Mr.Likeable
Team Captain
- Oct 4, 2005
- 333
- 4
- Other Teams
- Hawthorn
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.
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.