Taxing bigger clubs could stifle AFL

[Rob]

Didn't North invent the Friday night blockbuster?

That would seem to address HTBs question about what comes first. North had 15 years of superior scheduling. Has that resulted in a massive supporter base?

But I'm sure he'll play the man again.

 

[dymot]

That would seem to address HTBs question about what comes first. North had 15 years of superior scheduling. Has that resulted in a massive supporter base?

But I'm sure he'll play the man again.

The Kangaroos supporters blame the AFL for removal of Friday night games for their lack of benefit post their 90s success however if you look at the logical ones and outside you will realise that they failed to take action to capitalise and then they dwindled.

 

[Kwality]

Didn't North invent the Friday night blockbuster?

North pioneered Fri night footy & it is now prime slot TV FTA game in Melbourne, not so outside Vic/Tas,

Blockbusters have been around since button up boots - the issue is that they are a big FIX in the fixturing - there was a time when there was a draw, an attempt to see some equity between clubs.

Eddies time with 9 saw him use his influence to improve the Fri night TV audience by making it a TV event drawing big audiences, & with the support of 9s shareholders (e.g Kerry Packer), grew the audience, grew the value to advertisers & eventually the AFL reaped the benefits. Note to numnuts, this is not a criticism of Eddie.

For many the Fri night game is a regular event, but it is a fact that a combination of a poor game & poorly supported clubs loses viewers.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Evans winding back the clock 30 years with some good old Reaganomics.

Hope the AFL laugh in his face.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Evans winding back the clock 30 years with some good old Reaganomics.

Hope the AFL laugh in his face.

Does that make the boys over at Bomberblitz the footy forum version of the Tea Party?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

He's obviously set out to make up the shortfall with the bookies:

ESSENDON has been the best backed team in AFL premiership markets with the Bombers firming from $26 into $17.

“As soon as we opened them at $26 there was solid support and obviously with the signing of Brendon Goddard they are well placed to have a big year,” TAB’s Adam Hamilton said.

Bigger bets placed with the TAB on the Bombers include $500 at $26 and $1250 at $17.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...2013-premiership/story-e6frf9jf-1226547666310

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

That would seem to address HTBs question about what comes first. North had 15 years of superior scheduling. Has that resulted in a massive supporter base?

But I'm sure he'll play the man again.

It speaks volumes of your organic understanding about such matters that you would apply 1995 realities to the modern context.

 

[frankc]

I have an infinitely better understanding of the true scenario than you.

Your insistence that a monopolistic sport which virtually equates to a religion on half of this continent is somehow subject to the same economic forces as competing hamburger franchises reveals a pre school level understanding of economics.

Since when is the AFL monopolistic? So it has no competition? You think I have a Pre-school understanding of economics and you have an infinitely better understanding? If it gives you comfort to think that way than sobeit but your comments indicate the reverse.

Anyway, not going to get in a tit for tat with somebody who clearly has such an opposing view to what I have - we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Rob]

It speaks volumes of your organic understanding about such matters that you would apply 1995 realities to the modern context.

Yeah, in the 90's regular prime time exposure had no effect on a club's supporter base. It's only now in the 21st century that it does. Because no-one used to watch TV last century.

 

[*PAF]

Yeah, in the 90's regular prime time exposure had no effect on a club's supporter base. It's only now in the 21st century that it does. Because no-one used to watch TV last century.

When Friday and Monday night games got trialled they both started from a very low base.
Eventually thanks to lots of marketing Friday nights have become a so called prime time slot, it didn't happen overnight and if North Melbourne had not persisted with them when it was considered to be a dud timeslot we probably wouldn't have Friday night games today.

 

[wedgetail]

North (etc) could play 22 Friday night games each season for the next 5 years and it wouldnt make any significant difference to their supporter base.

THERE . JUST . ARENT . ENOUGH . FANS . TO . GO . AROUND .

Infact i wish it would happen just so they would shut up about it and start deflecting towards something new.

 

[Black Diamond]

North (etc) could play 22 Friday night games each season for the next 5 years and it wouldnt make any significant difference to their supporter base.

THERE . JUST . ARENT . ENOUGH . FANS . TO . GO . AROUND .

Infact i wish it would happen just so they would shut up about it and start deflecting towards something new.

By this logic no club will be able to grow.

 

[Rob]

When Friday and Monday night games got trialled they both started from a very low base.
Eventually thanks to lots of marketing Friday nights have become a so called prime time slot, it didn't happen overnight and if North Melbourne had not persisted with them when it was considered to be a dud timeslot we probably wouldn't have Friday night games today.

Unlikely given pretty much every major sporting league in the country plays Friday night games today and with ground rationalisation in Melbourne it was inevitable.

But North didn't really have a choice at the time. They needed a new timeslot because they wanted to play at the MCG, and with Richmond and Melbourne already tenants there weren't any slots on a Saturday afternoon. Good on them for running with it. The major extra exposure gained by the club during the 90's must have been greatly beneficial.

 

[Black Diamond]

Unlikely given pretty much every major sporting league in the country plays Friday night games today and with ground rationalisation in Melbourne it was inevitable.

But North didn't really have a choice at the time. They needed a new timeslot because they wanted to play at the MCG, and with Richmond and Melbourne already tenants there weren't any slots on a Saturday afternoon. Good on them for running with it. The major extra exposure gained by the club during the 90's must have been greatly beneficial.

Hawthorn took close to 20 years to capitalise on their success in the eighties. It's pretty flawed to think a successful era will translate into a flock of new members instantly.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

"Clubs should be incentivised to grow the game, things like capping football expenditure and luxury taxes and things frankly don't work."

