Expansion If the AFL expanded, where would the next team/s be?

[Gibbke]

a) look at the post I replied to and consider my comment in relation to that.

b) do you really think Ch7 pays massive amounts for the TV rights so they're required to broadcast many hours of content a weekend into those big markets and achieve ratings that are rates less than the VFL does in Victoria? Advertisers might like the 'national market' idea, but if nobody watches, they wont pay big money for it.

They get enough and it's stable. It all revolves around Saturday night. Friday night in the northern states is RL territory, and the rest is flexible, but the night slot on Saturday is king up here and in Sydney (compared to the other broadcast timeslots), unless the two local sides have both played their games before then, which is reasonably rare...

 

[Colonial]

The entire country has been divided into zones for development. Of course you'd spend money on dragging talent out from wherever you can get it - if Ireland, the US, Safrica and New Zealand are in the radar for player development, then of course you'd spend what is still a small percentage of that on Auskick in the biggest population centre in Australia...seriously, does your question not answer itself? A few bucks telling the locals they are loved...

There is a romantic notion that expansion is all about flying the flag, showing the heathen the beauty of the great Australian game, telling Western Sydney they "deserve a team" (Andy's exact words), etc, etc...I call bullshit. If any of you were up here the memorable weekend in 2005 when Channel Ten announced gleefully that every Saturday Night would feature an AFL match regardless of the Lions fixture, and then got comprehensively belted in the ratings every week Brisbane didn't play, just before a mad rush to strongarm North into relocating on the GC, as well as a sudden and unprecedented interest in Western Sydney - at the same time as new tv rights were about to be negotiated and only a few years after the AFL told everyone they didn't want any more than 16 teams - then it all becomes very clear...

Sometime about ten years ago, one or more of the major networks got very forceful with the AFL and made it clear they wanted local content in all three big eastern cities if they were going to pay shitloads of cash for footy broadcasting. That meant two more teams. They don't need to make a killing on Saturday Night, which isn't the week's most important slot, they just need to be competitive against the odd rugby test and Saturday night kids movies, week in week out because advertisers want stability. Look at the draw from ten years ago up until GWS entered, and count the Saturday nighters in Qld and NSW...clear evidence of just how much tv dominates footy...

Nice rant.
But why qoute me when you didnt even respond to my question

 

[Gibbke]

Figures in Queensland at least show the uptake has been pretty good in fact. Maybe you should have read the actual brochure instead of just the front and back pages.

Yeah - as a result of greatly enhanced tv rights revenue for exactly the reasons stated above...you can spend more on Auskick once you've got the cash and your clubs aren't broke...

 

[Gibbke]

Nice rant.
But why qoute me when you didnt even respond to my question

I did answer your question, first up. Reread my rant...

In any case, I'm not bagging GWS, or stating Tassie should have gotten in first, whatever. None of that's relevant, and for some unexplainable reason to me, GWS are my second team...!

 

[Colonial]

I did answer your question, first up. Reread my rant...

In any case, I'm not bagging GWS, or stating Tassie should have gotten in first, whatever. None of that's relevant, and for some unexplainable reason to me, GWS are my second team...!

That was still just rant. As its more than just a few dollars.

Thats great the more the merrier as they say. Still doesnt change what i said. Its not just tv dollars (though its a big part)

 

[The_Wookie]

Yeah - as a result of greatly enhanced tv rights revenue for exactly the reasons stated above...you can spend more on Auskick once you've got the cash and your clubs aren't broke...

There are a couple of problems with your theory.

Planning for a second sydney side began appearing in AFL annual reports the year after Sydney appeared in the 1996 Grand Fnal. AFL NSW/ACT was completely reorganised in 97-98, and AFL QLD followed suite in 98-99 - more than 10 years before teams appeared in those locations and more than 3 years before the big burst in tv rights in 2002. The AFL Annual Reports from '99 on had a very singular mindset - grow the northern game with or without another AFL side.

Again, this development program started 10 years before weekly tv broadcasts were a factor. The 2007 TV rights deal merely enabled the league to afford the 200m budget for the new teams.

 

[Fizzler]

Figures in Queensland at least show the uptake has been pretty good in fact. Maybe you should have read the actual brochure instead of just the front and back pages.

