Time to review Fitzpatrick, Demetriou & Anderson's performance

[Mr.Likeable]

Over the nine years of Andrew Demetriou's tenure as AFL CEO, much has changed.

In my opinion, Demetriou has managed the television coverage of the game exceptionally well, and has also done an outstanding job on social issues in a very challenging environment.

However, in my opinion, his own performance, that of his right-hand man - Adrian Anderson - and that of the Commission Chairman Mike Fitzpatrick, need to be reviewed now, in the interests of the game.

Attendances are down... or alternatively, to pick at straws, not up by enough.

Andrew Demetriou has been CEO for nine years, and in that time, AFL crowds have experienced an average (compounded) increase of just 0.5% per annum, compared with an average (compounded) increase of 2.3% per annum over the nine years prior to Demetriou's appointment. This decline in growth rate demands rigorous investigation and suggests under-performance at a time when the game's focus has been on competitive growth against other professional sports.

In fact, since 2007 - over the last five years of Demetriou's tenure - gross crowds have declined despite an increase in games played. This statistic surely suggests that the game itself is losing traction.

In addition it is rumoured that the AFL will post a serious loss this year due to its significant investment in the expansion clubs - yet the current administration's record in the "non-AFL" states is poor. For example, the Sydney Swans' game attendances have not shown any improvement over the nine year term. The entire strategy and its implementation under the current executive suggests a review.

With (i) attendances declining over the last five years (since 2007), (ii) cash-flow actually turning negative despite increased revenues (TV) and (iii) executive pay levels and bonuses that are disproportionately high in comparison with other organisations of similar size, questions must be asked.

Particularly in a context where the integrity of the game itself is frequently questioned.

The AFL has demonstrated an increasing emphasis on ad hoc and perhaps defensive decision making, while almost every aspect of the game's integrity has been increasingly challenged.

The AFL executive needs, I believe, to take its role as custodians of the game much more seriously. They are not just custodians of top-line revenues. Their administration of the fundamentals of the game also demands review.

The Laws of Football have themselves become a subject of derision. For example, very few followers of the game understand the extraordinarily complex set of rules now surrounding holding the ball / holding the man decisions, and the complexity of the rules is a serious challenge for young umpires. Whilst "prior opportunity" is now a key concept in the written rules, there is no definition of the term anywhere in the book. Who are responsible for this extraordinary oversight, and should they continue to be custodians of the game? Equally, rules relating to marking and ruck contests that appear in writing in the Laws of Football are ignored each week in AFL matches. Completely ignored. Players, coaches, supporters and media are often amazed at the shifts in rule interpretations from week to week that are frequently denied by the AFL's officials. This causes most people to question the integrity of the rules and the rigour of their management.

There are more than nine different elements to "holding the ball" rules in the Laws, which are self-contradictory in places, incomplete in others, and impossible to understand without academic deconstruction. And the AFL thinks that young people are discouraged from umpiring why exactly?

Similar concerns are often expressed in relation to the MRP.

The rules seem to expand and become more and more complex as each year passes, with less meaning and certainty for the football-following public. Even one head coach acknowledged publicly this year that he does not understand the rules of the game. Yet this didn't become a major talking point. I think the football public has become resigned to the ongoing obfuscation of the game.

Every year we hear defensive commentary from members of the rules panel and umpiring departments about how hard their jobs are. While the rules are made more and more difficult to comprehend.

But things get worse. The draw itself has been compromised, and here Mike Fitzpatrick's performance must be questioned. Very few football followers are convinced that we have a fair competition. Most supporters are increasingly frustrated by it. Yet the AFL executive appears to be working to significant financial incentives that encourage compromising of the draw. I will return to this point, as today marks a very significant occasion in the compromising of the draw... and the integrity of the game.

First I want to divert briefly to a symbol of the current AFL administration's drive to turn the game into a circus. We have interstate celebrities on highly inflated salaries actually playing the game. While it's been entertaining to watch Hunt and Folau learning the game, it is ridiculous to think that the AFL gives any great priority to the game's integrity. It's all about media exposure to build crowds and revenues, with the executive team on incentives to do precisely that. Why else would there be this extraordinary inclusion of one famous player from another code in each of those sides?

The integrity of the game is being continually compromised in order to try to expand top line revenues, for which the executive team receives bonuses. Yet crowds are falling and the competition is making a loss. Something is very wrong here. We should probably think about it very seriously.

