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

[Bianconeri]

Move Hawthorn to Tasmania, North to Canberra, merge St Kilda with Goldcoast and Footscray with GWS.

 

[dommat]

Move Hawthorn to Tasmania, North to Canberra, merge St Kilda with Goldcoast and Footscray with GWS.

Hawthorn will soon be the first, and only club to own its own training facility. It was also the first club to own it’s own social club back in the day. As always leading the way in the modern era.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Bianconeri]

Hawthorn will soon be the first, and only club to own its own training facility. It was also the first club to own it’s own social club back in the day. As always leading the way in the modern era.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Hopefully next step is to be the first AFL team in Tasmania

 

[AndyD]

I would like to see some figures and analysis on the TV viewers. I can find them for members, club funding, and crowds, but not TV. You're right that the broadcast and commercial revenue is where the money is, and you don't need to see figures to know that the big three are the biggest audience. But how accurate is this 70-80k number? Are you dividing the average number of Victorian viewers by 10 teams? I'm sure you're not, just curious on the methodology. I doubt that St Kilda supporters tune in to watch them play, say, Gold Coast, as much as Collingwood supporters do, even though in both cases there'd be a drop off compared to matches between Vic clubs, especially big clubs.

Still, I'm not going to dispute your point about the 4 expansion clubs being behind Victorian clubs on TV ratings, but there's no telling if kids in the future will just cluster around the big clubs and only pay attention to the smaller Vic clubs when their team is playing them. In which case, what you would be trading wouldn't be as big a gap as you'd think, especially if the expansion states grow. Just because Victoria will add more people to their market, doesn't mean the distribution of increased viewership will be the same.

But to be fair, the future of footy in QLD and NSW is far from certain either, but at least with the Suns, etc, you've added viewers to the game you didn't have before, whereas Victoria just redistributes already converted fans. How many Fitzroy fans did the game really lose? How much more would the media rights deal be worth today if they were still around? The AFL made about 300m in 2009, and 680m in 2019. The addition of the Suns and Giants have, I suspect, just a little something to do with that. I know that's more to do with the extra game, but many of those games are being watched by the big three because the expansion teams don't just play each other.

I think unless each addition of a new game per round loses value, the AFL will continue expanding. If there's one thing we can agree on, there'll be more teams in the future, not less, unless a lot of people stop actually watching AFL. Where they stop watching will be pivotal, but we'll have some indication because it's not a coincidence that the big clubs get the most prime time games. The contribution the smaller Vic clubs make might be offset by the additional value of extra games from new clubs. It's a wonder the AFL received such a good deal when you think about it; it's almost as if the Suns and Giants add as much value as any other minnow club because they play big drawing clubs like everyone else does.

TV figures from here 2022 AFL TV Ratings - Sports Industry AU

North drew 81k in Melbourne in what could be called a rock bottom type year. The only people that wanted to watch North in Melbourne last year were the diehards. If you move that team, you can say goodbye to pretty much all of those viewers because you have taken away the one thing they wanted to watch.

Considering the average GC game on FTA in QLD averages less than non GC games (and same for GWS in Sydney), it’s hard to really argue that they created more locals watching on TV. You’re basically arguing my point for me by conceding that the majority of viewers for the additional game came from the 3 football watching states.

I’d argue the media rights today would be essentially the same if South Melbourne never moved and Fitzroy was never merged out of the AFL given the FTA viewers for Sydney & Brisbane and that the AFL would’ve gotten a much better (or at least the same) return on a much smaller investment by playing a weekly neutral site games in Sydney/Brisbane instead of relocating/creating teams in those markets. It is also hard to calculate the opportunity cost of the money spent in those markets in the way it was for such paltry returns and where it could’ve otherwise been invested.

