This is why Collingwood get blockbuster games......

[M-Train]

I would be happy for the dogs not to take the money and play North Melbourne on Anzac Day, after all it is the only game played that day, it is on free to air TV - of course it well be a sellout.

Have to be kidding..... There is a reason why ANZAC Day is Collingwood and Essendon's. Both teams have been at it since 1995, yes, I know this years game wasn't the best spectacle..... However, even when both clubs were struggling, the G was packed.... ala 1997, 1998, 2004 or 2005.

Imagine ANZAC Day featuring North and Bulldogs and both teams were in the bottom part of the ladder (say 12th and 15th)..... the AFL would have quite an embarrassment on their hands....... would be lucky to get 30,000 at the G.

 

[Hawkk]

Do you even understand what you are saying?

The bums the big 4 put on seats are what earns the money that the AFL distributes to ALL the teams in the AFL.

Was it or was it not your club which was on the brink of annihilation very, very recently?

If 12 years ago is recent?

In that time Carlton and Collingwood have been on the brink of annihilation as well so take with that what you will

Wake up and smell the roses.

We don't expect you to like us but for god sake at least bag us in a thread which you at least understand the basic facts.

The figures posted by the OP are "incontrovertible proof" of why Collingwood and the other "big drawing" sides get the blockbusters.

"incontrovertible proof"....that the AFL will always go the option which is most profitable.

"incontrovertible proof"....that the major ground owners will always prefer the sides which fill seats.

"incontrovertible proof"....that the television newtworks will always pay for the games most people will watch eg. the biggest audience.

Incontrovertible proof is incontrovertible.

(Big4+$$$)=(AFL+/SVC)
The Big4 make money. This makes the AFL happy and they divide the profits among all the clubs which should make the Struggling Victorian Clubs very happy.

Personally I would be very happy to have a trial system, where each club keeps it's entire gate for 3 seasons, It's audience percentage of the TV deal and it's total percentage of sold merchandising for the same....

Bye bye to Hawthorn, Tassy bound briefly but destined for the Blackhole of history.
Bye bye Melbourne, North, Saints.

You should be great full that we put bums on seats!

So our 40,000 members and moutain profits are destined for the blackhole without the 'Big 4'

Way to overstate your own self importance

 

[Hawkk]

I think we need to put all this into perspective. Hawthorn are riding the crest of a wave on field and are seeing their crowds increase accordingly. Their Melbourne attendance average is sort of inflated because they play games against many interstate clubs at Tasmania and not in Melbourne, hence their Melbourne attendance average for home games is not 'reduced' by games against these interstate clubs (unlike Collingwood or Essendon). Hawthorn are winning and drawing good crowds, however, it would be interesting to see how they pull against these interstate clubs at the MCG if they were not vying for the final 8.

Not really.

Last year we played Geelong, North, Port and West Coast in Tasmania, leaving us to play 2 of our remaining 7 home games at the MCG vs. interstate based opposition - Sydney and Brisbane.

This year we play Adelaide, Brisbane (39,007 last year) Western Bulldogs and Port Adelaide, leaving us to play West Coast and Sydney at the MCG. In both years, we've played low drawing non Victorian games in Melbourne and Victorian clubs in Tasmania.

In other words, the Tasmanian games dont inflate our Victorian numbers, if anything given the contract dicates we play 2 Victorian clubs down there, it understats it such as with the Bulldogs game

 

[Hawkk]

So thats a nice total u-turn you've done.

Never made a U-turn, I never suggested that its wrong that these clubs play the games at the larger grounds (although the fact that they are locked into playing certain opponents twice and others once does comprimise the competition)

Just suggesting (and rightfully) that the 'draw' leads to huge descrepencies in attendance and must be taken into consideration in this discussion.

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

Never made a U-turn, I never suggested that its wrong that these clubs play the games at the larger grounds (although the fact that they are locked into playing certain opponents twice and others once does comprimise the competition)

Just suggesting (and rightfully) that the 'draw' leads to huge descrepencies in attendance and must be taken into consideration in this discussion.

The draw is rigged in terms of who plays who but it does not lead to "huge" discrepencies in attendance. "huge" discrepencies in attendance are due to "huge" differences in support.

