Time to scrap all Vic clubs and create 3-4 mega Vic franchises

[GetDimmaBack]

great idea.

no one in Vic would follow football again

Yep.

Water polo for me...

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

There is a law of diminishing returns when it comes to more games. If there were only 4 games a week you would be right that adding a 5th would add to the TV rights a lot, but adding a 6th game would be still adding more but less than before, and adding a 7th would be less again and so forth. The reason is that there are very few people who are able to watch 8 games in a round and certainly not 9 games.

If someone watched 3 games a round they are going to watch 3 games whether there are 8 games on or 9 games. They have time for 3 games and adding a game is not going to suddenly give them more free time.

Regardless, even if you halve that (which is not realistic), it's still a drop of $30m in TV rights alone.

Plus, you don't address the fixturing issue. So what's the point? Maken the fixture worse, and lose money??

Who's going to pitch that idea??!


FWIW, I think it's shit that a national comp has about 30 Victorian teams or whatever it is, and that the grand final is played at the MCG, and that the fixture is a joke - and I think reducing the amount of Victorian teams would address much of this.

But to suggest that these clubs drain the comp, as opposed to increase revenue, is folly. It's simply not true.

The AFL thrives financially because there are 18 clubs, 16 of which are established, not despite it.

 

[RUNVS]

Regardless, even if you halve that (which is not realistic), it's still a drop of $30m in TV rights alone.

Plus, you don't address the fixturing issue. So what's the point? Maken the fixture worse, and lose money??

Who's going to pitch that idea??!


FWIW, I think it's s**t that a national comp has about 30 Victorian teams or whatever it is, and that the grand final is played at the MCG, and that the fixture is a joke - and I think reducing the amount of Victorian teams would address much of this.

But to suggest that these clubs drain the comp, as opposed to increase revenue, is folly. It's simply not true.

The AFL thrives financially because there are 18 clubs, 16 of which are established, not despite it.

1. Gold Coast - $26.3 million
2. GWS - $23.5 million
3. Brisbane - $21.6 million
4. St Kilda - $21.4 million
5. Melbourne - $19.0 million
6. Western Bulldogs - $18.8 million
7. North Melbourne - $17.4 million
8. Carlton - $15.7 million
9. Collingwood - $15.0 million
10. Port Adelaide - $14.9 million
11. Sydney - $14.6 million
12. Richmond - $14.2 million
13. Geelong - $13.7 million
14. Adelaide - $13.1 million
15. Fremantle - $13.3 milliion
16. Essendon - $13.3 million
17. West Coast - $12.7 million
18. Hawthorn - $12.3 million

or just the Victorian teams

1. St Kilda - $21.4 million
2. Melbourne - $19.0 million
3. Western Bulldogs - $18.8 million
4. North Melbourne - $17.4 million
Average - $16.1 million
5. Carlton - $15.7 million
6. Collingwood - $15.0 million
7. Richmond - $14.2 million
8. Geelong - $13.7 million
9. Essendon - $13.3 million
10. Hawthorn - $12.3 million

So if you removed St Kilda and Melbourne from the league for instance the AFL is saving over $40 million. Is having 9 games instead of 8 worth $40 million per year?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

1. Gold Coast - $26.3 million
2. GWS - $23.5 million
3. Brisbane - $21.6 million
4. St Kilda - $21.4 million
5. Melbourne - $19.0 million
6. Western Bulldogs - $18.8 million
7. North Melbourne - $17.4 million
8. Carlton - $15.7 million
9. Collingwood - $15.0 million
10. Port Adelaide - $14.9 million
11. Sydney - $14.6 million
12. Richmond - $14.2 million
13. Geelong - $13.7 million
14. Adelaide - $13.1 million
15. Fremantle - $13.3 milliion
16. Essendon - $13.3 million
17. West Coast - $12.7 million
18. Hawthorn - $12.3 million

or just the Victorian teams

1. St Kilda - $21.4 million
2. Melbourne - $19.0 million
3. Western Bulldogs - $18.8 million
4. North Melbourne - $17.4 million
Average - $16.1 million
5. Carlton - $15.7 million
6. Collingwood - $15.0 million
7. Richmond - $14.2 million
8. Geelong - $13.7 million
9. Essendon - $13.3 million
10. Hawthorn - $12.3 million

So if you removed St Kilda and Melbourne from the league for instance the AFL is saving over $40 million. Is having 9 games instead of 8 worth $40 million per year?