And on your final point, considering two relative minnow teams (at least in recent history from a financial perspective) were amongst the best drawing Melbourne teams last year after being in the Grand Final the previous year, it would seem to strengthen the prospects of survival for the smaller Vic clubs, given only a brief period of strong on field performance is enough to draw good viewing numbers for the historically poorer drawing clubs. The same is nowhere near the case for the northern teams. Brisbane won a three peat in their first 7 years and are in their strongest on field position since that time and that was only good enough for 40k in their market, while Sydney has made 2 out of the last 7 GF’s and 4 of the last 11 and couldn’t top 60k in theirs. It is hard to know what on earth you’d possibly have to do to get those teams to average even what the Crows did in a poor (relatively speaking) year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AndyD]

The increased media rights has more to do with the fact that live sport is one of the few valuable commodities TV stations have left now that most stuff is available on demand. Advertisers put up money for footy because they know people will watch live (and watch the ads) whereas most other things people stream on demand or play back later and skip the ads. GC/GWS certainly did not lead to a doubling of the media rights in 10 years, look at the increase from the last two deals, no extra teams yet the AFL continues to reap windfalls.

Exactly, and those stations aren’t paying for some far off return that they have no guarantee of benefiting from. They are paying for what the AFL can give them in the here and now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AndyD]

So then doesn't the AFL have the leverage if free-to-air TV is in dire straits? How much money would the AFL have to lose from the next media rights deal to rattle them?

Seven learnt a lesson in 88 and a longer, more painful one from 2002-2006, and now Ten has been learning the same since 2012. For Seven to retain their position, or for Ten to be able to be anything but a distant poor 3rd cousin, they need live AFL football.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Outtatym]

Right, so even though you've clearly shown that Melbourne is head and shoulders above the rest for TV ratings, and have made a very convincing argument for keeping the 10 Vic sides where they are, the AFL still has the ball in their court. They could merge, fold, or relocate a couple of Vic clubs if they wanted to. They'd lose ratings but how much revenue would they lose when you said yourself that FTA needs live footy? If Seven decides to pay less, they could just give it to Ten or Nine for a better offer. I'm not saying it's right or smart to do it, I just don't think it'd really hurt the AFL's bottom line.

No club can be forced to do anything by the AFL. The club's and their members decide this.

 

[Outtatym]

Really? I thought that the AFL Commission runs the game and has the final say over decision making, and that a 75 per cent vote by clubs is required to overturn commission decisions. If that's not the case then I'm happy to concede that. I genuinely thought they had the power to move North if they wanted to, but preferred to leave it up to them, in regards to the Gold Coast, but if they can't actually do anything (it'd be a shitstorm to overturn the club vote) then okay, didn't know that

The AFL own the licence not the club- (besides GWS and GC which are (still?) AFL owned/operated for now ) they cannot move the club anywhere. If they were to try and take the licence away it would get torn down in courts and simply wouldnt happen.

 

[Blackas87]

Right, so even though you've clearly shown that Melbourne is head and shoulders above the rest for TV ratings, and have made a very convincing argument for keeping the 10 Vic sides where they are, the AFL still has the ball in their court. They could merge, fold, or relocate a couple of Vic clubs if they wanted to. They'd lose ratings but how much revenue would they lose when you said yourself that FTA needs live footy? If Seven decides to pay less, they could just give it to Ten or Nine for a better offer. I'm not saying it's right or smart to do it, I just don't think it'd really hurt the AFL's bottom line.

Even if the AFL did have the ball in their court why would they Merge, relocate, fold clubs and lose ratings?

 

[Roylion]

They could merge, fold, or relocate a couple of Vic clubs if they wanted to.

No they cannot. The AFL Commission couldn't even merge Fitzroy. The AFL does not own most clubs.

They issue a licence for a club to compete in the AFL. That can be removed (if that's what you mean by "fold"), but that's the limit of the Commission's power and any Commission decision involving removal, needs to be endorsed by 75% of clubs. Any club the AFL does not actually own cannot be merged or relocated without the consent of the board, shareholders and/or members.

See Fitzroy 1996 (now in the VAFA)
Melbourne - Hawthorn 1996
North Melbourne --> Gold Coast 2007

 

[dommat]

Hopefully next step is to be the first AFL team in Tasmania

Funny that Collingwood don’t own their own training faculty. I keep hearing that they’re the biggest club in the land.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Coolangatta]

Even if the AFL did have the ball in their court why would they Merge, relocate, fold clubs and lose ratings?

I've answered this before, to expand the game in Queensland and New South Wales without the number of teams blowing out. Why would the AFL add the Suns and Giants, knowing they're going to take a hit for a couple of decades? Because it's a long-term investment. Let's face it, Victoria would be fine with 6 or 7 clubs, perhaps not in the short term, but certainly in the long term, because they are a footy state.