Take Hawthorn, who have sold four games a year to tassie. Lets be very, very generous and say they would have go a 40,000 average for those four games in tassie if they were played in Melbourne. That would lift you average by 4 thousand per match over the season.

Take collingwood, and say we play the other three of the so called "big three" 4 times rather than 5 (the actual ammount should average about 4.3), and knock 20,000 off. Turf a further 10,000 off each for anzac day and queens bday and you are reducing the total by about 2000 on average.

Lets completely put aside that Collingwood plays the saints, dogs, kangas, and the swans at the telstra dome this year

So under these (very, very) generous conditions you are knocking 6,000 off a gap that is perhaps 4 times that.

Collingwood drew 53,000 against the eagles on Saturday. Double what Hawthorn likely would have. That's why there are huge discrepencies in crowds

 

[fossman]

Collingwood play so many games at the MCG each year because your clubs request that they play their home games against Collingwood at the MCG. It's pretty simple really.

ANZAC day clash was built and promoted by Collingwood and Essendon, that's why we get it every year. Instead of winging about it maybe demand that your clubs administration actively develop and promote their own Marque games.

Unfortunately the reality of modern football is the mighty dollar. The AFL employ lot's of boring little corporate types who construct models to see which teams will maximize gate receipts and broadcast audiences. The AFL loves the money Collingwood generate. Your teams administration loves the money that Collingwood generate. It's not a conspiracy, it is just financial reality.

 

[Hawkk]

The draw is rigged in terms of who plays who but it does not lead to "huge" discrepencies in attendance. "huge" discrepencies in attendance are due to "huge" differences in support.

Take Hawthorn, who have sold four games a year to tassie. Lets be very, very generous and say they would have go a 40,000 average for those four games in tassie if they were played in Melbourne. That would lift you average by 4 thousand per match over the season.

Its not particularly generious, look at the games we play there this year;

W Bulldogs (media circles suggest this game would have drawn 60k in Melb)
Brisbane (drew 40,000 last year when Brisbane were outside the 8 and Hawthorn were 4th)
Adelaide (Similar to Brisbane)
Port (30-35,000)

Granted, attendances drop a bit, but based on the home games played so far this season (Melb, Adel, Rich, PA, Coll, WB) That still represents a 45-50,000 average across the 6 home games, despite playing 4 'low drawing' opponents.

Like I said, the actual benefit crowd wise is over stated.

Take collingwood, and say we play the other three of the so called "big three" 4 times rather than 5 (the actual ammount should average about 4.3), and knock 20,000 off. Turf a further 10,000 off each for anzac day and queens bday and you are reducing the total by about 2000 on average.

I'm not suggesting we're bigger then Collingwood, but games against Essendon and Carlton once at the TD, and the numbers come down considerably further.

'Capacity issues' shouldn't play a role either, Carlton-Hawthorn broke the TD attendance figure for football at the ground last year.

Collingwood drew 53,000 against the eagles on Saturday. Double what Hawthorn likely would have. That's why there are huge discrepencies in crowds

Double

The Bulldogs drew 30,000 against West Coast earlier this season and Hawthorn has been drawing around 5-15,000 more then them in like for like comparison games ie. vs. Melbourne (40k, 41k vs. 27k) Richmond (46k vs. 37k), North (40k vs. 35k)

Based on that, when we play West Coast (in round 14) on a Friday Night, the likely crowd would be 40,000

Ignorance is bliss I guess.

 

[redglare]

I think a big point missed is if all clubs had to secure their own TV rights, like clubs in some other team sports (E.G. Spanish soccer). Can you imagine the difference between what Collingwood get and some other teams get? If restrictions were put onto Collingwood in regards to exposure, I could easily see them breaking away and negotiating their own tv rights. There are plenty of reasons for the AFL to favour the Pies fixture wise, not the least for the AFL's and the league overall's benefit and as a high drawing and popular team, the Pies hold most of the aces.

I think you are missing the point. The AFL is nothing like sports where they secure their own TV rights, because it tries to retain a competitive, level playing field. I'm sure you would love it if Collingwood were like Man U and everyone else was just playing for second every year, but that is not what we want.

