Taxing bigger clubs could stifle AFL

[strobe00]

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.

Or by your logic, we could do a premiership rotation with the three or four richest teams in the league.

That sounds like even more fun.

And I find it incredibly hard to believe that if you supported the Dogs, or Port or North Melbourne (all clubs that have struggled financially for a long time) that you'd have the same stance. The more power to you if you would. I just struggle to believe it.

 

[Messenger]

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.

Equalisation strategies work for the most valuable sporting organisation in the world. The NFL don't cap off field spending but they do use a revenue sharing model and a salary cap.

 

[*PAF]

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.

Questions:

1. What year did channel Eddie win the TV rights?
2. How many Friday night games did Collingwood play per year on average pre Channel Eddie days?
3. How many did it play during the first year Channel Eddie came in?
4. How many on average since?

 

[Kwality]

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.

Agreed, but the current redistribution formula also favours those clubs that benefit from the blockbusters - a tax would be more equitable, you bank the benefits, you get taxed.

PS its a FIXture, not a draw.

& you are crazy if you think an extra game on Friday or Saturday, look at the profitability of ALL clubs this year.

 

[Rob]

*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.

Funny you bring up the Dogs, as in each of the last 4 years they have received well above the average number of Friday night slots. From memory in 2 of those years they had a whopping 5 appearances.

They were rubbish last year, they'll probably be even more rubbish this year so they had their FNF cut.

 

[*PAF]

What a difference a day makes.

These are Collingwoods games at the MCG Vs Freo in seasons where they have won more than 10 games.
The last column is the % Vs Collingwood's average spectator numbers for the year.

Venue Crowd Date Day (Y Wins) (Y Ave) (% of aver)
M.C.G. 44114 27-Jun-09 Saturday 15 53435 83%
M.C.G. 40964 12-Jul-03 Saturday 15 50124 82%
M.C.G. 44480 1-Jun-07 Friday 13 54898 81%
M.C.G. 45383 22-Mar-08 Saturday 12 59213 77%
M.C.G. 44891 30-Jun-12 Saturday 16 59799 75%
M.C.G. 30373 16-Jul-06 Sunday 14 52883 57%

 

[Black Diamond]

Agreed, but the current redistribution formula also favours those clubs that benefit from the blockbusters - a tax would be more equitable, you bank the benefits, you get taxed.

As long as some mechanism is in place. In this scenario the outcome is more important than the means to achiev it.

PS its a FIXture, not a draw.

& you are crazy if you think an extra game on Friday or Saturday, look at the profitability of ALL clubs this year.

We have three Friday night games this year (hosting Carlton and Geelong, and travelling to play WC) which is immensely better than the one we got in 2010, '11 & '12.

Funny you bring up the Dogs, as in each of the last 4 years they have received well above the average number of Friday night slots. From memory in 2 of those years they had a whopping 5 appearances.

They were rubbish last year, they'll probably be even more rubbish this year so they had their FNF cut.

True about the Dogs (and the Saints) but they were a very good side at the time and their Friday allocations could be justified. The Dogs and Saints will both have their allocations cut if they spend a sustained period outside the top eight.

It becomes a problem when Carlton and Essendon continually get favourable TV exposure despite being very ordinary for a decade, and when Richmond get a good allocation of Friday and Saturday night games despite 30 years of tripe. That is inherently unfair. In my opinion the schedule should either be divided up equally or linked directly to performances (so in 2013 Collingwood, Sydney, Hawthorn and Adelaide would get the best schedules).

 

[*PAF]

... That is inherently unfair. In my opinion the schedule should either be divided up equally or linked directly to performances (so in 2013 Collingwood, Sydney, Hawthorn and Adelaide would get the best schedules).

But if it was liked to performance then Collingwood wouldn't have been able to play in 6 Friday night games in 2005 (coming off an 8 wins season in 2004) thus maximising their awsome exposure and increasing their ability to attract awsome sponsors.

 

[Rob]

True about the Dogs (and the Saints) but they were a very good side at the time and their Friday allocations could be justified. The Dogs and Saints will both have their allocations cut if they spend a sustained period outside the top eight.

Justified in that they were a good side. But the Dogs never rated well.

I guess it depends on what you want to use to determine whether the prime timeslots are deserved. In any case, it is strange that the Dogs would complain about a lack of FNF when they've actually been given more access to the slot than the vast majority of clubs over the past few years.

 

[Black Diamond]

But if it was liked to performance then Collingwood wouldn't have been able to play in 6 Friday night games in 2005 (coming off an 8 wins season in 2004) thus maximising their awsome exposure and increasing their ability to attract awsome sponsors.

