AFLW Whats next - 2019 and beyond

Remove this Banner Ad

Teen Wolf said:
I put in a week off for all teams between rounds 8 and 9. Playing on Dec 20-22 and Jan 3-5 with nothing in between equates to a substantial break compared to other sports.[Disagree. AFLW can be played EVERY evening of the week from 21 Dec. to 2 Jan., as Test cricket is not played in these evenings. Many people still want a footy fix during any time in summer]
And regarding crowds, BBL's numbers take off during school holidays, not sure there's any reason to be running scared of that period on the calendar.[Agree]
Click to expand...
Everyone does NOT go away on holidays! I would only exclude Christmas Day, New year's Eve, & New Year's Day.
And for those leaving a city on holidays, there are possibly just as many out-of-town visitors coming to that city for their holidays. The Boxing Day Test series shows big crowds attend at this time (not that I'm suggesting AFLW matches should be played at simultaneous times with Test cricket -but evening times, after the cricket finishes, at 7pm, is fine).

It will be incredibly disappointing if this 6 week H & A proposal is persevered with. It is disrespectful to the AFLW, & it will cause a groundswell of opposition to the AFL. It is incomprehensible to me that the AFL could not forsee the anger this would cause. How widely did McLachlan consult on this issue? Does McLachlan have a tin ear? Is his judgement, inside a bubble, so poor? Where is Nicole Livingstone?

If McLachlan's suggestion is a such good idea, then how can it be explained that NO other prominent persons in the AFL, AFLPA, media - or players - suggested it before he did? Or should we simply now recognise that McLachlan is a genius, incomparable to other mere mortals?

"World Cup soccer is 4 weeks"? Its over 2 years. Its an embarassing & absurd analogy! The logical corollary of claiming the World Cup is an appropriate analogy is to argue the AFLW should, similarly, be played only over 4 weeks!

The AFLW should, of course, be a proper H & A comp., every team plays the other once, with a top 3 at least; & 2 Finals (Team finishing first straight into GF. Second plays, at home, the third team:winner into GF).

During Test cricket, and the Aust. Tennis Open Finals & BBL Finals, play the AFLW at times when there is no simultaneous clash. During school holidays, evening AFLW games any night of the week will attract a good crowd -particularly if played at traditional VFL, WAFL, SANFL or TSL grounds

If Ch.7 can't or don't want a full AFLW schedule (they are gaining cricket, but losing tennis), then, hopefully, Ch.9 or 10 can take the Rights -& promote the AFLW properly & respectfully.

EDIT:

Is the AFL and/or Clubs baulking at paying the players additional pro rata moneys, if they expand the season?
I hope not. They can find $180,000,000 pa to pay for the (non-player wage) bloated Football Departments.

Susan Alberti has stated, re the 6 wk ? H & A, "It is insulting to all women who aspire to play AFL". If Alberti is so strident in her opposition, she is unlikely to cower to the AFL -& will go on a media offensive, who will court her. The AFL is on the precipice of a major PR disaster -& will encounter a long-running firestorm.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...osed-shorter-aflw-season-20180804-p4zvju.html

Can the AFL nominate one semi-professional elite H & A sporting competition in the world that only goes for 6 weeks, then 2 weeks of Finals? Probably not.
 
Last edited:
A 9 week home and away season (+2 semi finals + Grand Final) where every game is televised is just too much television content which the broadcasters do not want

How about playing 9 rounds but only 3 of the 5 games are televised with the other 2 streamed on afl.com.au only? This will reduce costs and may be more palatable to broadcasters. Remember 7 now have rights to BBL and WBBL so don't want surplus AFLW content.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

In other news, 62.5 per cent of AFLM coaches said 17 matches per season would be ideal in the men's competition.

If TV rights didn't have such a stranglehold over the game...
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #55
TheFool said:
In other news, 62.5 per cent of AFLM coaches said 17 matches per season would be ideal in the men's competition.

If TV rights didn't have such a stranglehold over the game...
Click to expand...

In other news, 100% of players have confirmed they wouldnt take a pay cut, and 100% of clubs wouldnt take a cut in revenue. People even dreaming of a 17 game season arent living in reality.
 
The_Wookie said:
In other news, 100% of players have confirmed they wouldnt take a pay cut, and 100% of clubs wouldnt take a cut in revenue. People even dreaming of a 17 game season arent living in reality.
Click to expand...