The extra revenue generated by Collingwood in the current TV deals woud be more than offset by the losses if a couple of clubs folded.

By continuing to take the short term gains of extra money from Collingwood blockbusters, the AFL is selling the weaker clubs down the river. We are seeing it happen right now. Give the Kangaroos, the Bulldogs et al, ANZAC day clashes, more friday night games, and let them build their own popularity, support base and brand. It won't happen overnight, but it neds to happen.

And when you say "If restrictions were put onto Collingwood in regards to exposure...", you mean they are just given the same opportunities as everyone else? The arrogance is staggering.

 

[Margim]

The draw is completely random. Thats how we dont play Hawthorn until round 22 despite breaking the attendance record at the Dump last year.

Get your facts straight first please.

You really think this? You know that clubs put in requests for fixturing at the beginning of the season don't you?

 

[magpies10]

The draw is rigged in terms of who plays who but it does not lead to "huge" discrepencies in attendance. "huge" discrepencies in attendance are due to "huge" differences in support.

Take Hawthorn, who have sold four games a year to tassie. Lets be very, very generous and say they would have go a 40,000 average for those four games in tassie if they were played in Melbourne. That would lift you average by 4 thousand per match over the season.

Take collingwood, and say we play the other three of the so called "big three" 4 times rather than 5 (the actual ammount should average about 4.3), and knock 20,000 off. Turf a further 10,000 off each for anzac day and queens bday and you are reducing the total by about 2000 on average.

Lets completely put aside that Collingwood plays the saints, dogs, kangas, and the swans at the telstra dome this year

So under these (very, very) generous conditions you are knocking 6,000 off a gap that is perhaps 4 times that.

Collingwood drew 53,000 against the eagles on Saturday. Double what Hawthorn likely would have. That's why there are huge discrepencies in crowds

Stop your whinging hawkk, it's not our fault your club wants to play matches in Tasmania. If you have a probably, go down to your adminstration office and tell them about it, i'm sick of hearing everyone complain about Collingwood's schedule. If you don't want to see us than boycott our games, either way we would probably still get 40-50 thousand every game anyway.

 

[Deefolt]

And it could still only attract 68,000? Would have been 90,000 if any combination of the big 4 was playing..

hawks (if they are apart of the big 4, i need to be reminded) but they at the time wouldnt stand a chance of getting 90k at the time, Melbourne would every year, we have A LOT of band wagoners, it shits me, when the struggle gets tough they are no where suddenly when we are chance they come out of the woodwork... ANNOYING

 

[mattdavies_03]

Hawthorn fans should have shown up when their team was down, and they wouldn't be in this mess. Then, if the fans had shown up, once the team came back to the top again, they would be playing in Melb 18 times (like Collingwood) instead of having to sell home games to Tasmania in order to get money

 

[Hawkk]

hawks (if they are apart of the big 4, i need to be reminded) but they at the time wouldnt stand a chance of getting 90k at the time,

Based on?

Melbourne would every year, we have A LOT of band wagoners, it shits me, when the struggle gets tough they are no where suddenly when we are chance they come out of the woodwork... ANNOYING

Nice comparison

Round 11 2007
Hawthorn (3rd) vs. Sydney (9th) - 48398

Round 19 2006
Melbourne (3rd) vs. Sydney (4th) - 43794

Melbourne draw consistantly lower then Hawthorn and obviously have a whole lot less members. This isnt debatable this is fact.

Melbourne are in the plight they are, because they dont have any fans.

Stop your whinging hawkk, it's not our fault your club wants to play matches in Tasmania. If you have a probably, go down to your adminstration office and tell them about it, i'm sick of hearing everyone complain about Collingwood's schedule. If you don't want to see us than boycott our games, either way we would probably still get 40-50 thousand every game anyway.

Collingwood are obviously the #1 ticket in town, this isnt debatable, but there are reasons why Collingwood draw 60,000 to home and away games while sides like the Bulldogs draw 30,000, Collingwood have more fans, but 30,000 a game?