An 18 year old St Kilda supporter or 30 year old North supporter might not ever watch the game again, but their kids will, new migrants might. Not all Fitzroy and South Melbourne fans stopped watching footy, did they? What did any kid born after 1996 actually lose? Do you think most of the WA kids give a shit about the history of the WAFL clubs? Or SANFL clubs? That's just the ruthless nature of things. Even if the minnow Vic clubs are still around 20 years from now, the new generation might cluster around the big Vic clubs. There's always been more support for the Pies, Bombers, Blues, Tigers, etc, there's no reason to think that won't continue.

Victoria would still be number 1 in TV ratings, and free-to-air TV isn't exactly in a position to try and cheapen the media rights deal, not when AFL could hand the reigns to Nine or Ten, or even a streaming company. Besides, it was West Coast who saved the VFL from collapsing into a pile of shit, Victoria isn't the be all and end all of the national game.

 

[Roylion]

I've answered this before, to expand the game in Queensland and New South Wales without the number of teams blowing out.

'Blowing out' to what?

 

[Blackas87]

I've answered this before, to expand the game in Queensland and New South Wales without the number of teams blowing out. Why would the AFL add the Suns and Giants, knowing they're going to take a hit for a couple of decades? Because it's a long-term investment. Let's face it, Victoria would be fine with 6 or 7 clubs, perhaps not in the short term, but certainly in the long term, because they are a footy state.

An 18 year old St Kilda supporter or 30 year old North supporter might not ever watch the game again, but their kids will, new migrants might. Not all Fitzroy and South Melbourne fans stopped watching footy, did they? What did any kid born after 1996 actually lose? Do you think most of the WA kids give a s**t about the history of the WAFL clubs? Or SANFL clubs? That's just the ruthless nature of things. Even if the minnow Vic clubs are still around 20 years from now, the new generation might cluster around the big Vic clubs. There's always been more support for the Pies, Bombers, Blues, Tigers, etc, there's no reason to think that won't continue.

Victoria would still be number 1 in TV ratings, and free-to-air TV isn't exactly in a position to try and cheapen the media rights deal, not when AFL could hand the reigns to Nine or Ten, or even a streaming company. Besides, it was West Coast who saved the VFL from collapsing into a pile of s**t, Victoria isn't the be all and end all of the national game.

You assume Victoria Will always be number one. But then the NRL expands more into Victoria, and then soccer. Nothing wrong with expansion but you don’t kill your strong holds for an investment that may fail.

There is no need to expand, the league is strong the way it is, it was strong with 16 clubs hence the money to create new clubs to expand. All 16 clubs voted in favour of Gold Coast and GWS’ expansion because they were guaranteed they would stay in the AFL, they didn’t vote to have themselves at risk. There is no need to expand, we just want to. But we aren’t killing off what’s already strong.

 

[Blackas87]

An 18 year old St Kilda supporter or 30 year old North supporter might not ever watch the game again, but their kids will, new migrants might. Not all Fitzroy and South Melbourne fans stopped watching footy, did they? What did any kid born after 1996 actually lose? Do you think most of the WA kids give a s**t about the history of the WAFL clubs? Or SANFL clubs? That's just the ruthless nature of things. Even if the minnow Vic clubs are still around 20 years from now, the new generation might cluster around the big Vic clubs. There's always been more support for the Pies, Bombers, Blues, Tigers, etc, there's no reason to think that won't continue.

why do we want to lose that 18 year old St Kilda supporter. And it’s ridiculous to think their kids will still follow the game.

I’m in my 30’s now, one of my mates was a Fitzroy supporter because his dad was a mad Fitzroy supporter, my mates dad used to take him to the Fitzroy games weekly as a kid. But as soon as Fitzroy disappeared his Dad stopped taking him to the Footy and my now says he supports Brisbane but hasn’t been to an AFL game in 15 years, he doesn’t follow it. Now my mate in his 30’s has a 5 year old son, that 5 year old kid doesn’t have a dad that goes to the Footy. Who says that kid will follow AFL when the migrants you speak of will teach him about soccer at school.

 

[Coolangatta]

'Blowing out' to what?

More than 24 teams.

