The AFL's dirty little secret exposed: How the Roos were rooted by the fixture

[ttamshadbolt]

This thread should be on the main forum...

 

[Brad Roo]

This thread should be on the main forum...

Why?

So every bored moron out there can wheel out the same old crap again?

 

[trevagreene]

please dont put it on the main bored. we'll here the same old crap arguments that will quote cowro et al. leave here where the intelligent posters are :-0

 

[ttamshadbolt]

Why?

So every bored moron out there can wheel out the same old crap again?

It may shut up a small amount of those north haters bagging our crowd numbers. How can anyone look at these figures and not agree that we got shafted this year?

 

[Brad Roo]

It may shut up a small amount of those north haters bagging our crowd numbers. How can anyone look at these figures and not agree that we got shafted this year?

The people I am referring to have no interest in facts.

 

[Passmore]

The truth of the matter is that COLLINGWOOD ARE SUBSIDISED BY NORTH MELBOURNE, NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND. It is our abhorrent fixturing that allows them to generate inflated revenues. On a level playing field they would earn LESS - THAT IS A FACT.
QUOTE]

One day this might finally sink into the heads of those that lay the boots in at every opportunity.

Brilliant points there Utility. It's time to get out there WANM. It's be nice to get some air time so we can debate teh facts with those who continue to put us down.

PS. I want that quote on a t-shirt

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Thought I may give you some third party perspective on this one (this is not to north bash BTW).

On the schedule, yeah you have copped the rough end of the pineapple this year, but as the OP indicated, you had a fairly good draw last year. As the old saying goes, its swings and round-abouts. If you look at the NVT issue, you were only half a game out on average. AFL can therefore argue that this year is just bad luck, it happens to most clubs eventually.

Next issue the AFL will raise is performance, and on this one the AFL have form. I can tell you now we have been punished with our draw for the past couple of seasons because of how crap we have been on field. Go to any Tigers forum, and you will see the complaints about twilight games and Foxtel. Reality is however we don't have much recourse, because we were/are crap. AFL say the better playing sides get the better draw. Granted the Pies and Dons seem to be immune, but the rest do cop similar treatment.

Next issue the AFL will argue is the compensation payments. Yes, you have a crap draw, but like 7 other teams (including mine) you receive additional funding for this. The point an earlier poster made (making sure this compensation is adequate) was a good one, and one that should be done, but it still leaves the AFL able to argue you are being compensated.

Final issue is the most important, and thats money. AFL will play the games that generate the maximum revenues for both gate takings and ratings. This is ultimately what motivates the AFL, and needs to be remembered.

We are dealing with a corrupted draw, which is unfair from the start. As such, arguing on fairness IMO its pushing the proverbial uphill. You need to tackle this from a perspective of what solution for you can either make life easier for the AFL, or make the AFL more money.

If you look at the Hawk deal, they have an agreement that in return for playing Tassie, they do NOT play home games at Etihad. Despite being tenants of the MCG, RFC and MFC are forced to play there (despite numerous requests not to). Hawks gave the AFL something they wanted though (development presence in Tasmania), so Hawthorn was rewarded.

Likewise the blockbuster games. Ess/Pies have ANZAC because they fill the stadium every year. Dees have been close to losing Queens Bday because they don't. Likewise RFC is under pressure to retain the opening game with CFC because of our crapness (even though the crowds remain good).

The inequities of the draw will only get worse from 2012, as instead of playing half the league twice, you only play a third of it twice. As such, rather than fight in inequities, I'd be looking to take advantage of it.

horsetrading on playing in regional centres is the obvious one, and likewise your pursuit of Good Friday (but if you pull this off you MUST fill the stadium - otherwise it will go elsewhere). I'd also look at Monday nights. It is a risk, but a lot of clubs fear low crowds. I'd offer to anchor Monday nights, in return for playing the bigger teams on these evenings. The other one is Etihad. AFL MUST play xx number of games there each year. With more clubs wanting to do regional deals, or play bigger games at the G, maybe something can be done there.