Thanks Wookie for posting this. This is the reason why I would like a 2 new Victoria teams. Apart from Geelong, all of our teams are Metro. You know how everyone is talking about the growth of soccer? It's growing alright. My school is renowned for being good at soccer. Back in primary school no one wanted to play footy. I've seen the way footy struggles with attracting kids UNLESS we add a Victorian team or two. This growth in QLD (and Western Sydney FWIW) is what is keeping footy striving.

 

[Papa G]

Yeah TV execs and Advertisers alike love the stability of 23,000 in a city of 4 million tuning in.

 

[The_Wookie]

Yeah TV execs and Advertisers alike love the stability of 23,000 in a city of 4 million tuning in.

You mean its that simple? well then....

 

[Gibbke]

There are a couple of problems with your theory.

Planning for a second sydney side began appearing in AFL annual reports the year after Sydney appeared in the 1996 Grand Fnal. AFL NSW/ACT was completely reorganised in 97-98, and AFL QLD followed suite in 98-99 - more than 10 years before teams appeared in those locations and more than 3 years before the big burst in tv rights in 2002. The AFL Annual Reports from '99 on had a very singular mindset - grow the northern game with or without another AFL side.

Again, this development program started 10 years before weekly tv broadcasts were a factor. The 2007 TV rights deal merely enabled the league to afford the 200m budget for the new teams.

Nope, it's completely consistent. The US military has planned for a threat from a godzilla-style monster, believe it or not, in preparation for the ridiculous notion that it could happen - they know it's stupid, but on the zillion to one chance it did happen, it's better to be ready just in case. In the same vein, the AFL, who started a programme of expansion, are naturally going to look at various incarnations of the league, and of course they will come up with scenarios based upon population. They've thought of everything. Whatever we think up as an "I'd like to see" scenario for the league has already been discussed in the inner sanctum and is written down on a piece of paper somewhere, ready to be dragged out when needed...in footy, there are no new ideas under the sun...

Thing is, you have to pay for it. These ideas were sat upon for decades before the financial means to achieve them were in sight. You say tv wasn't on the scene, but it was - these things aren't created in a vacuum - Sunday arvo footy from Sydney, Galaxy and Optus...the steps were in place and there was a definite direction based upon what already happened in the US. Details changed, but the direction and focus didn't. There's no "merely enabled the league" about this at all - tv rights and the gradual jacking up of the price occurred systematically, each new round bringing fundamental changes to the sport, and these were driven with tv markets in mind because that's where the real revenue was and would be coming from. In 2007, to nearly double the price from $700m to over a billion, the league had to be seen to be putting into place the terms and conditions that a spate of interstate flags and the success of the Brisbane Lions and Sydney were dictating would be the "in-thing". Two new teams, and it had to look like they'd work ("$100m or whatever it takes"...again, Andy's exact words). Papa G up there can scoff with his current ratings figures and his woefully wrong count of Brisbane's population, but ten years ago Qld and NSW were very different beasts when it came to tv viewership, everyone had this notion with Qld winning every sport they competed in (and NSW being the state that could) that it would be like this forever, and Australia's tv networks wanted in. Ratings for Lions games in particular were very good, but the night Footscray with Aker played Melbourne and were outrated by Scooby Doo was the day Ten got narky (this happened, and the local rugby league press f###ing loved it...!)...

You guys acknowledge tv rights as important - I simply say they are all important when it comes to the direction the league takes in all matters. It's simple business with big numbers, and it's all taken into account before things happen, not the other way around. It also makes every question a footy fan can ask suddenly very simple, on subjects such as a Tassie team, where to next, scheduling, etc. Qld and NSW are the barometers by which all things footy can be measured, because they are the hard targets...

 

[Gibbke]

Yeah TV execs and Advertisers alike love the stability of 23,000 in a city of 4 million tuning in.

This is why they wear the suits and you don't...they understand the concept of a quick Google search...