That compromise extends further; to the pricing of finals tickets, which now clearly emphasise AFL revenues (and in turn, executive bonuses) over the aspirations of dedicated, passionate supporters who are increasingly reporting that they cannot afford to attend finals. Adelaide's home crowd last week was a case in point.

Today is a significant day for the AFL's current strategy and execution.

Tonight, the integrity of the finals system is being compromised. The emphasis on the Sydney market (which has slipped backwards under the current administration) has led to a most extraordinary situation in which the Sydney Swans are being handed - by the AFL administration - an outrageous advantage that simultaneously disadvantages all three other sides that have earned the right to compete for the premiership. Hawthorn has been denied its right to the extra day's rest before the Grand Final (if it wins) and that right has been given instead to the side that finished second. Collingwood is required to back up into a Preliminary Final off a six day break. And Adelaide has been additionally compromised by a 5:15 p.m. start to its Preliminary Final, leaving it with even less time than Hawthorn to recover.

The AFL's comment that the 5:15 time was best for everyone was disingenuousness of the highest order.

The compromises made to the integrity of the game by the current AFL administration are now beyond belief.

Yet the financial compensation to the executive continues.

While attendances are down or flatlining at best, and the competition is making a loss.

I believe we need to replace the AFL's hierarchy with executives who are willing to prioritise the integrity of the game, its rules, its draw, its ladder... And perhaps attendances will follow.

Today's Preliminary Final arrangements are a symbolic indictment on the game and its current custodians.

 

[Kwality]

Fair ask, but fair dinkum ,this lot have achieved in taking AFL footy (not AFL) to a clear #1 in Aussie sport.

The financial compensation argument is pathetic, peanuts are for monkeys.

 

[Mr.Likeable]

fair dinkum ,this lot have achieved in taking AFL footy (not AFL) to a clear #1 in Aussie sport.

The TV contract is outstanding and they haven't taken their eyes off AusKick, which is also outstanding. On balance, though, I believe their strategies are taking advantage of passionate supporters, while creating a game that is too obscure for newcomers to understand. This is reflected in both game attendances and TV ratings. Overall, they're slipping.

The financial compensation argument is pathetic, peanuts are for monkeys.

No, Kwality, you've plucked a standard and glib argument that only addresses a tiny part of the issue. What is fair pay? Of course, for someone in Demetriou's position the salary should be high. But how high? And what would be reasonable compensation for the entire management of an organisation roughly the size of the AFL? The AFL's management salaries as a proportion of the business are extraordinarily high. There is a powerful case that there is serious overpayment occurring.

A lot of "average" supporters are getting annoyed. Numbers are wavering. The perception amongst passionate supporters is that the competition lacks integrity. The AFL executive should be paid well, but grossly overpaid? And, given the feelings of many passionate supporters about the integrity of the game and the competition, it's reasonable to ask whether somebody else could do better for the money and the stakeholders, or whether the current administrators really do need to focus on rebuilding integrity back into the game, as their key focus, for a while.

I say somebody else - a well paid person from outside - could look after the game better now, while continuing the fine work with pay TV and Auskick that Demetriou and his team have done.

But it's new broom time, I think. This lot has not demonstrated that it understands the importance of the integrity of the game and the competition. Their focus has been elsewhere for too long and my point is that any rigorous analysis of the numbers points to short term mindset, that delivers very big bonuses based on short term thinking. History shows that is not a sound combination for large organisations.

The AFL has major challenges right now and I wonder whether Fitzpatrick, Demetriou and Anderson are the right people to continue the job?

 

[fabulousphil]

The TV contract is outstanding and they haven't taken their eyes off AusKick, which is also outstanding. On balance, though, I believe their strategies are taking advantage of passionate supporters, while creating a game that is too obscure for newcomers to understand. This is reflected in both game attendances and TV ratings. Overall, they're slipping.

No, Kwality, you've plucked a standard and glib argument that only addresses a tiny part of the issue. What is fair pay? Of course, for someone in Demetriou's position the salary should be high. But how high? And what would be reasonable compensation for the entire management of an organisation roughly the size of the AFL? The AFL's management salaries as a proportion of the business are extraordinarily high. There is a powerful case that there is serious overpayment occurring.