TBH, we are in a similar situation to you. Our members rock up, but the perception is no-one wants to watch us on TV. I know there are no easy answers.

 

[roosRool]

Great work utility - and kudos to Zondor for cracking open this nut a few days ago.

So.. how do we use this data for our benefit?

Love this work. Awesome stuff Utility

Repost on the main board

Give it a positive thread title i.e. "The Truth about North Melbourne's 2010 Crowd Numbers"

Remove all emotive language and rants, none of this "we're so hard done by, it's us against them" make it impartial (just the facts ma'am). Let these facts speak for themselves

Those lazy ass "journalists" will be all over it like a rash. Your work will get the back page of the papers in a flash. It is the split round and arguably a slow footy news weekend

You go girl!!

 

[gokangas]

I may not have time to clean this up into a nice little package but I do intend to demonstrate how the fixturing inequality is damaging in the short-term and over time.

As I have demonstrated North's NVT fixturing is 9% worse than the average. It may not sound like much but, to take an example people are more familiar with, the RBA expands the money supply by an average of 7% per year. This means the purchasing power of your money halves over a decade - how much was petrol/milk/bread, etc. tens year ago? Inflation eats away at your savings but you don't really notice it because it is in relatively small increments - BUT THE LOSS COMPOUNDS.

It is the same with the fixturing. We have copped the raw end of the stick for over a decade and suffered what appears to the the WORST EVER FIXTURE from a commercial perspective.

I think the management of the club deserves a big pat on the back. This year they were faced with:

- The fixture from hell (as previously discussed),
- Coming off a seven win season finishing 13th - including a coach leaving mid-season,
- Starting the season 1-3,
- Not playing a home game against a Victorian side until round six, and
- Getting flogged by over 100 points in our first game in Melbourne.

Yet:
- Net attendance from the last game against same opposition has INCREASED,
- Membership has INCREASED from last year (correct me if I am wrong), and
- Membership has INCREASED over 30% from 3 years ago.

This is all after our own 'Lost Decade' off the field. In hindsight the club's management was severely scarred by the AFL's merger push in the mid-90s, and completely lost the plot when Ron Casey passed away. The management of the club during this time was poor to diabolical:

- Greg Miller was not equipped to manage the club and ham-fisted a Sydney co-location,
- Aylett regime moved us from the MCG to the Docklands WITHOUT A CONTRACT and without his much publicised five-year plan and gave up our TRADITIONAL Friday night games without a whimper,
- Michael Easy lasted six weeks as CEO,
- After the botched Sydney co-location, we moved to Canberra without really demonstrating any lessons learned,
- Geoff Walsh was a CEO in training and improved on the job, but has proven to be below par and held the members with contempt,
- Graham Duff was full of bluff and bluster as chairman and ran the club further into the ground,
- Rick Aylett, whilst a nice bloke, was clearly not the right man for the job,
- The club decided to give up 'safe' money by playing games on the Gold Coast,
- Like in the mid-90s when the club, Melbourne, almost a majority of Hawthorn members, and the football world was CONNED into believing clubs NEEDED to merge - four board members and a large section of the football world were CONNED into believing the club needed to relocate and die.

(Please add to this list if I have forgotten anything)

It was the great work of Ron Joseph, James Brayshaw, WANM, Roosistence and others - most notably Bob Ansett - that called the AFL's bluff and the rest is history.

Also - one thing I have touched on is that the club plays 11 home games at the Docklands this year, fulfilling ~25% of the contractual requirement. This is a MASSIVE CONTRIBUTION BY THE CLUB. While people may love the MCG, the Docklands is a fantastic facility and NORTH IS CONTRIBUTING A QUARTER OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS to pay it off for the benefit of ALL clubs. At a guess Collingwood play ZERO home games there this year.

The truth of the matter is that COLLINGWOOD ARE SUBSIDISED BY NORTH MELBOURNE, NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND. It is our abhorrent fixturing that allows them to generate inflated revenues. On a level playing field they would earn LESS - THAT IS A FACT.

