The Annual ANZAC DAY Thread

[Lestat]

Re: The Annual ANZAC DAY Thread - Edition 2011

Funny how all the clubs (and the AFL) for that matter are scrambling for a piece of the 'Anzac Day' pie.

Meanwhile current injured soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are neglected financially (as reported in the news this week.)

Anzac day....yeah, really sacred!

FFS people...its just a football game, all the other crap about it being about 'honouring the diggers' is just bullsh(t to maximise the publicity, and the 'ching ching', dollars.

If the 25th April was just another public holiday, we'd still be playing a football match.

Why do people care who plays. Its just a game!

 

[Dazb86]

Re: Food for thought

There's only a couple clubs in Melbourne that would sell it out each game.

The clubs that need the money wouldn't be capable of filling the G and would take away from the atmosphere.

 

[shintemaster]

Re: Food for thought

The issue with the AFL is that they share the bulk of their proceeds between all the clubs and yet the gate takings go to the teams playing only. That is an inherently fair system only when the fixture is equitable.

 

[Skids]

Re: The Annual ANZAC DAY Thread - Edition 2011

Why do people care who plays. Its just a game!

That argument, or point, cuts both ways. If, as you say, no one cares, then there would be no objection to rotating the fixture between teams, or playing the game with last year's grand-finalists, or having a chook raffle and CWA bake-off on the G in its stead.
I reckon both the pies and bombers do care. It makes shitloads for them, it keeps them relevant in fallow years, and other reasons which make other clubs want in on the action.
Not that I'm saying that all other teams could make a claim to filling the G, unless we assume it's like the GF and will be 50% full of theatre-goers and corporates. That might or might not be the case.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Re: Food for thought

If there’s a money issue then split the gate and anything else between the 18 clubs.

Doesn’t the balance fund take all this stuff into account anyway?

But don’t ruin this occasion by having a half-full, or 3/4 full, stadium.

 

[jacko57]

Re: Food for thought

I see this argument as akin to complaining that England and Australia have a duopoly on the Ashes series. Why cant Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka play the Ashes? They want a high profile, big sponsorship money event too?

Traditions and rivalries have to start somewhere, the Anzac day Essendon vs Collingwood tradition started in 1995 and hopefully it's still going strong in 2095.

A better analogy would be if the Boxing Day test at the MCG were to feature Australia vs England every year, irrespective of what other countries might be touring that summer.

 

[Parquet Court]

Re: Food for thought

I see this argument as akin to complaining that England and Australia have a duopoly on the Ashes series. Why cant Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka play the Ashes? They want a high profile, big sponsorship money event too?

Traditions and rivalries have to start somewhere, the Anzac day Essendon vs Collingwood tradition started in 1995 and hopefully it's still going strong in 2095.

With the constant evolution of the games in the form of rule changes, franschise additions, technology upgrades etc. I think the preservation and fostering of some established rivalries and traditions should be encouraged, not destroyed. Otherwise the result in 100 years may well be a game that those of us today would barely recognise.

yep, the fans got this one going by showing up in the droves, leave it be.

good dachshund as well

 

[GUMBLETRON]

I like the idea of the pre-season winner qualifying for something, but it throws up issues of late-notice fixturing. Besides, if the league wants to share attention around, there's always Good Friday.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Re: Food for thought

it's Anzac Day, but it's been made into a fantastic football occasion too due to the efforts of ESS & COL as well as their supporters.

Good luck to both clubs, and both teams.

I hope they go out and smash the shit out of each other.

 

[Caesar]

It does seem a little bit unfair that Essendon and Collingwood got together in the mid 90s and permanently hijacked what was already one of the most sought-after and lucrative regular-season fixtures.

That said, they are the ones who came up with the idea of packaging and selling Anzac Day as a football product so they arguably deserve the benefits of it.

 

[ScoobySnacks]

Re: Food for thought

Let the ***** have their little game to make them feel entitled, it's the only reason they like having it

 

[lionbear]

I love the lead into the Anzac day game, real atmosphere and big game occasion, then when I see the two teams run out I quickly get bored with it, I don't barrack for either team so to see them tomorrow play on the second biggest game of the year for the 18th time really disappoints me as a football follower.