Dreaming about something I know won't happen doesn't make me delusional. It just means I'm having a nice dream. That's what dreams are.
 
My main worry with Gil's World Cup comment goes beyond the ignorance he displayed. He usually comes across as a moderate, fair minded individual in most of his comments. As such I would have expected him, when confronted with Daisy's comments and the general concerns re a shortened season, to have replied with a very non-specific "well that is one of the options we are looking at but nothing has been decided yet and we'll be making an announcement in the fullness of time" type response. But he didn't. He immediately, and I'm sure in his mind, strongly defended the shortened season suggestion. Which makes me think that, at least right now, that is the option they really want to go with. Otherwise why defend it so quickly?

I'm hoping if there is enough of a backlash, from the players in particular, that this nonsense will be dropped. I don't think anyone has posted the following link yet;

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-womens-game-to-break-free-from-afls-shackles
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

WolfgangV said:
My main worry with Gil's World Cup comment goes beyond the ignorance he displayed. He usually comes across as a moderate, fair minded individual in most of his comments. As such I would have expected him, when confronted with Daisy's comments and the general concerns re a shortened season, to have replied with a very non-specific "well that is one of the options we are looking at but nothing has been decided yet and we'll be making an announcement in the fullness of time" type response. But he didn't. He immediately, and I'm sure in his mind, strongly defended the shortened season suggestion. Which makes me think that, at least right now, that is the option they really want to go with. Otherwise why defend it so quickly?

I'm hoping if there is enough of a backlash, from the players in particular, that this nonsense will be dropped. I don't think anyone has posted the following link yet;

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-womens-game-to-break-free-from-afls-shackles
Click to expand...

That article is beyond moronic. I’m sorry but it’s gotta be said

Here is a scenario to consider

-the afl has got a strong signal from 7 and fox that they are only interested in paying anything for aflw content if the season is between the end of the big bash and the start of the afl season. Beyond that, it is just cost to them

-the afl is simultaneously negotiating an eBa with the players that is obviously affected by the tv rights income it can generate

-Gil throws “out there” the possibility of a 6 week home and away season that would maximise tv revenue knowing full well there will be a backlash

-following the backlash, there is perhaps a bit more pressure on 7/Foxtel to make a more respectful commitment but it also ensures that the women’s pay increase is moderated to a degree to reflect the lower media rights value of the comp

Certainly, if you want to spculate at motivations etc you need to be cognisant of the reality that their are two key contracts that have not been agreed yet of which one (the tv rights deal) directly affects the other (the eba).

The writer of that article is devoid of critical thinking capacity. In a month she is guaranteed to be railing against wherever the next eba lands regardless of the outcome of the fixture / tv rights deal....
 
SEN Radio Bartlett/Dr Turf Program 8.8

A media analyst (didn't catch his name) said:-

. "ABC and 10 Network are amenable to showing every game" in an expanded AFLW summer season

. "Problem is that 10's new owner, the US CBS, is cutting costs at 10, & might not be interested in the AFLW.
Perhaps 10 & the ABC are not willing or able to pay the full commercial rates the AFL is seeking".

. " The AFLW generated huge goodwill for the AFL; & improved its standing amongst females. Perhaps the AFL should give the Rights to 10 or ABC, accept that it won't get full commercial $, "but just wear the costs"- but continue to grow the AFLW, & not jeopardise the goodwill it has earned".

The Age (J.Niall) today said no decision has been made on the length of the new 2019 season. Ch.7 doesn't want the AFLW to be played concurrently with its other major sports' programs.
One possibility is 7 wks H & A, with 2 Finals; another is a "3+2" fixture, where 3 games are played over 2 weeks -but this could be too strenuous for the players.( & they often play in strong heat)

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-08-07/aflw-longer-2019-season-still-an-option
 
Last edited:
ABC would be a dream broadcaster for the league. Good commentators if they use the Grandstand crew, being ad free is a big bonus too. Plus ya know, the government gave $30m to foxtel under the guise of broadcasting womens sport... but it had no contractual obligations, that money could have gone to the ABC which would have delivered a better product across multiple sports.

A benefit of an ABC broadcast (or an ABC + ch10 splitting the broadcasting) would be that the league can compete with the cricket without channel 7 saying no.
 