Yes. It is.

And that's just the TV rights.

You're also losing over 400000 customers on top of that (according to Roy Morgan).

 

[RUNVS]

Yes. It is.

And that's just the TV rights.

You're also losing over 400000 customers on top of that (according to Roy Morgan).

I think you are very much overestimating the worth of that 9th game.

 

[Roylion]

I’d rather not see any teams fold but merge like what should’ve happened with Fitzroy and the Bulldogs.

And why did that fail??

St Kilda Kangaroos has potential, I don’t think Saints and Roos fans would stop supporting them if they nail the aesthetics and song.

They’re unlikely to nail the aesthetics. Support for the new club wouldn’t be worth it.

 

[LoungeLizard]

1. Gold Coast - $26.3 million
2. GWS - $23.5 million
3. Brisbane - $21.6 million
4. St Kilda - $21.4 million
5. Melbourne - $19.0 million
6. Western Bulldogs - $18.8 million
7. North Melbourne - $17.4 million
8. Carlton - $15.7 million
9. Collingwood - $15.0 million
10. Port Adelaide - $14.9 million
11. Sydney - $14.6 million
12. Richmond - $14.2 million
13. Geelong - $13.7 million
14. Adelaide - $13.1 million
15. Fremantle - $13.3 milliion
16. Essendon - $13.3 million
17. West Coast - $12.7 million
18. Hawthorn - $12.3 million

or just the Victorian teams

1. St Kilda - $21.4 million
2. Melbourne - $19.0 million
3. Western Bulldogs - $18.8 million
4. North Melbourne - $17.4 million
Average - $16.1 million
5. Carlton - $15.7 million
6. Collingwood - $15.0 million
7. Richmond - $14.2 million
8. Geelong - $13.7 million
9. Essendon - $13.3 million
10. Hawthorn - $12.3 million

So if you removed St Kilda and Melbourne from the league for instance the AFL is saving over $40 million. Is having 9 games instead of 8 worth $40 million per year?

I think these funds are old, Sydney and Melbourne will get the same in 2023 at $16mill each, so we get rid of Sydney also do we?

 

[Outtatym]

They don’t do anything of the sort. GWS and Gold Coast aren’t self sustaining yet but it was always going to take time.

The older heads aren’t very interested in footy but apparently tonnes of kids in western Sydney are. Gold Coast is also doing very well at grassroots level, all they need is to start seeing some on field success.

Queensland and NSW grow the market, Victoria doesn’t. All Victoria does is make it difficult for footy keen markets like Tasmania and Canberra to enter the AFL because there’s 10 teams from Victoria. I’d rather not see any teams fold but merge like what should’ve happened with Fitzroy and the Bulldogs.

St Kilda Kangaroos has potential, I don’t think Saints and Roos fans would stop supporting them if they nail the aesthetics and song.

For someone that has said they don't want to see clubs merged or relocated you sure do bang on about it.

 

[RUNVS]

I think these funds are old, Sydney and Melbourne will get the same in 2023 at $16mill each, so we get rid of Sydney also do we?

Those are just estimates.

Also yes they are old, they are figures for the 2021 season.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Those are just estimates.

Also yes they are old, they are figures for the 2021 season.

So do we get rid of Sydney also, they have been a drain on the league for a long time now? they failed in Melbourne, so have already been given 1 chance.

How long do we wait? you have no problem suggesting Melbourne, I bet you want to keep Sydney though.

 

[Trahanas22]

Those are just estimates.

Also yes they are old, they are figures for the 2021 season.

An here are the new ones, so you won't have to quote two year old figures:

Winners and losers: The 2023 AFL club funding ladder revealed

God, how helpful I am! I don't even know what's being discussed. The good old Samaritan complex...

 

[Coolangatta]

For someone that has said they don't want to see clubs merged or relocated you sure do bang on about it.