You assume Victoria Will always be number one. But then the NRL expands more into Victoria, and then soccer. Nothing wrong with expansion but you don’t kill your strong holds for an investment that may fail.

There is no need to expand, the league is strong the way it is, it was strong with 16 clubs hence the money to create new clubs to expand. All 16 clubs voted in favour of Gold Coast and GWS’ expansion because they were guaranteed they would stay in the AFL, they didn’t vote to have themselves at risk. There is no need to expand, we just want to. But we aren’t killing off what’s already strong.

But I never said anything about folding Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, Essendon, Hawthorn, or Geelong.

Also, lots of investments in business are risky and may fail, but to make money you have to spend money and roll the dice. You think the AFL weren't taking a calculated risk with the Giants and the Suns? They tested the waters first before adding teams there, which are in markets with so much potential you'd be silly not to try. If the AFL has the capital to invest, they'll take the punt. Looks like they're going to do the same with Tasmania.

why do we want to lose that 18 year old St Kilda supporter. And it’s ridiculous to think their kids will still follow the game.

I’m in my 30’s now, one of my mates was a Fitzroy supporter because his dad was a mad Fitzroy supporter, my mates dad used to take him to the Fitzroy games weekly as a kid. But as soon as Fitzroy disappeared his Dad stopped taking him to the Footy and my now says he supports Brisbane but hasn’t been to an AFL game in 15 years, he doesn’t follow it. Now my mate in his 30’s has a 5 year old son, that 5 year old kid doesn’t have a dad that goes to the Footy. Who says that kid will follow AFL when the migrants you speak of will teach him about soccer at school.

No it's not, they'll go to schools with kids in a footy state who support the Pies etc and follow footy and will probably pick up a different club from their dad's.

Doesn't follow the game but supports Brisbane? Right. Who cares if he hasn't been to a game in 15 years when all I've been hearing the last week is how it's all about the TV ratings. Guess who else don't go to games? North supporters, Bulldogs supporters, Saints supporters, all who averaged lower crowds than Brissy. Do these supporters not follow footy either?

 

[citizen-erased]

You assume Victoria Will always be number one. But then the NRL expands more into Victoria, and then soccer. Nothing wrong with expansion but you don’t kill your strong holds for an investment that may fail.

There is no need to expand, the league is strong the way it is, it was strong with 16 clubs hence the money to create new clubs to expand. All 16 clubs voted in favour of Gold Coast and GWS’ expansion because they were guaranteed they would stay in the AFL, they didn’t vote to have themselves at risk. There is no need to expand, we just want to. But we aren’t killing off what’s already strong.

rugby struggles here. For whatever reason. The Storm did well because they're a well run team who were successful tapping into a vacuum. They pack a small stadium in AAMI out and it all looks great.
Conversely, the Rebels are a basket case. And it's arguable Union is more attractive a code to migrants given it's the more dominant code globally.

football has had it's chance in Australia. It hasn't capitalised in the decades as the sport has dominated globally more than any other, and the country has seen an influx of people from parts of the world where it dominates.

AFL is in the Australian DNA
In Victoria, it's unassailable.

 

[Roylion]

More than 24 teams.

I doubt it'll get beyond 22.

 

[Coolangatta]

I doubt it'll get beyond 22.

It depends on growth in QLD and NSW. If there is, then I can see a Newcastle team happening, and an Illawarra or third Sydney team. In QLD, I could see a FNQ and Sunshine Coast team happening, again, if junior footy clubs and participation goes up enough. That's 23 teams if you add Tassie.

AFL will definitely expand in NSW and QLD if the growth is there, why wouldn't they? And that's not counting perhaps Canberra, WA3, and unlikely but NT is also possible given the romantic popularity and social welfare case. NZ a smokie even, but them and SA3 I doubt as much as NT.

 

[GWT6]

Time to close the airport. I just moved next door to it and there is a lot of noise.

 

[Blackas87]

Doesn't follow the game but supports Brisbane? Right. Who cares if he hasn't been to a game in 15 years when all I've been hearing the last week is how it's all about the TV ratings. Guess who else don't go to games? North supporters, Bulldogs supporters, Saints supporters, all who averaged lower crowds than Brissy. Do these supporters not follow footy either?

he doesn’t follow it, doesn’t go to games, doesn’t watch it on tv, he couldn’t name one Brisbane player. He doesn’t follow it at all, and I went to school with him and other footy fans like me and he fell out of the game.