 

[richardnose]

Can anyone here tell me of any other sporting code anywhere else in the world, where two teams have 'exclusive rights' to certain fixtures every year regardless of where they sit on the ladder? No, I didn't think so.

If I have to watch another mediocre Anzac Day performance from two teams that belong in the bottom part of the ladder - I will throw up. As for another blockbuster Carlton v Richmond - let's not go there.

Just a couple of points to throw into the pot. Footscray (as it was known then) was the first club to crack 10,000 memberships - so I guess we were the original 'big 1'. I would also add that the 2006 final we played against Collingwood was not all Collingwood fans - there was close to a 50/50 breakdown, and I was quietly amused at the look of shock on some of the Collingwood supporters sitting near me when we found our voice.

Finally for those Collingwood supporters who think that they are entitled to see their team play each week at the G and thanks to them we get a handout. I would remind you that because of your exclusive fixture we are paid by the AFL to equalise the game. I would be happy for the dogs not to take the money and play North Melbourne on Anzac Day, after all it is the only game played that day, it is on free to air TV - of course it well be a sellout.

north v footscray wouldn't fill the G on anzac day or any other day, except the GF.

if you were in charge of the afl and you arranged the draw and canned revenue equalisation then your club, as well as north, would be gone within 2 or 3 years.

 

[magpies10]

Based on?



Nice comparison

Round 11 2007
Hawthorn (3rd) vs. Sydney (9th) - 48398

Round 19 2006
Melbourne (3rd) vs. Sydney (4th) - 43794

Melbourne draw consistantly lower then Hawthorn and obviously have a whole lot less members. This isnt debatable this is fact.

Melbourne are in the plight they are, because they dont have any fans.



Collingwood are obviously the #1 ticket in town, this isnt debatable, but there are reasons why Collingwood draw 60,000 to home and away games while sides like the Bulldogs draw 30,000, Collingwood have more fans, but 30,000 a game?

It's called loyalty

 

[Hawkk]

It's called loyalty

Like I said, give Collingwood the Bulldogs schedule and would they draw 60,000 averages? Probably not.

That's not to say the Bulldogs are 'bigger' then Collingwood, but the way the draw is scheduled its obvious that the higher drawing clubs - in this case Collingwood will always consistantly draw numbers that 'inflate' their drawing power compared to the lower drawing clubs - in this case the Bulldogs, who play away games at smaller venues such as Geelong and Tasmania.

This is no fault of Collingwood or the AFL, fact is, 15 rival clubs around the place put a Collingwood home game on their wish list.

That's not to say Collingwood should play at these venues, but if you're going to mention these numbers, at least it should be mentioned as consideration. Agree?

 

[magpies10]

Like I said, give Collingwood the Bulldogs schedule and would they draw 60,000 averages? Probably not.

That's not to say the Bulldogs are 'bigger' then Collingwood, but the way the draw is scheduled its obvious that the higher drawing clubs - in this case Collingwood will always consistantly draw numbers that 'inflate' their drawing power compared to the lower drawing clubs - in this case the Bulldogs, who play away games at smaller venues such as Geelong and Tasmania.

This is no fault of Collingwood or the AFL, fact is, 15 rival clubs around the place put a Collingwood home game on their wish list.

That's not to say Collingwood should play at these venues, but if you're going to mention these numbers, at least it should be mentioned as consideration. Agree?

Agree, but saying that would like to see them sell out more games at the dome then they currently do, the way their going this year I am suprised that their membership figures are down on last years.

 

[Mr Lizard]

The whole defensiveness of Collingwood fans on this issue cracks me up. No-one is saying anything is Collingwood's 'fault', no-one is suggesting things should be done differently. All that is being said is: The attendance figures are skewed by Collingwood's 'crowd maximisation policy' influenced draw.

What is so hard to understand about that?

If you scheduled every Collingwood fixture at TEAC oval on a Tuesday night, they would still have the greatest number of supporters, but the attendance figures would be down. Collingwood's crowd numbers are increased because of the rigged draw, fact.


Further, if you continued to schedule Collingwood games at TEAC oval on tuesdays for the next 15 years, at some point they would no longer have the most supporters.

 

[Pie eyed]

If 12 years ago is recent?