The truth is I’m not sure what the right move is. On the one hand I love expansion of the competition.

If the AFL a long time from now can handle 30 odd teams then great, as long as it’s not at the expense of quality or a huge financial burden (but they wouldn’t expand that far if it was).

But concerns about quality are valid and keeping the competition to about 20-24 teams long term and permanently while expanding to new markets and reducing the Victorian market somewhat isn’t the worst idea or trade off.

But if the AFL go the other way then cool. They obviously wanted to not add a 19th team for another 15 or 20 years probably because of financial risk and concerns about quality but the wait wouldn’t have been worth it if Tassie footy died.

And if they were willing to throw that away and only care about NSW and QLD then they’re knobs, but it’s good to see North stood firm on not moving to Tassie.

 

[Coolangatta]

And why did that fail??

They’re unlikely to nail the aesthetics. Support for the new club wouldn’t be worth it.

I don’t know, but let me guess, because people hated it, and you’re trying to tell me that mergers wouldn’t work out well? I should be a detective.

 

[Roylion]

I don’t know, but let me guess, because people hated it,

And why did they hate it?

and you’re trying to tell me that mergers wouldn’t work out well?

Never been a successful merger in the AFL yet.

I should be a detective.

You don’t really need to be a detective.

 

[RUNVS]

An here are the new ones, so you won't have to quote two year old figures:

Winners and losers: The 2023 AFL club funding ladder revealed

God, how helpful I am! I don't even know what's being discussed. The good old Samaritan complex...

They are showing ranges, so they are not exact figures, they are estimates.

 

[Coolangatta]

McLachlan's comments on St Kilda's debt last year are reasonable, and the extra funding GWS and Gold Coast get.

"Have they [St Kilda] got more than most Victorian clubs? Yeah, they have. I think they got themselves in bad shape which explains part of it, but they're improving. Clubs go through ebbs and flows," McLachlan said on Wednesday afternoon.

"The last decade for St Kilda, broadly, has been a tough period. They didn't have the non-Victorian funding of Tasmania like North Melbourne did. They didn't have Ballarat and Queensland like the Bulldogs. I think we've been on notice for some time. I think the club is operating in a very different capacity now than a few years ago financially."

McLachlan said the AFL will look at tinkering the subsidisation model but doesn't expect to please everyone with the distribution.

"We've committed to the clubs to refine our club funding model. Our clubs are broadly happy. The model always has its tensions," he said.

"There is a large difference between a 150-year-old established Melbourne club and a new start-up in an emerging market like Gold Coast or western Sydney. Accountability for that money has always been a discussion."

I get annoyed when people say the Suns and Giants were a mistake and a waste of money and so on; we just don't know if that's true yet, and when you go down that rabbit hole, don't be surprised when the "there's too many teams in Victoria" counter argument comes spiralling back in your direction.

But the truth is, we [myself included] should be hoping that all of these 18 clubs end up in a good financial space, and then Tassie when they come in as team 19.

The real question is whether team 20 is necessary just to get rid of the bye when it's the finances that should matter. There should be a 20th team when the time is right, but the AFL will surely be in trouble if they have to bankroll another two teams, given that we already have enough struggling clubs in the competition [Brissy included].

Also, while I'm not a believer that the talent pool is too spread thin, the scales will be tipped if expansion happens too fast.

 

[cartwright]

Those are just estimates.

Also yes they are old, they are figures for the 2021 season.

The estimate for Sydney is the same as melbournes estimate. Two team town and you still need help.

 

[RUNVS]

The estimate for Sydney is the same as melbournes estimate. Two team town and you still need help.

Again, estimates, in 2021 Sydney received $4.4 million less than Melbourne did.

 

[cartwright]

It would be a reduction, but not a big reduction as I am willing to bet North and St Kilda games don't rate as well as many of the other Victorian clubs.

Comparing cities; Sydney averages 28k viewers per game
Melbourne averages 223k viewers


Last year, north averaged 83k per game on FTA, the lowest in Melbourne but greater than that paltry 28k from
Sydney

 

[Coolangatta]

Comparing cities; Sydney averages 28k viewers per game
Melbourne averages 223k viewers


Last year, north averaged 83k per game on FTA, the lowest in Melbourne but greater than that paltry 28k from
Sydney

Yeah but it’s 28k they didn’t have before, though it might not be a heck less if there were no Sydney team.