A lot of "average" supporters are getting annoyed. Numbers are wavering. The perception amongst passionate supporters is that the competition lacks integrity. The AFL executive should be paid well, but grossly overpaid? And, given the feelings of many passionate supporters about the integrity of the game and the competition, it's reasonable to ask whether somebody else could do better for the money and the stakeholders, or whether the current administrators really do need to focus on rebuilding integrity back into the game, as their key focus, for a while.

I say somebody else - a well paid person from outside - could look after the game better now, while continuing the fine work with pay TV and Auskick that Demetriou and his team have done.

But it's new broom time, I think. This lot has not demonstrated that it understands the importance of the integrity of the game and the competition. Their focus has been elsewhere for too long and my point is that any rigorous analysis of the numbers points to short term mindset, that delivers very big bonuses based on short term thinking. History shows that is not a sound combination for large organisations.

The AFL has major challenges right now and I wonder whether Fitzpatrick, Demetriou and Anderson are the right people to continue the job?

The game always has major challenges, that is never going to change, the big issue for me is the rugby style mauls that all the top teams seem to play, unless a cap is put on interchanges, or players must stay within zones, i cannot see a way around the mauls.

I am not sure if you take the 2 new clubs out, that crowd averages are down at all, and TV ratings have been going down on all fronts for all shows for years.

You make some good points, but in general i think the game is OK, more skill and less packs etc is my main concern, although i speak from Perth, and the game is generally very healthy here.

 

[cos789]

We've just had the exact same thread and it was almost unamamous that the AFL had done a great job with a small reservation w.r.t. umpiring.

 

[The_Wookie]

1. Overall crowds are down 9.7% on last year (H&A only), on this you are correct. And its not just GWS and Gold Coast driven. If you take out GC and GWS crowds attendances averages are still down almost 3,000 a game. Yes, there are some issues with stadium recontsuction (Kardinia, SCG), but attendances were down almost 200,000 at the MCG and 100,000 at Etihad this year as well as being slightly down at Subiaco and Adelaide.

Some of the downturn can be attributed to Carltons poor performance in 2012, down almost 8,000 a game on last year - thats almost 100,000 less people in itself. Collingwood and Essendon games are down 2,000. Theres another 50,000 right there. Geelongs attendances were down 4,000 (so theres another 50k) although they blame development at kardinia Park. These are typically the benchmark crowds of recent years.

Interstate, Ports crowds continue to drop (down 2,000). Gold Coast appeared to lose its hype of last year (down 5,000 per game), Swans were down 2,000 although they blame SCG construction for that. Brisbane, Adelaide and West Coast held firm on last years figures, give or take a hundred or so here and there.

2. TV Ratings. FTA ratings are down, no question about it. Even in core states (17% in Melb, 23% adelaide, 14% in Perth). However total ratings are up due to a massive influx in Foxtel viewing (up 132%). This is discussed in some detail in this thread.

 

[Mr.Likeable]

Thanks for the link and the numbers The_Wookie.

It will be interesting to see whether the Foxtel numbers sustain. If they do, it's a big win to Foxtel and to Demetriou's approach. There is, however, a possible drawback from the whole Foxtel deal: You have to be a footy tragic already in order to want to subscribe. The Pay TV deal is not going to generate new followers of the game, just harvest them.

The fact that total views across FTA and PayTV is on the increase in 2012 is certainly a big tick for Demetriou's overall strategy.

I suspect that the FTA trend will be the leading indicator, but we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Papa G]

This administration has swung the pendulum far too much back towards Vic Centricity. Whilst we have added, 2 more "interstate teams", possibly prematurely or at least incorrectly, the AFL and the Victorian based national football media heavily promote Victorian interests with fixturing and coverage the major bug bears. I have no doubt the Victorian State Government are heavily influential in much of the AFL's decision making as the "footy industry" is a fairly large employer in the state as well as a large tourism puller. Transperacy and equality is what this administration has severely lacked..... oh yeh and they've also made some shit house decisions on the way the game is played.