The spotlight must be put on the AFL regarding the fixturing. The reason for it is EXECUTIVE BONUSES are tied to KPIs that encourage this MALFESCANT BEHAVIOUR. The AFL executive (Demetriou and co.) are RESPONSIBLE for our fixturing but the COMMISSION is ACCOUNTABLE for the executive. Either they have incompetently created faulty bonus KPIs or WANT US TO BE SHAFTED.

The bonus culture is no different to the Wall Street bankers. Demetriou is the Blankfein of the AFL.

Blankfein says, "I do God's work". Demetriou says, "I serve the game".

Blankfein says, "We did nothing illegal". Demetriou says, "Fixturing complaints are unfounded".

Goldman Sachs create financial products designed to blow up - they are financial arsonists.

The AFL create rigged fixtures designed to blow us up - they are football arsonists.

Someone seriously needs to take the AFL to the sword over this issue. All we ask for is EQUITY, the Aussie FAIR GO. Let's see the media put them to the acid.

Oh, and the AFL rejected our application to play a home game in Perth, where we have significant sponsors and a relatively large number of members. Their reason: IT WOULD COMPROMISE THE FIXTURE. What a ****ing load of horse ****.

Excellent work again. No argument from me. Just depends who is spinning this story. You have facts. The AFL will have spin.

 

[utility]

BIG HELP REQUEST:

Can somebody please post our membership stats for 2006-2010 inclusive, for both 'ticketed' and 'non-ticketed' members.

Muchas gracias.

 

[grimface_87]

BIG HELP REQUEST:

Can somebody please post our membership stats for 2006-2010 inclusive, for both 'ticketed' and 'non-ticketed' members.

Muchas gracias.

Ticketed + Non-ticketed
2006: 24,700
2007: 22,372
2008: 34,342
2009: 30,613
2010: 29,138*

 

[snapperbowler]

Good and interesting post.

However it's the lack of members that is hurting us.

The people who join up in a crisis to make themselves feel good and then drop off.

There are also the people who join up the side is winning and drop off when the side isn't doing as well.

All clubs have these people and can accommodate them but we need everyone on board.

 

[Rooboy 96]

Good and interesting post.

However it's the lack of members that is hurting us.

The people who join up in a crisis to make themselves feel good and then drop off.

There are also the people who join up the side is winning and drop off when the side isn't doing as well.

All clubs have these people and can accommodate them but we need everyone on board.

luckily for us it is just about our time to shine on the field... big thumbs up mate...

 

[Joey7]

Ticketed + Non-ticketed
2006: 24,700
2007: 22,372
2008: 34,342
2009: 30,613
2010: 29,138*

Gee its still a massive increase in 3 years - i wonder how many members we have who are yet to sign?

And how many Australia wide supporters we have?

 

[ttamshadbolt]

Ticketed + Non-ticketed
2006: 24,700
2007: 22,372
2008: 34,342
2009: 30,613
2010: 29,138*

I'm really surprized by those numbers. The way the media are talking it sounds like we are down 10k members over the past few years.

2008 was an annomoly because a lot of non-north supporters were supporting the club - but 30k when the team is struggling (on field) is a lot more impressive than 22k when we were playing finals.

 

[blueNwhite unite]

IMO i think we need JB to do one of those 'get on board things', it seems to work when he does

 

[grimface_87]

If you take out the 2008 anomaly, it really is a fantastic result for the club, and around 30,000 is an excellent base to build on in the New Game New Era

 

[Dangaroos]

You have to target the primary school kids more than anything. They look up to the media made "superstars" which is something our club is missing out on. Look at "daisy thomas" FFS what a joke, they make out he is the greatest player of all time, get real. Kids want to follow the popular players and the ones that are always displayed in the media as "superstars" ...most kids at north games have 29 on there back, what happens when boomer retires? We need to keep trying to lift our profile, get the players out the schools...hand out north show bags etc..

GO ROOS!

