I think the only options the AFL have if the MCG is not used are Perth Oval and ANZ Sydney.
The Gabba is a long way back in forth place behind Adelaide Oval.
The Gabba is a long way back in forth place behind Adelaide Oval.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
I have never seen the AFL do anything for any reason other than money, it what universe has that changed? The GF if it can’t be at the MCG will be where the AFL can get the most money. There will be not one other consideration involved in it.
Ding ding we have a winner.I have never seen the AFL do anything for any reason other than money, it what universe has that changed? The GF if it can’t be at the MCG will be where the AFL can get the most money. There will be not one other consideration involved in it.
I have never seen the AFL do anything for any reason other than money, it what universe has that changed? The GF if it can’t be at the MCG will be where the AFL can get the most money. There will be not one other consideration involved in it.
Ding ding we have a winner.
If they haven't done so already, state premiers will be about the start the bidding war. Comes out of the tourism budget, on the grounds that it is broadcast around the world. Plus economic recovery, etc.
Considering the sums state governments have been paying to get the Juventus thirds to come out here and play, it could be in the tens of millions to the AFL.
theres a hell of a lot of money going into womens footy and development at the moment that isnt exactly raking in the dollars.
theres a hell of a lot of money going into womens footy and development at the moment that isnt exactly raking in the dollars.
Both of these are the AFL playing the long game with the intention of making money. Whether they do or not isn't relevant to the AFL's decision at the time.LOL, the Suns and Giants are for money? Losing money maybe.
Both of these are the AFL playing the long game with the intention of making money. Whether they do or not isn't relevant to the AFL's decision at the time.
Both of these are the AFL playing the long game with the intention of making money. Whether they do or not isn't relevant to the AFL's decision at the time.
Yes, those decisions are about getting more money for future expansion and keeping the other codes down (plus some nice exec bonuses to be creamed off). I think we're actually agreeing here.So you think it's not about more players and more supporters?
You know the AFL doesn't have shareholders that demand dividends? All the money they raise goes back into the game, which allows them to do things like subsidise Auskick programs. The only reason they would want more money is for that purpose.
Yes, those decisions are about getting more money for future expansion and keeping the other codes down (plus some nice exec bonuses to be creamed off). I think we're actually agreeing here.
It's naive to think that the execs aren't driven by KPIs that affect their bonuses. The cynic in me thinks they don't really care what sport a young girl in Queensland plays, but it's better for their bank balance if it's Auskick.You seem to think the end game for the AFL is more money.
I'm suggesting the end game is more players and more supporters. It's no different to any other not for profit sporting club or association, just on a bigger scale.
This isn't to say that I think everything the AFL does has this effect, I can list plenty of things done by the league that has the opposite effect. The reason for this thread is one of them.
It's naive to think that the execs aren't driven by KPIs that affect their bonuses. The cynic in me thinks they don't really care what sport a young girl in Queensland plays, but it's better for their bank balance if it's Auskick.
I really think we're arguing the same thing. The AFL should make decisions to "grow the pie", that is increase the amount of money the game generates so they can reinvest it in further growth.Well no sh*t. AFL employee has an incentive to get more young kids playing Auskick.
What do you think should drive their decisions?
I really think we're arguing the same thing. The AFL should make decisions to "grow the pie", that is increase the amount of money the game generates so they can reinvest it in further growth.
This includes things like AFLW and GC/GWS where they cost money initially but are planned to generate more money down the track. I.e. those were decisions taken for financial reasons.
There are other decisions (e.g. this thread's premise, as you rightly pointed out) where I feel self interest has taken precedence over the good of the game.
I really think we're arguing the same thing. The AFL should make decisions to "grow the pie", that is increase the amount of money the game generates so they can reinvest it in further growth.
This includes things like AFLW and GC/GWS where they cost money initially but are planned to generate more money down the track. I.e. those were decisions taken for financial reasons.
There are other decisions (e.g. this thread's premise, as you rightly pointed out) where I feel self interest has taken precedence over the good of the game.
Well no sh*t. AFL employee has an incentive to get more young kids playing Auskick.
What do you think should drive their decisions?
Well it seems you both agree that the intent of HQ is to grow the game and that the intent is not some bias towards the vic market for emotive reasons it's for $ to grow the game.
How efficiently they do this is up for debate but there is no doubting the intent. > End game = grow game = needs money = more money the better <
Yet STILL! you're both in opposition to the thread premise, isn't that the definition of a conflict of interest?
It is obvious (outside of pandemic times) that the premiership game at the G makes more money for the >End game< than it would elsewhere. It is not self interest that has taken precedence over the game. And you both pointed that out in these recent posts, 'it's not emotive' and then in the next breath 'the decision to have the GF at the g is emotive'.
Is there something I'm missing here?
No, it's not obvious at all. When you start from such a ridiculous premise then no wonder you've got no idea what you're missing.
The benefits to the AFL with the MCG contract is a bunch of sh*t governments should be doing anyway. But ignoring that, the AFL refused to open it up to tender and kept the extension as quiet as possible. Why would they do that if the answer is so obvious in the first place? The answer is that they were worried that it wasn't. That's the emotive bit - they didn't want to agitate their home fans.
HQ or the vic govt. that roadblocked any ideas of tenders outside of vic.
Not the cricket club?
No, it's not obvious at all. When you start from such a ridiculous premise then no wonder you've got no idea what you're missing.
The benefits to the AFL with the MCG contract is a bunch of sh*t governments should be doing anyway. But ignoring that, the AFL refused to open it up to tender and kept the extension as quiet as possible. Why would they do that if the answer is so obvious in the first place? The answer is that they were worried that it wasn't. That's the emotive bit - they didn't want to agitate their home fans.
Amazing foresight from the AFL to know what options would be available 20 years in the future when the last MCG contract was due to expire. Even if you dangle the carrot to other states they'll be encouraged to build bigger and better facilities that will permanently increase crowds.Why would you open something up to tender when you only have one realistic option?