 

[The_Wookie]

This administration has swung the pendulum far too much back towards Vic Centricity. Whilst we have added, 2 more "interstate teams", possibly prematurely or at least incorrectly, the AFL and the Victorian based national football media heavily promote Victorian interests with fixturing and coverage the major bug bears. I have no doubt the Victorian State Government are heavily influential in much of the AFL's decision making as the "footy industry" is a fairly large employer in the state as well as a large tourism puller. Transperacy and equality is what this administration has severely lacked..... oh yeh and they've also made some shit house decisions on the way the game is played.

heres the basic facts of the matter, as long as the majority of attendances, and viewers are in victoria, then the media is going to heavily focus on the victorian side of things. The fact that the networks are also based in sydney and melbourne doesnt help. It was a bad day for local coverage in SA when 7 dropped the Power and Crows focussed tv shows they used to have on a saturday. Such things tend to happen when they lack commercial viability.

Now that said, if Hawthorn can afford to broadcast their own tv into Tasmania, then why cant the interstate sides like Adelaide and West Coast for example, do the same to their home states.

They are also bailing out the SANFL over Port at the moment, which has nothing to do with victorian interest.

 

[cos789]

This administration has swung the pendulum far too much back towards Vic Centricity.

No, as you yourself state.

we have added, 2 more "interstate teams",

Well actually two more interstate teams not "interstate teams".
There is no question that these two new clubs are in fact interstate clubs.

the AFL and the Victorian based national football media heavily promote Victorian interests with fixturing and coverage .

That has always been the case and with the introduction of each interstate club this has been diluted.
With the performance of the Swans, Eagles, Dockers and Crows this year the focus has changed.
The intoduction of the Suns and Giants received great meadia exposure.
Even tonight, the brownlow becomes an Australian event not just a Victorian event.

. I have no doubt the Victorian State Government are heavily influential in much of the AFL's decision making as the "footy industry" is a fairly large employer in the state as well as a large tourism puller.

Yes, the AFL is a $billion a year industry.
That is why WA is building a $billion stadium.
That is why SA is spending half a $billion updating a stadium.
That is why NSW spent $100 million billion on the showgrounds.
That is why NSW spent $10 million billion on the BISP.
That is why the SCG, Canberra and Geelong stadia are being upgraded.
That is why the Gabba was re-developed.
That is why the Carrara was re-developed and the GC are very happy with the tourism.

.

 

[Papa G]

So you think it is the "national" bodies perogative to advantage one groups interest over another? Does fairness and equality go out the window because the Victorian media have decided to protect their own patch and are lazy? Surely if it is a national game the national body should promote all teams, not simply the ones within in a 50km radius of their head quarters and demand that the media at least makes an effort to do the same? I actually don't think that is too much to ask.

 

[The_Wookie]

Yes, the AFL is a $billion a year industry.
That is why WA is building a $billion stadium.
That is why SA is spending half a $billion updating a stadium.
That is why NSW spent $100 million billion on the showgrounds.
That is why NSW spent $10 million billion on the BISP.
That is why the SCG, Canberra and Geelong stadia are being upgraded.
That is why the Gabba was re-developed.
That is why the Carrara was re-developed and the GC are very happy with the tourism.

.

cas...100 million billion is a lot. just sayin

 

[The_Wookie]

So you think it is the "national" bodies perogative to advantage one groups interest over another? Does fairness and equality go out the window because the Victorian media have decided to protect their own patch and are lazy? Surely if it is a national game the national body should promote all teams, not simply the ones within in a 50km radius of their head quarters and demand that the media at least makes an effort to do the same? I actually don't think that is too much to ask.

The AFL cant control the victorian media, if it could there'd be no need to set up AFL media. The victorian media is going to aim for victorian audiences. Just as the Advertiser aims for South Australian ones. "national" broadcast programs are going to be designed BY THE BROADCASTER to reach maximum audiences, so the percieved victorian bias.

 

[Papa G]

That has always been the case and with the introduction of each interstate club this has been diluted.
With the performance of the Swans, Eagles, Dockers and Crows this year the focus has changed.
The intoduction of the Suns and Giants received great meadia exposure.
Even tonight, the brownlow becomes an Australian event not just a Victorian event.

.

Your first 2 answers aren't really comprehendible, so I'll focus on the above.

Of the Friday night Prime television spots, of the 46 available teams that could get this nationally televised coverage/promotion of their sponsors/brand/club, only seven of these spots went to "interstate" teams. Seven!

The performance of the Swans, Eagles, Dockers and Crows has only come under the spot light since the finals began because it couldn't be ignored.

The Suns and Giants at this stage are the AFL's clubs and are promoted as such, the AFL have a lot riding on it, actually they probably get more exposure nationally than West Coast do, surprising given that West Coast are probably the second biggest club in the country.