NoobPie said:
That article is beyond moronic. I’m sorry but it’s gotta be said

Here is a scenario to consider

-the afl has got a strong signal from 7 and fox that they are only interested in paying anything for aflw content if the season is between the end of the big bash and the start of the afl season. Beyond that, it is just cost to them

-the afl is simultaneously negotiating an eBa with the players that is obviously affected by the tv rights income it can generate

-Gil throws “out there” the possibility of a 6 week home and away season that would maximise tv revenue knowing full well there will be a backlash

-following the backlash, there is perhaps a bit more pressure on 7/Foxtel to make a more respectful commitment but it also ensures that the women’s pay increase is moderated to a degree to reflect the lower media rights value of the comp

Certainly, if you want to spculate at motivations etc you need to be cognisant of the reality that their are two key contracts that have not been agreed yet of which one (the tv rights deal) directly affects the other (the eba).

The writer of that article is devoid of critical thinking capacity. In a month she is guaranteed to be railing against wherever the next eba lands regardless of the outcome of the fixture / tv rights deal....
Click to expand...
Kate O'Halloran articles on the AFLW are invariably whinning rubbish, however I don't think your analysis is right.

I think the prospects of TV rights at this point are vastly overstated. The A league, with expectations of increased viewers on a commercial channel, and with 20 odd games, got bugger all. We aren't even talking that value, we are talking the difference between the deal for a short season where all rounds are on TV, and a slightly longer season where only most of them are.

If the difference is more than 100k I will eat my hat.

The AFL has given it away until now, so to compromise the league to chase an extra 20% or so on a pretty small deal is a little odd.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
 
jatz14 said:
Kate O'Halloran articles on the AFLW are invariably whinning rubbish, however I don't think your analysis is right.

I think the prospects of TV rights at this point are vastly overstated. The A league, with expectations of increased viewers on a commercial channel, and with 20 odd games, got bugger all. We aren't even talking that value, we are talking the difference between the deal for a short season where all rounds are on TV, and a slightly longer season where only most of them are.

If the difference is more than 100k I will eat my hat.

The AFL has given it away until now, so to compromise the league to chase an extra 20% or so on a pretty small deal is a little odd.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It was just a scenario I think plausible

We don’t know what is going on in the background but we do know neither the tv rights and eba are agreed for next year. It seems obvious that these are the sticking points in terms of the season length

The a league still got $40 odd million for its tv rights. If the aflw got $10m that would equate to $1m a team. Hardly an odd consideration in negotiations of the eba no?

Notwithstanding this, I would definitely go with 10 / abc if 7 were hung up on not overlapping with the big bash even if it cost $10m
 
WolfgangV said:
My main worry with Gil's World Cup comment goes beyond the ignorance he displayed...
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for the link to Dr O'Halloran's article. One of the most incisive commentators on the game.

Perhaps someone should give Gil (and Hocking too) a copy of "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists" (Linda Nochlin 1971) for bedtime reading - the full version, not one of the abridged versions floating round the net.

The women footballers I know are way past being condescended to and patronised.
 
NoobPie said:
It was just a scenario I think plausible

We don’t know what is going on in the background but we do know neither the tv rights and eba are agreed for next year. It seems obvious that these are the sticking points in terms of the season length

The a league still got $40 odd million for its tv rights. If the aflw got $10m that would equate to $1m a team. Hardly an odd consideration in negotiations of the eba no?

Notwithstanding this, I would definitely go with 10 / abc if 7 were hung up on not overlapping with the big bash even if it cost $10m
Click to expand...
A league got more like $60M, but they couldn't sell FTA at all, rights reverted back to Fox that organised the Ten deal. A league is 27 rounds plus a finals series, with FTA ratings in the AFLW ballpark, and they couldnt sell them at all.

I think $2M would be a win. They sure as hell are not getting $10M for a 6 round league. There is also the prospect of a revenue sharing deal like Netball has, and if thats the case, the more rounds, the more money.

In any case, I still do not think the sticking point is money, I dont think the networks are the issue at all. The committee organising such things as competition structure, rule adjustments etc, only just met for the first time. The AFL cannot be deep in discussions about dollars and deals with broadcasters, because they still do not know what they are selling.

They even speak of the complication of having 2 extra teams, like its an unforeseen event messing up their plans.