But the Swans do alright for crowds and members, only 5k less and 5k more than clubs that have been around a lot longer than they have.

If the likes of Brissy etc end up closing ground on St Kilda, North, and the Bulldogs, then are they really a failure?

I think you could argue we should be doing better than we are, ditto Sydney, but for clubs that have been around for over 150 years, in the biggest footy state in the comp, some of the minnow Vic clubs have nothing to write home about.

Granted, you have more competition, but no one is advocating for ten teams in NSW or QLD to even things up.

But you’ve gotta start somewhere and if the Saints and North are still struggling after all these years it’s hardly fair to dunk on Sydney or Brisbane or especially the new clubs.

It’s all a moot point anyhow, we all know the AFL don’t want to pull the plug on any of the existing clubs; Gill said these financial hard times ebb and flow. If the Saints have had an eternity so should the Suns etc.

It’s the participation rates in footy that count the most. They plummet and then the competition will be in really deep shit. As long as it doesn’t then the growing population can accommodate the new talent required for new teams. I’m sure the AFL is acutely aware of this.

 

[AndyD]

Fewer clubs that cost a fortune for the AFL to prop up but don't really add any value to the TV rights.

Also I think we all know the 4 weakest Melbourne based clubs, and the fact I don't need to name them and everyone knows who they are is telling.

What value does the 51k average for Swans matches in their home market with every game live on FTA really add to the TV deal?

Suggesting the Bulldogs move to Ballarat is also ludicrous when you look at the TV ratings, considering we were the 3rd highest watched team for the year, with a higher average audience than both Carlton & Richmond and just behind Collingwood & Melbourne.

2022 AFL TV Ratings - Sports Industry AU

State Leagues The growth in the AFL’s digital footprint was well received by fans, with an average of 5000 weekly users streaming VFL matches and a further 2000 average users live streaming WAFL matches. Viewership for the WAFL competition in 2022 attracted nearly 750,000 people across the...

www.footyindustry.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kwality]

There is a law of diminishing returns when it comes to more games. If there were only 4 games a week you would be right that adding a 5th would add to the TV rights a lot, but adding a 6th game would be still adding more but less than before, and adding a 7th would be less again and so forth. The reason is that there are very few people who are able to watch 8 games in a round and certainly not 9 games.

If someone watched 3 games a round they are going to watch 3 games whether there are 8 games on or 9 games. They have time for 3 games and adding a game is not going to suddenly give them more free time.

Gets rid of the poor time slots.

 

[St Plugger]

They don’t do anything of the sort. GWS and Gold Coast aren’t self sustaining yet but it was always going to take time.

The older heads aren’t very interested in footy but apparently tonnes of kids in western Sydney are. Gold Coast is also doing very well at grassroots level, all they need is to start seeing some on field success.

Queensland and NSW grow the market, Victoria doesn’t. All Victoria does is make it difficult for footy keen markets like Tasmania and Canberra to enter the AFL because there’s 10 teams from Victoria. I’d rather not see any teams fold but merge like what should’ve happened with Fitzroy and the Bulldogs.

St Kilda Kangaroos has potential, I don’t think Saints and Roos fans would stop supporting them if they nail the aesthetics and song.

Melbourne Kangaroos has more synergy. Jumper in Red and blue.With shoulder bib - home, stripes - away or visa versa!

 

[Rimmer]

I am sure the AFL does not want to turn its 9 game round into 6 games and lose a fortune in sponsorship, not to mention the huge crowds to Melbourne venues each week who would not only have less games but would no longer even have their own teams.

 

[glengowan]

Send St Kilda, North Melbourne, Gold Coast and GWS back to the VFL. Add the Tasmania team to the VFL. Take the Reserves teams out of all the State Leagues.

14 AFL teams with "Reserves" that have top up players under 19. A proper elite competition - 26 Rounds home and away.

Create stronger VFL, SANFL and WAFL competitions with higher salary caps and better marketing.