But I never said anything about folding Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, Essendon, Hawthorn, or Geelong.

you want to kill off other clubs that make the league strong.

Also, lots of investments in business are risky and may fail, but to make money you have to spend money and roll the dice. You think the AFL weren't taking a calculated risk with the Giants and the Suns? They tested the waters first before adding teams there, which are in markets with so much potential you'd be silly not to try. If the AFL has the capital to invest, they'll take the punt. Looks like they're going to do the same with Tasmania.

of course GWS and Gold Coast were financial risks for the AFL, but they didn’t kill off St Kilda and the Bulldogs to take that risk. If GWS and Gold Coast fail the AFL still has the 110000 passionate St Kilda and Bulldogs members.

If you owned 3 mechanic workshops in Launceston that make you money and you have a strong hold in that market and then you decide you want to expand and open one on Devonport where the market has mechanic businesses already (other sports) you don’t shut one of money making Launceston workshops down. Nothing wrong with expanding but you don’t lose the market you already have.

 

[Blackas87]

rugby struggles here. For whatever reason. The Storm did well because they're a well run team who were successful tapping into a vacuum. They pack a small stadium in AAMI out and it all looks great.
Conversely, the Rebels are a basket case. And it's arguable Union is more attractive a code to migrants given it's the more dominant code globally.

football has had it's chance in Australia. It hasn't capitalised in the decades as the sport has dominated globally more than any other, and the country has seen an influx of people from parts of the world where it dominates.

AFL is in the Australian DNA
In Victoria, it's unassailable.

AFL struggles in Qld and NSW, Suns, Giants and Brisbane have very low AFL attendance numbers. The TV numbers are even worse

 

[Coolangatta]

he doesn’t follow it, doesn’t go to games, doesn’t watch it on tv, he couldn’t name one Brisbane player. He doesn’t follow it at all, and I went to school with him and other footy fans like me and he fell out of the game.



you want to kill off other clubs that make the league strong.


of course GWS and Gold Coast were financial risks for the AFL, but they didn’t kill off St Kilda and the Bulldogs to take that risk. If GWS and Gold Coast fail the AFL still has the 110000 passionate St Kilda and Bulldogs members.

If you owned 3 mechanic workshops in Launceston that make you money and you have a strong hold in that market and then you decide you want to expand and open one on Devonport where the market has mechanic businesses already (other sports) you don’t shut one of money making Launceston workshops down. Nothing wrong with expanding but you don’t lose the market you already have.

Then why'd you say he supports Brissy then? Doesn't sound like it at all.

No, I'm saying that even if a few Vic clubs were culled, the league would still be strong.

And that's fair enough, but you don't stop expanding because there's too many teams, you try and see what happens, especially if GWS and Gold Coast succeed. But again, and I've said it before, some people don't even want a 20th team let alone 22-24. Why should new markets miss out because there's 10 teams in Victoria? That's Vic-centric bullshit.

 

[Coolangatta]

AFL struggles in Qld and NSW, Suns, Giants and Brisbane have very low AFL attendance numbers. The TV numbers are even worse

Yes, but in Brisbane's case, one team in one city means no competition and plenty of room for growth, even if it's a slow process. Ditto Gold Coast who has history with the Southport Sharks. And Sydney is big enough to have two big clubs. No one's talking about putting ten teams in QLD or NSW.

 

[Blackas87]

Then why'd you say he supports Brissy then? Doesn't sound like it at all.

No, I'm saying that even if a few Vic clubs were culled, the league would still be strong.

And that's fair enough, but you don't stop expanding because there's too many teams, you try and see what happens, especially if GWS and Gold Coast succeed. But again, and I've said it before, some people don't even want a 20th team let alone 22-24. Why should new markets miss out because there's 10 teams in Victoria? That's Vic-centric bullshit.

Everyone in Victoria says they have a team. They don’t all follow the sport.

It would be significantly weaker, less money to fund any expansion to non AFL areas.

Ive stated we should go promotion/relegation. But why should old markets that developed the sport lose out to new markets that don’t follow the sport?