But reality is they own the day, so as much as the game doesn't interest me, I don't have an issue them playing the game every year, its just something I no longer really get into.

And to Essendon and Collingwood supporters who don't understand my stance, how did you feel about the Lions playing their 4th Grand Final in a row in 2004?

 

[shintemaster]

Re: Food for thought

If there’s a money issue then split the gate and anything else between the 18 clubs.

Doesn’t the balance fund take all this stuff into account anyway?

But don’t ruin this occasion by having a half-full, or 3/4 full, stadium.

This is closer to fair.

In the end there are a whole load of ancillary benefits from these days. Increased sponsorship, exposure on FTA (which also leads into the former), increased likelihood of return legs against teams that draw well. There is more at stake than the money on a year by year basis.

There is little argument that specific teams are more likely on average to draw more to these types of games – the issue is that there is also little argument that all teams would likely draw greater numbers than usual to these games. Unless the take from these is evenly distributed across the competition, why should other clubs allow a leg up in this way? By the same token, what incentive is there then for clubs to draw more support? Changing to a shared take system takes care of some problems, however creates more ie. teams still need a way to be rewarded for performing well. With an uneven fixture it is a constant problem. The constant simple solution put forward is a H&A game against every club and expanded season, even that wouldn’t be fair though… there is a big difference between takings from a Friday night game and a Sunday night game.

I don’t have all the answers however I think a good place to start would be for the competition as a whole to make a commitment to at least attempt to balance these issues out. If two clubs such as Essendon & Collingwood are going to get a guaranteed ANZAC day game every year then there needs to be a concurrent reduction in Friday night games (particularly as a home club) and less chance of a return leg against each other. Fundamentally the clubs need to decide if they want to grow the game in a more even fashion, so that while the largest clubs will always be bigger and likely at a faster rate, the smallest clubs have an equal opportunity to perform both on field and off.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Food for thought

There is little argument that specific teams are more likely on average to draw more to these types of games – the issue is that there is also little argument that all teams would likely draw greater numbers than usual to these games.

I suspect that if you changed the matchup to (say) the top 2 Victorian teams on the previous year's ladder, you would see no discernible decrease in crowd numbers.

 

[Slattery_20]

It does seem a little bit unfair that Essendon and Collingwood got together in the mid 90s and permanently hijacked what was already one of the most sought-after and lucrative regular-season fixtures.

Massive stretch to suggest it was a permanent, year-on-year cash bonanza.

1994, 38k at Waverley - no MCG game.
1993 there was less than 18k at the G, for an ANZAC day game.
1992 saw 42k at the G.
1991, 16k at the G.
1990, 23k at the G.
1989, 43k at Waverley (no MCG game).
1988, 28k at the G
1987, the MCG game drew 23k.
1986, 40k & 40k (day & night games at the G).

vs

1995 had almost as many through the gates (94k vs 100k) as the preceding 4 MCG ANZAC day games - in total.

The truth is... when there were two big sides playing it was reasonably big, when it was small/interstate sides it was small as usual. Just like any other game or timeslot.

It's up to other clubs to create their own 'thing'... I really wish they all did.... and the AFL allowed them all to.... and they all succeeded.
Would love Saints-Dees on good Friday for eg... that just works if you ask me. Would love the North-Pies 'stripes' thing to get a bit of history & spite into it.

 

[Caesar]

The truth is... when there were two big sides playing it was reasonably big, when it was small/interstate sides it was small as usual. Just like any other game or timeslot.

My understanding, from talking to older footy fans, is that teams inevitably drew better for a match on Anzac Day than they would in comparison to a normal fixture. i.e. big crowd or small, it would be a bump on what they would get if the match was played on a Saturday instead. Understandable - public holiday, people looking for something to do, your match the only one being played. Therefore, it was always a good thing to have your club scheduled to play on Anzac Day.

Nobody would deny that Essendon and Collingwood had the idea of commericalising the whole 'Anzac' angle and turning it into the cash bonanza it's become.

 

[Tommy08]

Re: Food for thought

Let the ***** have their little game to make them feel entitled, it's the only reason they like having it

 

[docks]

It does seem a little bit unfair that Essendon and Collingwood got together in the mid 90s and permanently hijacked what was already one of the most sought-after and lucrative regular-season fixtures.