Agreed. Essendon, Carlton and Richmond are just better examples due to their sustained period outside the top eight.

Justified in that they were a good side. But the Dogs never rated well.

I guess it depends on what you want to use to determine whether the prime timeslots are deserved. In any case, it is strange that the Dogs would complain about a lack of FNF when they've actually been given more access to the slot than the vast majority of clubs over the past few years.

It wasn't a complaint as much as a general comment about the schedule and equalisation. Smorgan certainly wasn't sooking.

 

[theflea]

richmond has had limited friday night games for a while.we didnt deserve it either.

 

[piesaregreat]

Questions:

1. What year did channel Eddie win the TV rights?
2. How many Friday night games did Collingwood play per year on average pre Channel Eddie days?
3. How many did it play during the first year Channel Eddie came in?
4. How many on average since?

Channel Eddie? Do you really expect a reply when your own agenda is so blatant?

 

[*PAF]

Channel Eddie? Do you really expect a reply when your own agenda is so blatant?

Answer the 3 questions.

 

[piesaregreat]

Answer the 3 questions.

TCN-9 Sydney began test transmissions on 16 September of that year, and officially commenced broadcasting on 27 October.[25] HSV7 Melbourne became the first television station to broadcast to viewers in Melbourne on 4 November, soon followed by ABV-2 then GTV9 on 19 January 1957. Sydney station ABN-2 also started broadcasting in November. All of these stations were operational in time for the 1956 Melbourne Summer Olympics opening ceremony, on 22 November 1956.[26] ATN-7 started in December.[27]

Soon after one of these dates.
Do your own research.

TV in SA also broadcast SANFL so Port probably was seen on TV pre joining the AFL.
Does that count?

 

[Kwality]

Answer the 3 questions.

Eddie increased the value of Fri night footy by demanding good games be played/televised/watched - he deserves the credit for increasing the value of the TV rights, from which all clubs benefit.

The Pies seemed to do well in the scheduling, but ...

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

What a difference a day makes.

These are Collingwoods games at the MCG Vs Freo in seasons where they have won more than 10 games.
The last column is the % Vs Collingwood's average spectator numbers for the year.

Venue Crowd Date Day (Y Wins) (Y Ave) (% of aver)
M.C.G. 44114 27-Jun-09 Saturday 15 53435 83%
M.C.G. 40964 12-Jul-03 Saturday 15 50124 82%
M.C.G. 44480 1-Jun-07 Friday 13 54898 81%
M.C.G. 45383 22-Mar-08 Saturday 12 59213 77%
M.C.G. 44891 30-Jun-12 Saturday 16 59799 75%
M.C.G. 30373 16-Jul-06 Sunday 14 52883 57%

Nice get.

 

[*PAF]

Eddie increased the value of Fri night footy by demanding good games be played/televised/watched - he deserves the credit for increasing the value of the TV rights, ...

Agree.
By taking 10,000 away from say North (north game Vs interstate club goes down from 25k to say 15K) and changing it to Collingwood Vs another Melbourne club and promoting it (game goes from 45,000 to say 55,000) has had a big saying in increasing the value of TV rights. No debate there.

The debate is the next part of your post.

, from which all clubs benefit. ...

North (or name a club) has lost 10,000 spectators and whatever dollar figure that represents. They have also lost the type of National exposure that gives sponsors value for money and thus their ability to attract sponsors. Collingwood has gained at the expense of another club NOT because they got extra bums on seats, they haven't increased the overall numbers just rearranged the percentage each club got. What they have also done is given some clubs a greater ability to spend money on their football department at the expense of the clubs that have been given lesser fixtures.

Now according to this thread the debate is why should these clubs that have been made bigger artificially give to the other clubs that have been screwed over in order to increase the TV rights?

Post 1 (click on link to have a look) was by a Collingwood supporter quoting (or linking) and agreeing with an article expressing the opinions of Bombers chairman David Evans who said amongst other things:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2012-12-20/evans
He said taxing clubs to force equality was the "wrong model."

"Clubs should be incentivised to grow the game," he said.

"Things like capping football expenditure and luxury taxes and things frankly don't work."

Such moves would boost smaller clubs, at least in the short term, but Essendon is not the first of the stronger clubs to flag concerns.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2012-12-20/evans

Fair enough Monsignor Evans but first we must also go from a fixture that is favourable to clubs such as your own to a random draw where even the ANZAC day game is chosen at random.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

I don't think I've ever anticipated a reply so much.

 

[Kwality]

Artificial PAF, you are joking. Artificial, where are you coming from.

North dont attract crowds or viewers, nothing artificial about that ... Port, Bullies etc, take off the blinkers, excuses are just that !!