 

[utility]

Ok - small update. I put together a very sexy five page Word document. It would only be sexier if it had a picture of 'Sex Ed' Lower. It has been distributed to various media people (Connolly, Robinson, Sheahan, Bartlett, Schwarz). If anybody has further email addresses please forward via private messages (Barrett, etc.).

I also provided Eugene with a copy - not sure if James' email address exists. It would be nice if Boomer is on TFS tonight that he is armed with these stats... simply the head-to-head comparison with Collingwood will blow people away. What is no bulls email address?

FYI this is the head-to-head fixture comparison with Collingwood this year.

1. Games hosting a non-Victorian team up to the mid-season break (round 13):
North - 5
Collingwood -0

2. Total number of games hosting a non-Victorian team for the season:
North - 6 (absolute maximum)
Collingwood - 2 (absolute minimum)

3. Hosting Victorian teams in the first half of the season
North - 2
Collingwood - 6

4. Friday night games
North - 1
Collingwood - 5*

5. Number of games on free-to-air broadcast
North - 8
Collingwood - 17*

6. Number of games on pay television.
North - 13*
Collingwood - 4

* Round 22 is not set so these are likely to increase.

 

[blackshadow]

Excellent work on putting this together utility but I'd urge a bit of caution if you're going to start releasing this to the media - if it's done it should be done strategically.

To the media a 5 page document is anything but sexy - keep it to one page with additional info available on request. 5 page doc says too much to read so it goes in the bin.

Also, I'd be very concerned about the possibility of offering just a comparison with Collingwood up - every club probably has it worse than the 'pies and you don't want to generate a "poor North" mentality towards the club.

rfctiger also makes some good points in his post.

 

[utility]

To the media a 5 page document is anything but sexy - keep it to one page with additional info available on request. 5 page doc says too much to read so it goes in the bin.

It is not a media release. If they are too lazy to open the document and view the content then they miss out on being spoon-fed a (decent) story on one of the slower weekends during the year. I'll also contact them again next week and ask if they bothered to read my previous email.

I may spray out a one-pager with the two tables (comparative attendances showing an increase, head-to-head fixture comparison with Collingwood) and chart (total games hosting NVTs for all Victorian clubs over the last 14 years) but will wait and see if there is any response... and I did get one from Eugene.

Also, I'd be very concerned about the possibility of offering just a comparison with Collingwood up - every club probably has it worse than the 'pies and you don't want to generate a "poor North" mentality towards the club.

It was simply a table of the info previous posted. The inequity is scandalous and should be communicated to show just how much of a raw deal we have.

 

[kool kangas]

Great thread Utility but comparing with Collingwood is like chalk and cheese.........Richmond , Melbourne and Bulldogs might have been better clubs to compare with. Everyone knows the afl has their favorites but comparing us to one of them just wont work. But once again great work!

 

[utility]

comparing with Collingwood is like chalk and cheese.

That's exactly the point. Hardly equitable. What do you think Eddie would say if Collingwood copped what we do, and have over the last decade?

 

[CBSlogger]

Good work from whomever sent the facts in question to the Ox; we had a passionate little mention this morning on Ch7 GameDay.

Malthouse was quoted from his after match presser complaining about their tough draw confused:) & when they crossed back to the studio Ox & Hamish O commented about all of the North home fixtures against interstate sides.

He made a bit of a mess of the details but the point was made.

 

[snrub]

That's exactly the point. Hardly equitable. What do you think Eddie would say if Collingwood copped what we do, and have over the last decade?

You're so completely missing the point on Collingwood. It's not that they are AFL favourites, it's that every Melbourne club wants to play against them. They generate crowds. They generate ratings. Everyone knows this. It's not rocket surgery. The entire football world, every club including ours has tacitly agreed to allow Collingwood to maximise football revenue for the entire AFL and constituents to enjoy. So what's your point and why do you think anyone will care? As has been pointed out, a comparison with Melbourne, the Bulldogs or even Richmond would be far more compelling and relevant.