 

[The_Wookie]

Nope, it's completely consistent. The US military has planned for a threat from a godzilla-style monster, believe it or not, in preparation for the ridiculous notion that it could happen - they know it's stupid, but on the zillion to one chance it did happen, it's better to be ready just in case. In the same vein, the AFL, who started a programme of expansion, are naturally going to look at various incarnations of the league, and of course they will come up with scenarios based upon population. They've thought of everything. Whatever we think up as an "I'd like to see" scenario for the league has already been discussed in the inner sanctum and is written down on a piece of paper somewhere, ready to be dragged out when needed...in footy, there are no new ideas under the sun...

Thing is, you have to pay for it. These ideas were sat upon for decades before the financial means to achieve them were in sight. You say tv wasn't on the scene, but it was - these things aren't created in a vacuum - Sunday arvo footy from Sydney, Galaxy and Optus...the steps were in place and there was a definite direction based upon what already happened in the US. Details changed, but the direction and focus didn't. There's no "merely enabled the league" about this at all - tv rights and the gradual jacking up of the price occurred systematically, each new round bringing fundamental changes to the sport, and these were driven with tv markets in mind because that's where the real revenue was and would be coming from. In 2007, to nearly double the price from $700m to over a billion, the league had to be seen to be putting into place the terms and conditions that a spate of interstate flags and the success of the Brisbane Lions and Sydney were dictating would be the "in-thing". Two new teams, and it had to look like they'd work ("$100m or whatever it takes"...again, Andy's exact words). Papa G up there can scoff with his current ratings figures and his woefully wrong count of Brisbane's population, but ten years ago Qld and NSW were very different beasts when it came to tv viewership, everyone had this notion with Qld winning every sport they competed in (and NSW being the state that could) that it would be like this forever, and Australia's tv networks wanted in. Ratings for Lions games in particular were very good, but the night Footscray with Aker played Melbourne and were outrated by Scooby Doo was the day Ten got narky (this happened, and the local rugby league press f###ing loved it...!)...

You guys acknowledge tv rights as important - I simply say they are all important when it comes to the direction the league takes in all matters. It's simple business with big numbers, and it's all taken into account before things happen, not the other way around. It also makes every question a footy fan can ask suddenly very simple, on subjects such as a Tassie team, where to next, scheduling, etc. Qld and NSW are the barometers by which all things footy can be measured, because they are the hard targets...

Couple of things

• the AFL was paying millions a year for development in queensland and new south wales a decade before the new teams were created, before any mega tv deal was in place - the tv deal at the time was only 17 million a year, jumping to 40 million a year in 1998 - and with only a vague eye towards a new team that was a remote possibility when first discussed in 1997-98.
• As for "real revenue" coming from tv - up until this day, the league has had less than half its revenue come from broadcast rights, although that might go slightly the other side of the coin from 2017. "Real revenue" comes from plenty of other sources as well.
  
• In 2007 the league didnt nearly double anything to over a billion. The AFL went from 500 million to 750 million. It didnt do a billion dollar deal until 2011.
• Ratings data was ok - I wouldnt say very good when compared to others - for Queensland and NSW - maxing out at about 100k in 2008-2009. I havent seen data subsets for any period before that suggest they were any better.

 

[Slax]

Isn't increasing the participation rate in NSW & QLD the entire reason we subsidise the clubs up there?

If they're not making inroads, then they should abandon the experiment and just close them down.

Qld and NSW can support only one team each now without the AFL putting millions extra each year to prop up the sides.

 

[Slax]

Couple of things

• the AFL was paying millions a year for development in queensland and new south wales a decade before the new teams were created, before any mega tv deal was in place - the tv deal at the time was only 17 million a year, jumping to 40 million a year in 1998 - and with only a vague eye towards a new team that was a remote possibility when first discussed in 1997-98.
• As for "real revenue" coming from tv - up until this day, the league has had less than half its revenue come from broadcast rights, although that might go slightly the other side of the coin from 2017. "Real revenue" comes from plenty of other sources as well.
  
• In 2007 the league didnt nearly double anything to over a billion. The AFL went from 500 million to 750 million. It didnt do a billion dollar deal until 2011.
• Ratings data was ok - I wouldnt say very good when compared to others - for Queensland and NSW - maxing out at about 100k in 2008-2009. I havent seen data subsets for any period before that suggest they were any better.

Ratings for Qld have gone backwards and games are shown on 7Mate. The ratings situation is best summed up by the fact the Qld Cup (League equivalent of VFL) out rates the AFL.

