North want to play 2 home games in WA next season

[BallaratBulldog]

Hawthorn received possibly the worst draw of any club this season consisting of mainly Sunday games in the afternoon slot.

For the first time in 20 years lol

North get shafted even when they were in prelims

 

[bluespooner]

It’s not a theory.
Variable funding is a fact. Compensation funding forming part of the model, covering access to “blockbuster” status, marquee time slots, national FTA games, etc are part of the model.

So how do you account for Hawthorn getting such a poor outcome with AFL fund distributions given they do not receive "blockbuster" status, marque time slots, national FTA games?

Hawthorn's draw included no Friday night games, even though clubs like Richmond who were going through the motions for 2024 received Friday night matches; Hawthorn on the other hand who were considered one of the most exciting teams to watch last season were difficult to find to be able to watch unless you had access to pay TV.

Hawthorn's first five to six games were the late game on Sunday which has a history of being poorly attended and remember this was at a time when clubs are desperate to sell memberships.

So the theory doesn't hold true given Hawthorn's treatment as they have received the equal lowest amount in AFL fund distribution over the last six years. It seems like they are being shafted or are inordinately being required to subsidise the north melbourne's, st. kilda's, GWS, GC and Port Adelaide's by having to give up funding under the AFL's socialist funding model.

 

[Underarm]

Hawthorn's first five to six games were the late game on Sunday which has a history of being poorly attended and remember this was at a time when clubs are desperate to sell memberships.

No need to make things up to prove your point.

R1 Saturday arvo v Essendon
R2 Saturday twilight v Melbourne
R3 Easter Monday blockbuster v Geelong
R4 Gather round Sunday twilight v Collingwood
R5 Saturday night v GC
R6 Sunday twilight v North.

 

[speedpeck23]

North Melbourne can't support itself without selling games or getting handouts by the AFL.

The Roos should have been just a VFL team.

ALL CLUBS rely on the AFL and therefore by implication, each other....most clubs receive handouts.....and ultimately any club may need a handout. The so called Blockbuster matches are programmed to maximize AFL income effectively for the whole competition.

The clubs involved in blockbusters obviously feed off this in terms of commercial exposure for their sponsors and promotion of membership etc. It brings money in for the individual clubs and the AFL. The AFL might as well put it's best foot (ie clubs) forward. This is fine as long as a clubs on field performance justifies blockbuster status and works well until it doesn't.

The crunch came in the early 2000's when Carlton of all clubs was on it's knees financially through poor financial management and lack of on field success,. The AFL had to bail it out ....because simply to lose the potential drawing power of a club like Carlton would have been a disaster for the AFL. The legal implication of backing Carlton meant that going forward the AFL had to back all existing clubs.

Even prior to that the expansion of the AFL particularly into WA and SA meant the AFL had to bring in equalization measures...draft, salary cap etc to protect the Victorian Clubs otherwise West Coast and Adelaide would have totally dominated the competition due to their massive supporter bases.

Of course there is a level of responsibility on the individual AFL clubs to manage there own circumstances as well as possible. The Clubs have an obligation to the AFL. That's simply why North need AFL approval to play home games in WA.
A club like North is a perfect candidate for this.....at the moment they are a long way from being a blockbuster club....might as well see if this move can work and in fact be a blueprint for other Victorian clubs as the AFL looks at playing more matches out of Victoria.

 

[bluespooner]

No need to make things up to prove your point.

R1 Saturday arvo v Essendon
R2 Saturday twilight v Melbourne
R3 Easter Monday blockbuster v Geelong
R4 Gather round Sunday twilight v Collingwood
R5 Saturday night v GC
R6 Sunday twilight v North.

By round 8 Hawthorn had played four games in the Sunday afternoon time slot, one of those was playing Collingwood in Adelaide. A game if played in Melbourne would have resulted in 70,000+ as it did when they played again later in the year.

R7 Sunday twilight v Swans
R8 Sunday twilight v Bulldogs

I wasn't aware that Easter Monday was considered a blockbuster. One game was played on Easter Thursday, two games were played on Good Friday, and two each on Easter Saturday and Sunday; are all of these games considered blockbusters as well.

The AFL's generosity in scheduling Hawthorn the Easter Monday blockbuster (yet the other games over Easter are not considered blockbusters?) clearly accounts for the following AFL funding distribution:
North 18 - 19 million,
St Kilda 18 - 19 million,
Bulldogs 16 million,
Port 16 million,
Hawthorn 10.5 - 11 million.

Now, this funding model is not an anomaly and has been the norm for the last five to six years. Clearly, the one off-blockbuster on Easter Monday (as stated how is this more exclusive than all of the other games played over Easter) in your eyes makes up for the four matches played in the Sunday afternoon time-slot and is the reason for Hawthorn's AFL funding distribution being approx. $8 million less than North and St Kilda.

 

[Hawkk]

No need to make things up to prove your point.

R1 Saturday arvo v Essendon
R2 Saturday twilight v Melbourne
R3 Easter Monday blockbuster v Geelong
R4 Gather round Sunday twilight v Collingwood
R5 Saturday night v GC
R6 Sunday twilight v North.