When's the Brownlow ever been held outside Victoria?

 

[Papa G]

The AFL cant control the victorian media, if it could there'd be no need to set up AFL media. The victorian media is going to aim for victorian audiences. Just as the Advertiser aims for South Australian ones. "national" broadcast programs are going to be designed BY THE BROADCASTER to reach maximum audiences, so the percieved victorian bias.

Jesus don't bring up the Advertiser, it is a South Australian paper only read by Crows supporters, it is not meant for national consumption. National football shows, broadcast to a national audience are not solely for a Victorian audience. Does Barry the Bogan from Balwyn who happens to be a Collingwood supporter get an erection if there is a story about St Kilda, but turn the TV off if there is an equal amount of time given to a story about the Crows? Is that how the average Victorian football watcher is? Are they that stupid? Because that is pretty much what you are saying is their justification.

I actually disagree with that. I actually believe the Victorian (see national) media is all about defending it's patch and also about them being lazy.

 

[Mr.Likeable]

That is why WA is building a $billion stadium.
That is why SA is spending half a $billion updating a stadium.
That is why NSW spent $100 million billion on the showgrounds.
That is why NSW spent $10 million billion on the BISP.
That is why the SCG, Canberra and Geelong stadia are being upgraded.
That is why the Gabba was re-developed.
That is why the Carrara was re-developed and the GC are very happy with the tourism.

Which raises the issue of where the Grand Final should be played. If it's a truly national competition, and competition / sporting integrity / equity is a high priority, then the GF should be played at either the top-ranked team's home ground (which is happening this year), or at a neutral venue. It would even be possible to give any team that finishes first a choice between just the MCG and Stadium Australia (Homebush) until there are bigger stadia in other states. That would enable any team that finished top to suit itself by playing at the G or by neutralising their opponent's advantage. When there are stadia big enough in Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane, I don't see why they shouldn't have the option of a home GF.

It's the very long list of matters relating to the game itself and the equity (or lack of it) in the competition that need the radical overhaul in my view. Demetriou has been paid incentives to focus too much on the revenues. And the game has suffered. imo

 

[cos789]

So you think it is the "national" bodies perogative to advantage one groups interest over another?

IMO the AFL has done a stirling job of managing the national Australian Football competition.

Does fairness and equality go out the window because the Victorian media have decided to protect their own patch and are lazy?.

You mean like the Sydney media?
No, I don't believe the Melbourne media are as bad as the Sydney media.
The melbourne media may pump up football but they don't attack other codes like the Sydney media.

Surely if it is a national game the national body should promote all teams,

Well the AFL is actually a football organistaion and not a media outlet, but despite that the AFL has generated a lot of interest in the northern states with the creation on the GC Suns and the GWS giants.
The AFL has spent alot of money up that way and it appears to be generasting results.

.

 

[cos789]

When there are stadia big enough in Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane, I don't see why they shouldn't have the option of a home GF.

well you just answered your own gripe.

Australia's national game is played in Australia's biggest stadium.
It's a pity NSW didn't put a little more thought into Olympic stadium
then you might've have had a case for the Swans playing ther GF in Sydney.

 

[The_Wookie]

Your first 2 answers aren't really comprehendible, so I'll focus on the above.

Of the Friday night Prime television spots, of the 46 available teams that could get this nationally televised coverage/promotion of their sponsors/brand/club, only seven of these spots went to "interstate" teams. Seven!

The performance of the Swans, Eagles, Dockers and Crows has only come under the spot light since the finals began because it couldn't be ignored.

The Suns and Giants at this stage are the AFL's clubs and are promoted as such, the AFL have a lot riding on it, actually they probably get more exposure nationally than West Coast do, surprising given that West Coast are probably the second biggest club in the country.

When's the Brownlow ever been held outside Victoria?

The AFl us somewhat beholden to broadcaster requests for the Friday night timeslots given its Prime designation. Theres something of a belief that interstate sides will draw less attention to the national broadcast given that while some states have some support for Victorian sides, Victorians have little support for non victorian sides, unless its the finals or the lead up to it. Its why many non victorian home game broadcasts are limited to the home state in question. This is what happened as a result of the VFL expanding out of itself, and not creating a new league from scratch.

 

[Mr.Likeable]

well you just answered your own gripe.