We all understand WHY the FIXture is on, the draw has gone. Are you with the program PAF?

My view, solitary in this thread, is those who get the benefits should pay the price, but when your club doesnt attract a crowd, dont sook, man up !!

 

[Tas]

I don't like the idea of caps or taxes but there is no point in complaining about them if you don't have a better idea how to achieve AFL's equality desires. We know caps and taxes have an impact, people who say they don't are flat out lying or ignorant.

I am understanding and sympathetic of clubs that don't want to lose what they have or the advantage they have but rule and policy changes for equalisation has always negatively impacted clubs throughout the history of the competition.

Okay, assume we won't cap or tax, how else are you going to realistically achieve with what the AFL has at it's disposal? If you can't answer it then the AFL is going to fall back on the easy solution that has historic evidence proving it works.

I'd love for us to have a different alternative but I do not see any other alternative achievable given the AFL's commitments. They have created this current beast with inequality, I can only see a counter to that which will help to address it. A cap wont take money from rich clubs but will severely influence their advantage. A tax will take money from the club but ultimately they will still retain a competitive advantage because they will likely still have more disposable income to spend on the football department after taxing.

I understand people are against it, but without another alternative just saying you don't like it is unlikely going to be the winning argument. Eddie wants the AFL to spend money they don't have. Essendon just wants to stick their head in the sand and say nothing else works which is a flat out lie. They haven't really given the AFL another alternative to consider and if they don't they will find a cap or tax introduced.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

It becomes a problem when Carlton and Essendon continually get favourable TV exposure despite being very ordinary for a decade, and when Richmond get a good allocation of Friday and Saturday night games despite 30 years of tripe. That is inherently unfair. In my opinion the schedule should either be divided up equally or linked directly to performances (so in 2013 Collingwood, Sydney, Hawthorn and Adelaide would get the best schedules).

This is incorrect.

We get very limited Friday night exposure, because as you say, we have been delivering tripe for 30 years.

Also we ain't that big for Saturday night games unless they are interstate (and then we are usually on Foxtel). We get a fair whack of twilight games (which personally I hate), and most our games on Foxtel (which I love because I hate C7)

 

[*PAF]

Artificial PAF, you are joking. Artificial, where are you coming from.
...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/artificially
ar·ti·fi·cial (är

t

-f

sh

l)
adj.
1.
a. Made by humans; produced rather than natural.
b. Brought about or caused by sociopolitical or other human-generated forces or influences: set up artificial barriers against women and minorities; an artificial economic boom.
2. Made in imitation of something natural; simulated: artificial teeth.
3. Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/artificially

Some clubs crowds have been maximised due to the uneven fixture that has been deliberately created in order to maximise the number of games that attract large crowds with the ultimate aim of maximising the value of TV rights.
That would not happen with a random draw, nor would it be the case in a season that had 2 full home/away rounds.

In other words we have a fixture that has been deliberately made by humans rather than produced by a normal or natural process. That by definition it is an artificial situation.

 

[Kwality]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/artificially
ar·ti·fi·cial (är

t

-f

sh

l)
adj.
1.
a. Made by humans; produced rather than natural.
b. Brought about or caused by sociopolitical or other human-generated forces or influences: set up artificial barriers against women and minorities; an artificial economic boom.
2. Made in imitation of something natural; simulated: artificial teeth.
3. Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/artificially

Some clubs crowds have been maximised due to the uneven fixture that has been deliberately created in order to maximise the number of games that attract large crowds with the ultimate aim of maximising the value of TV rights.
That would not happen with a random draw, nor would it be the case in a season that had 2 full home/away rounds.

In other words we have a fixture that has been deliberately made by humans rather than produced by a normal or natural process. That by definition it is an artificial situation.

The point is North are artificial:
Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile (footy club)

Relax PAF .... sewiothly ... seriously !!

 

[Black Diamond]

This is incorrect.

We get very limited Friday night exposure, because as you say, we have been delivering tripe for 30 years.

Also we ain't that big for Saturday night games unless they are interstate (and then we are usually on Foxtel). We get a fair whack of twilight games (which personally I hate), and most our games on Foxtel (which I love because I hate C7)

We have had a total of two Friday night games over the last two seasons. You have had four as well as the Thursday game against Carlton in round one. It's not good compared to Collingwood, but it is immensely better than us.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

We have had a total of two Friday night games over the last two seasons. You have had four as well as the Thursday game against Carlton in round one. It's not good compared to Collingwood, but it is immensely better than us.

You put us in the same category as those who own Friday nights. We had 3 in 2011, 2 in 2010, 3 in 2009, and 1 in 2008.

Hardly dominating Friday nights like the others you grouped us with.