I agree, Hawthorn’s FTA treatment is no different from Carlton before 2022 - they will get a huge uptick from next year. Hawthorn, on the basis of being an MCG tenant club, now with Easter Monday and an annual round 1 MCG fixture against Essendon does get preferential treatment.

But no more preferential treatment than Melbourne which gets substantially more charity from the AFL. Given the vagaries of the draw it makes sense that North, St Kilda and the Dogs get compensation, but for Melbourne, with 10 MCG home games every year plus Anzac Eve and Kings Birthday. Not so much…

 

[Hawkk]

By round 8 Hawthorn had played four games in the Sunday afternoon time slot, one of those was playing Collingwood in Adelaide. A game if played in Melbourne would have resulted in 70,000+ as it did when they played again later in the year.

R7 Sunday twilight v Swans
R8 Sunday twilight v Bulldogs

I wasn't aware that Easter Monday was considered a blockbuster. One game was played on Easter Thursday, two games were played on Good Friday, and two each on Easter Saturday and Sunday; are all of these games considered blockbusters as well.

The AFL's generosity in scheduling Hawthorn the Easter Monday blockbuster (yet the other games over Easter are not considered blockbusters?) clearly accounts for the following AFL funding distribution:
North 18 - 19 million,
St Kilda 18 - 19 million,
Bulldogs 16 million,
Port 16 million,
Hawthorn 10.5 - 11 million.

Now, this funding model is not an anomaly and has been the norm for the last five to six years. Clearly, the one off-blockbuster on Easter Monday (as stated how is this more exclusive than all of the other games played over Easter) in your eyes makes up for the four matches played in the Sunday afternoon time-slot and is the reason for Hawthorn's AFL funding distribution being approx. $8 million less than North and St Kilda.

The Gather round is a bonus fixture though, there is no guarantee that Hawthorn would have played Collingwood twice in a season.

That said to have the biggest and 5th biggest Victorian clubs (both MCG tenants) playing in Adelaide is pretty stupid.

 

[Underarm]

By round 8 Hawthorn had played four games in the Sunday afternoon time slot, one of those was playing Collingwood in Adelaide. A game if played in Melbourne would have resulted in 70,000+ as it did when they played again later in the year.

R7 Sunday twilight v Swans
R8 Sunday twilight v Bulldogs

Then say that. Don't make stuff up.

I wasn't aware that Easter Monday was considered a blockbuster. One game was played on Easter Thursday, two games were played on Good Friday, and two each on Easter Saturday and Sunday; are all of these games considered blockbusters as well.

A guaranteed game on FTA, on a public holiday - yes it's one of the most marketable timeslots on the calander.

I agree, Hawthorn’s FTA treatment is no different from Carlton before 2022 - they will get a huge uptick from next year. Hawthorn, on the basis of being an MCG tenant club, now with Easter Monday and an annual round 1 MCG fixture against Essendon does get preferential treatment.

But no more preferential treatment than Melbourne which gets substantially more charity from the AFL. Given the vagaries of the draw it makes sense that North, St Kilda and the Dogs get compensation, but for Melbourne, with 10 MCG home games every year plus Anzac Eve and Kings Birthday. Not so much…

Maybe the compensation for playing in Darwin comes from the AFL, As opposed to the Tasmanian money coming from Tasmania itself? Without an itemised list it's hard to know.

The financial distribution list is likely very simplified version of what actually is given out and why it's given out. The public just don't have access to enough financial statements to really understand how sporting clubs are run.

 

[WilloTree]

I'm struggling to find the controversy in it.

North want it. WA teams want it. AFL has approved it.

Seems like a non-issue to me, but I do understand that the off-season needs 'stories'.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Hawthorn received possibly the worst draw of any club this season consisting of mainly Sunday games in the afternoon slot. In fact this was the case for their first five to six games; they also got no Friday night games. Yet, despite this they will get the equal lowest in afl distribution again no doubt this season.

So this does not really fit with your theory that bad draws are compensated by receiving the highest in afl funding distributions.

It's the cumulutive effect over many seasons, how that influences a fanbase, and the opportunity to have more paying away fans in your home game that gives you more money.

Even ignoring that, Hawthorn got to generate revenue in two of their home games by hosting both Collingwood and Richmond at the MCG, the two teams that typically contribute the most away fans. North didn't. I'm sure North would have taken far worse timelosts if they get a home game against Collingwood at the MCG and get the quite literal hundreds of thousands of dollars of ticketing revenue that away Collingwood fans contribute to attending those games.

 

[fnerd]

If they lock in this and Gather Round until at least 2059 then yeah maybe we should address it

nailed it

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I cannot believe that we are trying or not trying to define what is or isn't a blockbuster

The 5 biggest games in Melbourne are in terms of exposure, neutral interest, etc:

First game in Melbourne for the season
Easter Monday
Anzac Eve
Anzac Day
King's Birthday

That's 5 games there.

10 teams in Vic and therefore on average all 10 Vic teams should fairly be given an opportunity to play in one per year and each one of them roughly every 5th year.