Reminds me of that analogy to describe Socialism. Imagine an Olympic event, say the men's 100m sprint. Usain Bolt has been dominating this event recently, AFL's answer would be to put hurdles in Bolt's lane so everyone else can catch up to him. When instead every other runner should be training even harder finding every edge to catch up to Bolt thus creating a more intense, faster, more interesting race, records are pushed etc... etc...

 

[Black Diamond]

"Clubs should be incentivised to grow the game, things like capping football expenditure and luxury taxes and things frankly don't work."

Reminds me of that analogy to describe Socialism. Imagine an Olympic event, say the men's 100m sprint. Usain Bolt has been dominating this event recently, AFL's answer would be to put hurdles in Bolt's lane so everyone else can catch up to him. When instead every other runner should be training even harder finding every edge to catch up to Bolt thus creating a more intense, faster, more interesting race, records are pushed etc... etc...

At risk of legitimising your stupid analogy, if the AFL administered the 100m the event would be held at Bolt's home stadium and he would get to run from his preferred lane in every race.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

At risk of legitimising your stupid analogy, if the AFL administered the 100m the event would be held at Bolt's home stadium and he would get to run from his preferred lane in every race.

"Free market" capitalism 101.

 

[theflea]

"Clubs should be incentivised to grow the game, things like capping football expenditure and luxury taxes and things frankly don't work."

Reminds me of that analogy to describe Socialism. Imagine an Olympic event, say the men's 100m sprint. Usain Bolt has been dominating this event recently, AFL's answer would be to put hurdles in Bolt's lane so everyone else can catch up to him. When instead every other runner should be training even harder finding every edge to catch up to Bolt thus creating a more intense, faster, more interesting race, records are pushed etc... etc...

you can debate the pro's and con's of capping etc but that analogy is rubbish. show me where the afl give a team an unfair advantage during a game?

 

[strobe00]

"Clubs should be incentivised to grow the game, things like capping football expenditure and luxury taxes and things frankly don't work."

Reminds me of that analogy to describe Socialism. Imagine an Olympic event, say the men's 100m sprint. Usain Bolt has been dominating this event recently, AFL's answer would be to put hurdles in Bolt's lane so everyone else can catch up to him. When instead every other runner should be training even harder finding every edge to catch up to Bolt thus creating a more intense, faster, more interesting race, records are pushed etc... etc...

I'd rather watch an equalised league than one that looks like the EPL. Four teams have the chance of winning the cup there. And it's the same four every year unless a shiekh or an oligarch take over control of one of the other lot.

I suspect your argument would be different if Collingwood was at the bottom of the ladder and had poor financial prospects.

 

[piesaregreat]

When Friday and Monday night games got trialled they both started from a very low base.
Eventually thanks to lots of marketing Friday nights have become a so called prime time slot, it didn't happen overnight and if North Melbourne had not persisted with them when it was considered to be a dud timeslot we probably wouldn't have Friday night games today.

Crap TV networks base broadcasting decisions on ratings.
Low ratings mean low revenue from advertising
No network would consider devoting 20 + years of low ratings + spending money on marketing to develop becoming prime time TV in the twenty first century.

Football rated well enough from the beginning for TV networks to pay the VFL/AFL for broadcast rights.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Crap TV networks base broadcasting decisions on ratings.
Low ratings mean low revenue from advertising
No network would consider devoting 20 + years of low ratings + spending money on marketing to develop becoming prime time TV in the twenty first century.

Football rated well enough from the beginning for TV networks to pay the VFL/AFL for broadcast rights.

There is no such thing as "crap" AFL TV ratings.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

I'd rather watch an equalised league than one that looks like the EPL. Four teams have the chance of winning the cup there. And it's the same four every year unless a shiekh or an oligarch take over control of one of the other lot.

I suspect your argument would be different if Collingwood was at the bottom of the ladder and had poor financial prospects.

Believe it or not Collingwood does go to the bottom of the ladder but they are able to rebuild because they have a sound business model and culture, a successful attitude on and off the field because of the desire to win. There is incentive. Besides this theory has nothing to do with what team I go for anyways.

May as well do a premiership rotation going by your logic. Sydney was pencilled in for 2012. Move down the alphabetical list, schedule in West Coast for next year? Sounds like fun.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

At risk of legitimising your stupid analogy, if the AFL administered the 100m the event would be held at Bolt's home stadium and he would get to run from his preferred lane in every race.

Only if Bolt were based in NSW or QLD.

That's a legitimate way to describe it and you'd be a complete fool to not see what the AFL would be doing by capping expenditure on clubs. So short sighted. Some people really need to look at the big picture sometimes.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

you can debate the pro's and con's of capping etc but that analogy is rubbish. show me where the afl give a team an unfair advantage during a game?

Introducing of capping club expenditure....duh.

 

[Black Diamond]

Only if Bolt were based in NSW or QLD.

That's a legitimate way to describe it and you'd be a complete fool to not see what the AFL would be doing by capping expenditure on clubs. So short sighted. Some people really need to look at the big picture sometimes.

As has already been said, the AFL doesn't handicap any team during a game with "hurdles". Collingwood still take the field with 18 men and they still get six points for a goal like every other team. Your comparison to putting hurdles in front of Usain Bolt is just stupid.

The AFL is trying to grow the entire pie by making the big clubs bigger. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. As part of the broader strategic plan the clubs which don't get equitable opportunities* to grow get compensated. Whether that compensation is just through redistributing revenue or actually taxing larger clubs is irrelevant, it's all part of the same system. You don't have to like it but the lopsided draw and subsequent redistribution of funds go hand in hand.



*Notice how I use the word "opportunities"? That is what we want. Brayshaw and Smorgan at the Dogs have both said they would prefer better opportunities to grow their clubs (just one more Friday or Saturday night game would make a difference, even as the away team) rather than having to rely on compensation long term.