your values then the Hawks wouldn't exist today

How quickly they forget

Sorry when have the AFL bailed out Hawthorn?

If I recall it was our supporter base that dug us out of the trouble in 1996...

I am referring to the clubs that continue to struggle financially in the AFL. It was in response to those comparing this to throwing money at clubs in growing markets.

 

[Hawkk]

If the AFL were to historically operate by your values then the Hawks wouldn't exist today

How quickly they forget

If you're talking about out historical troubles in the 1940's and 50's a quick glance over football history will show that our presense in the VFL at that point was very important strategically to get a 'leg up' on the VFA - who at that point was closer to the VFL in terms of strength then you may otherwise realise

The only reason why Hawthorn were admitted to the VFL in the 1920's was because of its geographical position in the 1920's mid to outer Eastern Suburbs which at that point was the territory of the VFA

Likewise Footscray was admitted to shift the VFL to the western suburbs but like North Melbourne they were a powerhouse of the VFA, Hawthorn not so

 

[T919]

Personally, I think the AFL should be studying how the NFL runs its business.

 

[Demonheart]

Sorry when have the AFL bailed out Hawthorn?

If I recall it was our supporter base that dug us out of the trouble in 1996...

I am referring to the clubs that continue to struggle financially in the AFL. It was in response to those comparing this to throwing money at clubs in growing markets.

Who said anything about the AFL bailing out clubs? You came up with the 'remove the struggling clubs' idea, and if the AFL truly followed that doctrine then the Hawks probably wouldn't have survived to the merger discussions.

It's interesting how fans change their tune so quickly, regardless your opinions are just that, opinions. No one will take them seriously, clubs like Melbourne are getting stronger and stronger.

Bad luck kid

 

[Hawkk]

Personally, I think the AFL should be studying how the NFL runs its business.

Nomadic 'brands' that move around annually on the basis of where their 'owners' like the weather

So much for supporter loyalty, perhaps we could reconfigerate our competition and scrap its 110 year history and call 2009 'the leather-ball'

 

[Hawkk]

Who said anything about the AFL bailing out clubs? You came up with the 'remove the struggling clubs' idea, and if the AFL truly followed that doctrine then the Hawks probably wouldn't have survived to the merger discussions.

Hawthorn won a flag 5 years prior to its merge discussions, things only went downhill in 1993

In contrast the same clubs currently at the bottom have been at the bottom of the tree for 10-15 years

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Personally, I think the AFL should be studying how the NFL runs its business.

Good call.

Maybe they could study the NFL and bring in a draft and a salary cap and er, er ...

 

[medusala]

Shame all these idiots are directly at odds with demetriou - and reality.

"The football economy in this country is generated by 10 clubs in Melbourne. Our broadcast rights are generated because we have 10 teams out of Melbourne and we play here week in and week out.

How many home games do those clubs play OUTSIDE of Melbourne?

Is it not almost equivalent to one team not being there?

 

[thefootyfever]

This is Alarming..we really have to think about this..

nrlfan

 

[hawker11]

Who said anything about the AFL bailing out clubs? You came up with the 'remove the struggling clubs' idea, and if the AFL truly followed that doctrine then the Hawks probably wouldn't have survived to the merger discussions.

It's interesting how fans change their tune so quickly, regardless your opinions are just that, opinions. No one will take them seriously, clubs like Melbourne are getting stronger and stronger.

Bad luck kid

Why wouldn't have Hawthorn survived the merger discussions? The AFL didn't bail Hawthorn out. No tune has never changed - the AFL have never given Hawthorn any favours and my view is that they shouldn't any other club. That includes offering clubs a fair fixture and scrapping the ASD. It is much better to be pouring the money into new and growing markets outside of Victoria.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Good call.

Maybe they could study the NFL and bring in a draft and a salary cap and er, er ...

the AFL should also copy the NFL and hold a draft combine, start up a hall of fame, introduce multi-channel broadcasting arrangements, broadcast rights and merchandise sales revenue sharing......oh yeah, they've all been pilfered too.

seriously tho, clubs need to raise ticket prices for matches. as i mentioned in another thread, we here in australia love to beat our chest and compare our average crowd numbers with the NFL, German Bundesliga and the EPL, but admission prices here are peanuts compared to these other leagues. it's ridiculous how many fans whine about the current season tix/single game admission prices. introduce a flexible admission price scale if necessary, i.e., add a premiums to expected high crowd matches, offer discounts for expected low-crowd matches.

clubs need to look at strategies to bring in more revenue because stadium issues are real debacle. but finding a solution to this will be difficult due to all the 3rd party deals the AFL and its affiliates have in place, and the lack of alternatives to use as a bargaining chip for future negotiations. ground rationalisation .....not only did it rip the tribalism out of the game, but the 3rd parties are bending over clubs without any thought of at least getting out the tube of ky to lessen the pain.