Australia's national game is played in Australia's biggest stadium.
It's a pity NSW didn't put a little more thought into Olympic stadium
then you might've have had a case for the Swans playing ther GF in Sydney.

Just to clarify, my personal view is that the top side should be permitted to choose the venue, within reason. There has been little incentive to build bigger stadia in Perth or Adelaide if they were never going to get the opportunity to host a GF. I would have no objection to a WCE v Haw GF being played at Subiaco this week (and I'm a member of both HFC and the MCC/MCG - so I'd be giving away my personal advantage in the interest of integrity) if WCE had finished on top and won through, but I understand the AFL would not let that happen.

The reason I suggested the choice between the MCG and Stadium Australia is that you would have a choice between two x 80,000 seat minimums, the whole TV thing can happen, it would tick more of the commercial boxes for the AFL, and it would at least give the top team (if they were from WA, SA or Qld) an opportunity to neutralise the advantage provided to any of the clubs that are based in Vic or NSW.

I was presenting that option as a compromise position, not as the ideal. (I didn't make that clear, sorry.)

In my view, the ideal is a home state Grand Final at the best available venue. I would personally accept Subiaco, West Lakes or the Gabba, but for a great Grand Final, those states clearly need to add capacity. There is no current incentive with no sign of a shift in the long term MCG deal in place. That deal corrupts the integrity of the competition: it disadvantages many clubs because of an arrangement that is commercially appealing to the AFL executive and some of its stakeholders.

What I'm arguing is that almost every decision made prioritises short term revenues over competition integrity, and that decisions need to be taken to move the other way. Better balance.

And while the jury is still out and will be for some time, I think there's a very strong case that the GC / GWS expansion is not working as it should be, and may yet be an awful commercial failure.

Big question marks around the whole strategy in my opinion.

 

[The_Wookie]

By sticking with tradition that dates back more than a hundred years, and playing the grand final at the MCG on a saturday afternoon, the AFL arguably foregoes millions it could get by selling it to the highest bidder (ANZ pays 10 million to the NRL for the NRL final). It costs them in tv dollars by not caving to tvs desire to have a night grand final.

 

[Mr.Likeable]

Why would maintaining a 100 year tradition be important in a competition that has turned itself inside out over the last 30? The things that the AFL claims as tradition are often disingenuous. Perth, Fremantle, Port Adelaide, Sydney etc have not had anything to do with a century of "MCG Tradition". It's a different world and if it's a genuine sporting contest, some of the "Victorian traditions" need to be burned.

They're maintained for reasons of commercial benefit or to satisfy powerful stakeholders.

I wouldn't have a problem with a night GF played at the ground chosen by the top side on the ladder.

 

[The_Wookie]

Why would maintaining a 100 year tradition be important in a competition that has turned itself inside out over the last 30? The things that the AFL claims as tradition are often disingenuous. Perth, Fremantle, Port Adelaide, Sydney etc have not had anything to do with a century of "MCG Tradition". It's a different world and if it's a genuine sporting contest, some of the "Victorian traditions" need to be burned.

They're maintained for reasons of commercial benefit or to satisfy powerful stakeholders.

I wouldn't have a problem with a night GF played at the ground chosen by the top side on the ladder.

except it hasnt turned itself inside out, its just added on. The traditions of the VFL arent any less valid because of the addons whatever the non victorians say.

 

[Kwality]

except it hasnt turned itself inside out, its just added on. The traditions of the VFL arent any less valid because of the addons whatever the non victorians say.

The GF is locked in for a year or two, 2035? Come back then, all views might have changed ... progress even.

Night GFs will happen after the current administration move on.

 

[Mr.Likeable]

The traditions of the VFL arent any less valid because of the addons whatever the non victorians say.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. It's either a national competition or it isn't. I think it's arrogant when Victorian clubs to try to retain inherited advantages whilst pretending to run a national competition. Again, I think it's about integrity. This is not the VFL, and the days when I used to jump on a tram at 11 o'clock on a Saturday morning to take a short ride across town to catch the second half of the reserves, and then enter the quarter by quarter scores from all six games into the Footy Record... long gone.

A couple of years ago I used frequent flyer points to go see my team play an interstate final. There was no reserves game. It's the AFL, not the VFL.

I agree with you completely that aspects of history and culture are well worth preserving and celebrating, but perpetual advantages to Victorians because of Victorian football traditions undermine the fairness of a national competition.