We can debate whether Good Friday, Dreamtime etc also count but it becomes a bit more muddled

Instead you get:

Carlton 1/10
Collingwood 2/10
Melbourne 2/10
Hawthorn 1/10
Geelong 1/10
Richmond 2/10
Essendon 1/10

...

St Kilda 0/10
North 0/10
Bulldogs 0/10.

Keep in mind that this is on top of the structural disadvantage that the these three teams have that they're some of the only teams that are forced to play their home finals away from their usual home ground. The Bulldogs had the indignity at holding their "home" final against Hawthorn at Hawthorn's home ground, for instance.

 

[SC_Power]

So how do you account for Hawthorn getting such a poor outcome with AFL fund distributions given they do not receive "blockbuster" status, marque time slots, national FTA games?

Hawthorn's draw included no Friday night games, even though clubs like Richmond who were going through the motions for 2024 received Friday night matches; Hawthorn on the other hand who were considered one of the most exciting teams to watch last season were difficult to find to be able to watch unless you had access to pay TV.

Hawthorn's first five to six games were the late game on Sunday which has a history of being poorly attended and remember this was at a time when clubs are desperate to sell memberships.

So the theory doesn't hold true given Hawthorn's treatment as they have received the equal lowest amount in AFL fund distribution over the last six years. It seems like they are being shafted or are inordinately being required to subsidise the north melbourne's, st. kilda's, GWS, GC and Port Adelaide's by having to give up funding under the AFL's socialist funding model.

Saying it is PART of the formulae, not the ENTIRE formulae

Just for reference, the AFL explaining marquee games in their TV rights agreement (marquee games being part of the variable funding model)




Just for reference, the AFL explaining the first 8 rounds in terms of FTA and teams that got to play Sunday games (FTA games being part of the funding model)




The less marquee and FTA games you get, the less chance to see sponsorship and generate associated revenue.
Assistance in other ways (eg allowance for home games interstate eg York Park) also counts.
Which teams are double ups each year also comes into the calculations and adjustments (in 2024 Hawthorn had Coll, Geel, Rich)

The formulae is also calculated over the TV rights deal period accordingly (or near enough to it) and adjusts slightly along the way,

Therefore the AFL assists accordingly. With conditions of course, those teams don’t get the freedom to do things with that money freely.

Collingwood, Geelong, West Coast and Hawthorn are at the top of that tree, on the base funds distribution package which is still $12m, not zero of course.
I understand Carlton joins that club from next year.


Ergo, don’t think Hawthorn have too much to complain about.

 

[Hawkk]

It's the cumulutive effect over many seasons, how that influences a fanbase, and the opportunity to have more paying away fans in your home game that gives you more money.

Even ignoring that, Hawthorn got to generate revenue in two of their home games by hosting both Collingwood and Richmond at the MCG, the two teams that typically contribute the most away fans. North didn't. I'm sure North would have taken far worse timelosts if they get a home game against Collingwood at the MCG and get the quite literal hundreds of thousands of dollars of ticketing revenue that away Collingwood fans contribute to attending those games.

I mean maybe? Hawthorn played Richmond in the Sunday twilight slot, in the second last round, in a year that the Tigers finished last. Hardly box office stuff.

That game only drew 58,000 - which would put in the top 10 North Melbourne or Bulldogs home and away games through.

Whilst Hawthorn now has ‘locked in’ marquee matches against Essendon and Geelong every year these matches are rotated home and away. North Melbourne on the other hand have guaranteed home Good Friday match every season.

 

[Hawkk]

Then say that. Don't make stuff up.

A guaranteed game on FTA, on a public holiday - yes it's one of the most marketable timeslots on the calander.

Maybe the compensation for playing in Darwin comes from the AFL, As opposed to the Tasmanian money coming from Tasmania itself? Without an itemised list it's hard to know.

The financial distribution list is likely very simplified version of what actually is given out and why it's given out. The public just don't have access to enough financial statements to really understand how sporting clubs are run.

Are you saying that a naming rights and principal rights partnership is the same as AFL distribution?

If so, what is the actual incentive for Hawthorn to play 4 games in Tasmania? There is a strong argument they should have taken the cash to exited out of the contract and leave in 2010:

Hawks say no to AFL cash

Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett has accused the AFL of trying to pay his club off to give cash-strapped North Melbourne a free run at Tasmania.

www.abc.net.au

Perhaps that is something North would have done if given the choice?

 

[Underarm]

Are you saying that a naming rights and principal rights partnership is the same as AFL distribution?

If so, what is the actual incentive for Hawthorn to play 4 games in Tasmania? There is a strong argument they should have taken the cash to exist out of the contract and leave in 2010:

Hawks say no to AFL cash

Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett has accused the AFL of trying to pay his club off to give cash-strapped North Melbourne a free run at Tasmania.

www.abc.net.au

Perhaps that is something North would have done if given the choice?

I'll admit i don't know enough, and certainly less than you on the topic. I'm sure theres plenty of benefits to Hawthorn earning their money theirselves and not through the AFL in terms of of independence and control.

But in general I'm not sure why the comparison is being made. Hawthorn aren't a small market melbourne team like they were in the 90s. They are pretty comfortably 5th and growing. They don't need the financial assistance that North Melbourne do.