In that time Carlton and Collingwood have been on the brink of annihilation as well so take with that what you will



So our 40,000 members and moutain profits are destined for the blackhole without the 'Big 4'

Way to overstate your own self importance

Yes. If the big 4 were given a cut of the "equalization fund" proportionate to what they actually generate and the other clubs got only the revenue they actually generated you would be screwed and the big 4 would be rolling in Money....

 

[Paddywhackers]

Nail, Hammer and Head

What's your biggest crowd this year Hawkk? And why do you think that is?

 

[Hawkk]

Yes. If the big 4 were given a cut of the "equalization fund" proportionate to what they actually generate and the other clubs got only the revenue they actually generated you would be screwed and the big 4 would be rolling in Money....

Who are the 'Big 4' clubs.

I know Richmond for one are a club complaining about their lack of exposure this year, regarding Friday Night games, Carlton last year?

Do these clubs qualify as one of the famed clubs?

 

[Mr Lizard]

Yes. If the big 4 were given a cut of the "equalization fund" proportionate to what they actually generate and the other clubs got only the revenue they actually generated you would be screwed and the big 4 would be rolling in Money....

Fair point, if they keep rigging the draw.

If the draw wasn't rigged, the difference would not be so great. The big 4 might still get more, but not that much more.

 

[Hawkk]

What's your biggest crowd this year Hawkk? And why do you think that is?

Collingwood at the moment.

Beside Collingwood we've played Melbourne twice (both on Sunday's) Nth Melbourne, Richmond (Sunday Night) Brisbane, Fremantle and 3 games in Tasmania (W Bulldogs, Adelaide and Port)

It'll be interesting to compare the Hawthorn-Geelong turnout with the Hawthorn-Collingwood and Geelong-Collingwood turnouts. To suggest that Collingwood or the famed 'Big 4' clubs are the only Victorian clubs capable of drawing big crowds surely will be tested - which is what the poster was alluding to.

 

[EOP26]

2008 AFL Attendance
Team Games Total Average
Collingwood Magpies 10 624,553 62,455

2007 AFL Attendance
Team Games Total Average
Collingwood Magpies 25 1,432,878 57,315

2006 AFL Attendance
Team Games Total Average
Collingwood Magpies 23 1,249,266 54,315

2005 AFL Attendance
Team Games Total Average
Collingwood Magpies 22 1,003,829 45,628

NO... The AFL is the reason why Collingwood have a big following

 

[swiftdog]

The whole defensiveness of Collingwood fans on this issue cracks me up. No-one is saying anything is Collingwood's 'fault', no-one is suggesting things should be done differently. All that is being said is: The attendance figures are skewed by Collingwood's 'crowd maximisation policy' influenced draw.

What is so hard to understand about that?

If you scheduled every Collingwood fixture at TEAC oval on a Tuesday night, they would still have the greatest number of supporters, but the attendance figures would be down. Collingwood's crowd numbers are increased because of the rigged draw, fact.


Further, if you continued to schedule Collingwood games at TEAC oval on tuesdays for the next 15 years, at some point they would no longer have the most supporters.

Agree with all of this except for the bolded part. You know that clubs put in their bids at the start of the year . Look at it from a team like Geelongs point of view (probably not ideal as they're not a struggling club but they do have their own ground). If they had two games against Collingwood for the year obviously 1 would be Collingwoods home game and 1 would be Geelongs. If you were president of Geelong would you want your home game at Kardinia Park or at the MCG where you know that you will get a huge crowd due to Collingwoods drawing power which means more $$$$$$? Why would any team (excluding interstate teams) want to play their home game against Collingwood anywhere other than the MCG?

Unfortunately, the game revolves around the almighty dollar and it is never going to change. If we want our national sport to become the ultimate sport in Australia and successfully spread overseas the AFL will need a shitload of cash and as it turns out Collingwood generate the most.

FWIW: I don't care where we play our games, but if teams like Hawthorn and Geelong want to play as many home games as they want at Launceston and Kardinia (I know this hasn't really been brought up but it's more in relation to Kennet's article) then Collingwood should be able to play their 11 'home' games at the MCG, it is our home ground.