That said, they are the ones who came up with the idea of packaging and selling Anzac Day as a football product so they arguably deserve the benefits of it.

Not so sure about that...Victorian Anzac Day MCG attendances were as follows in the preceding years:

1994 no game at MCG, St Kilda vs. Hawthorn Mon 25-Apr-1994
Att:37,870 Venue: Waverley Park

1993 Melbourne vs. Adelaide Sun 25-Apr-1993
Att:17,011 Venue: M.C.G.

1992 Essendon vs. Melbourne Sat 25-Apr-1992
Att:41,405 Venue: M.C.G

1991 North vs. Sydney Thu 25-Apr-1991
Att:15,664 Venue: M.C.G.

1990 Richmond vs. Fitzroy Wed 25-Apr-1990
Att:23,078 Venue: M.C.G.

1989 no game at MCG Richmond vs. Hawthorn Tue 25-Apr-1989
Att:41,347 Venue: Waverley Park

1988 Richmond vs. Geelong Mon 25-Apr-1988
Att:27,417 Venue: M.C.G.

1987 Richmond vs. Sydney Sat 25-Apr-1987
Att:22,154 Venue: M.C.G.

1986 Melbourne vs. Sydney Fri 25-Apr-1986
Att:40,117 Venue: M.C.G.

1985 Melbourne vs. Carlton Thu 25-Apr-1985
Att:53,065 Venue: M.C.G.

The fact is that nobody really cared about Anzac Day games as it wasn't particularly lucrative. It became lucrative when Collingwood & Essendon got together at Sheedy's request and it was then that the other teams started caring.

 

[Jade]

Re: The Annual ANZAC DAY Thread - Edition 2011

I take it everyone opposed to Essendon and Collingwood getting the game at the 'G are also firmly against Freo having the Len Hall Game every year too, right? Wouldn't wanna be a hypocrite...

I say let them keep it - for 10 years or so.

Once its a massive event, THEN I'll start bitching about how unfair it is that Freo gets to hold this game every year.

 

[Caesar]

Not so sure about that...Victorian Anzac Day MCG attendances were as follows in the preceding years:

See my post above.

 

[Slattery_20]

My understanding, from talking to older footy fans, is that teams inevitably drew better for a match on Anzac Day than they would in comparison to a normal fixture. i.e. big crowd or small, it would be a bump on what they would get if the match was played on a Saturday instead. Therefore, it was always a good thing to have your club scheduled to play on Anzac Day.

Nobody would deny that Essendon and Collingwood had the idea of commericalising the whole 'Anzac' angle and turning it into the cash bonanza it's become.

I'm certainly not going to go through every year, a few random rounded numbers...

1990, Tigs home game, ANZAC day, drew 23k. Home MCG games that year drew 18k, 18k, 23k, 17k, 19k, 31k, 31k, 11k, 25k, 17k
1985, Dees home game, 55k. That year 21k, 55k, 24k, 17k, 32k, 17k, 32k, 16k, 22k.
1980, Tigs home game, drew 44k. They drew 51k, 31k, 44k, 85k, 62k, 58k, 64k, 70k, 19k to their MCG home games that year.
1975, Dees. 23k, 35k, 15k, 16k, 43k, 16k, 19k, 25k, 11k.

Memories are fallible.

May have been better, wasn't anything like the juggernaut it was from 95 onwards.

 

[lamaros]

See my post above.

Opinions unsupported by any data are especially useless.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Strange of the AFL to have only scheduled the one match this year. And additionally to have not moved it to a later starting time.

 

[Dave]

It does seem a little bit unfair that Essendon and Collingwood got together in the mid 90s and permanently hijacked what was already one of the most sought-after and lucrative regular-season fixtures.

Problem with this statement is, it wasn't "already one of the most sought-after and lucrative regular-season fixtures" prior to the mid nineties.

When I was young & it fell mid-week (like this year), clubs didn't want to play on it.

 

[The King!]

this old chestnut.

Would two other teams draw the crowd? no

Its been too long, let it keep going, Maybe if it were year 2 we could go ok that worked last year lets share it, but too late now.

Besides who wants to play off the short rests etc.