![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/fremantle.png)
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.
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.
LIVE: GWS Giants v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 65% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Didn't North invent the Friday night blockbuster?
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.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.
Didn't North invent the Friday night blockbuster?
Evans winding back the clock 30 years with some good old Reaganomics.
Hope the AFL laugh in his face.
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
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.
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.
It speaks volumes of your organic understanding about such matters that you would apply 1995 realities to the modern context.
When Friday and Monday night games got trialled they both started from a very low base.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.
By this logic no club will be able to grow.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.
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.
"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.
"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...
"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...
Crap TV networks base broadcasting decisions on ratings.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.
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.
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.
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?
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.