 

[Papa G]

Nah mate you've got it wrong. The suits know what they are doing. You people on the ground don't know what you are talking about. Just because people don't watch or like the game, it means nothing. If the suits say you like the game, contrary to all metrics bar increasing female participation, then you bloody well like the game, even though you don't play, watch, read or care for it at all. Got it?

 

[jatz14]

The question posed in the opening was. IF the league expanded, where? Answer is Tasmania. A different question is, should it expand?, no in my opinion. Not sure what most of the posts on here are discussing.

Perhaps we need a Who do we need to kill of to shoehorn a Tas side into the comp, and does this make the league stronger, weaker, no change, thread


Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[madmug]

The question posed in the opening was. IF the league expanded, where? Answer is Tasmania. A different question is, should it expand?, no in my opinion. Not sure what most of the posts on here are discussing.

Perhaps we need a Who do we need to kill of to shoehorn a Tas side into the comp, and does this make the league stronger, weaker, no change, thread


Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Did you mean expand in a geographical sense, or the number of clubs?

 

[jatz14]

Did you mean expand in a geographical sense, or the number of clubs?

In the number of clubs, but that only makes sense in a geographical sense. Not a fan of a third WA team, the only currently serviced area that could possibly cope with another team.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[madmug]

In the number of clubs, but that only makes sense in a geographical sense. Not a fan of a third WA team, the only currently serviced area that could possibly cope with another team.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

One could argue that the only area which has its most suitable number of clubs is Adelaide. I think the best way for GWS & GC to have been better done would have been as relocated clubs. Like the way Brisbane were set up. Bears & Lions. I've no idea if/when those two will be self sustaining. WA3 is a logical place for a stand alone club. I think Tas1 also but the politics aren't in alignment for that as yet.

Perhaps when the poker machine menace is capped by State Guments & the TV rights hits the wall, some poorly positioned clubs might have to make way for change.

 

[jatz14]

One could argue that the only area which has its most suitable number of clubs is Adelaide. I think the best way for GWS & GC to have been better done would have been as relocated clubs. Like the way Brisbane were set up. Bears & Lions. I've no idea if/when those two will be self sustaining. WA3 is a logical place for a stand alone club. I think Tas1 also but the politics aren't in alignment for that as yet.

Perhaps when the poker machine menace is capped by State Guments & the TV rights hits the wall, some poorly positioned clubs might have to make way for change.

The issue for all those wanting change, is that it is hard to see how any further change substantially contributes to the competition. GC and GWS were added based on potential, and footprint of the sport, but the game probably cannot afford any more speculative clubs. A third WA team will be weaker, possibly substantially weaker, than the Eagles and Dockers, for decades, perhaps permanently. Any other potential club looks like it would do well just to get of the bottom of the rung (talking success as a club here, not the team). The sport does not need to pack the comp with any more St Kildas.

In my opinion, the next change that occurs will be forced, and will likely not happen for a long time, and there is no predicting now what it will be.

 

[thegreig]

The league will definitely grow to 20 teams down the track but I think that will be it, anything after that will be relocation but it won't be for a very long time.

 

[madmug]

The league will definitely grow to 20 teams down the track but I think that will be it, anything after that will be relocation but it won't be for a very long time.

Thats a pity. But its because the AFL have put themselves in a messy position due to sectional interests, not the interests of the sport.

 

[Stratford]

(In no particular order) Cairns, Canberra, Claremont, Northern Territory,Norwood, Tasmania, 24 teams, 23 rounds, every one plays everyone once, final 8 - average teams should not be in the finals.

 

[Roylion]

I think the best way for GWS & GC to have been better done would have been as relocated clubs. Like the way Brisbane were set up. Bears & Lions.

The Brisbane Lions are not, nor have they ever been, a relocated club.

 

[telsor]

(In no particular order) Cairns, Canberra, Claremont, Northern Territory,Norwood, Tasmania, 24 teams, 23 rounds, every one plays everyone once, final 8 - average teams should not be in the finals.

Problem with more than 22 rounds is that once you include the bye (or two) that the players insist on, it's a long season, and you run into issues with ground availability and the like.