I just think its as simple as having planned to expand without having any idea what that looks like. There should be a pretty clear vision at AFL house about what a successful womens comp looks like in 15 years time. They should also have a rough plan at least of what the intermediate steps will be. However its pretty clear that in 2017 they didn't have a vision of what womens footy looked like in 2019, and if they do not know what they are selling to the networks, then the networks are not going to be keen to buy.
 
jatz14 said:
A league got more like $60M, but they couldn't sell FTA at all, rights reverted back to Fox that organised the Ten deal. A league is 27 rounds plus a finals series, with FTA ratings in the AFLW ballpark, and they couldnt sell them at all.

I think $2M would be a win. They sure as hell are not getting $10M for a 6 round league. There is also the prospect of a revenue sharing deal like Netball has, and if thats the case, the more rounds, the more money.

In any case, I still do not think the sticking point is money, I dont think the networks are the issue at all. The committee organising such things as competition structure, rule adjustments etc, only just met for the first time. The AFL cannot be deep in discussions about dollars and deals with broadcasters, because they still do not know what they are selling.

They even speak of the complication of having 2 extra teams, like its an unforeseen event messing up their plans.

I just think its as simple as having planned to expand without having any idea what that looks like. There should be a pretty clear vision at AFL house about what a successful womens comp looks like in 15 years time. They should also have a rough plan at least of what the intermediate steps will be. However its pretty clear that in 2017 they didn't have a vision of what womens footy looked like in 2019, and if they do not know what they are selling to the networks, then the networks are not going to be keen to buy.
Click to expand...

The $2m I’m sure is more likely right than $10m.

Beyond that I am positive you are wrong that the AFL is not well advanced in negotiations with networks about tv rights and these are directly relevant to season structure and eba negotiations

The committee is effectively a reference group. Things would certainly not have been on hold until it was constituted

Also, I think the afl kept their powder dry on any “vision” on what the aflw would look like in the mid term when they brought it in because they had no idea how it would fly.

I’m sure the AFL has made poor decisions and shown a lack of faith at times but people seem intent on willfully dumbing down how challenging this all is so they can pour vitriol over the afl
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #75
jatz14 said:
In any case, I still do not think the sticking point is money, I dont think the networks are the issue at all. The committee organising such things as competition structure, rule adjustments etc, only just met for the first time. The AFL cannot be deep in discussions about dollars and deals with broadcasters, because they still do not know what they are selling.

They even speak of the complication of having 2 extra teams, like its an unforeseen event messing up their plans.
Click to expand...

I think Fox and Seven getting the Big Bash, combined with the BBL expanding its season, were a little unforseen.

Trugo anyone said:
Thank you so much for the link to Dr O'Halloran's article. One of the most incisive commentators on the game.

Perhaps someone should give Gil (and Hocking too) a copy of "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists" (Linda Nochlin 1971) for bedtime reading - the full version, not one of the abridged versions floating round the net.

The women footballers I know are way past being condescended to and patronised.
Click to expand...

Someone should be aware that the only reason we have a womens comp now is because Gil pushed it to start several years before the league planned.

It looks and feels like a preseason competition, because thats really what this is. A pre-competition competition.

NoobPie said:
The $2m I’m sure is more likely right than $10m.
Click to expand...

Im not entirely sure that any money will change hands. Finding someone willing to take it on and pay production as 7 and Fox have done the last two seasons is probably still a win given the ratings.

Beyond that I am positive you are wrong that the AFL is not well advanced in negotiations with networks about tv rights and these are directly relevant to season structure and eba negotiations
Click to expand...

Theres no way the negotations hadnt started.

The committee is effectively a reference group. Things would certainly not have been on hold until it was constituted
Click to expand...

Committee would simply have incorporated what the broadcasters were expecting into their planning.

Also, I think the afl kept their powder dry on any “vision” on what the aflw would look like in the mid term when they brought it in because they had no idea how it would fly.

I’m sure the AFL has made poor decisions and shown a lack of faith at times but people seem intent on willfully dumbing down how challenging this all is so they can pour vitriol over the afl
Click to expand...

Ive said this earlier, but I think the league still considers this to be AFLW 1.0 - more about promoting the womens game and getting women into the game than about the AFLW itself. Note the announcement of a womens coaching academy this week.

AFLW proper wont truly begin until all AFL teams get their womens sides up and running, women start coming through the draft in numbers, and women coaches start coming through the system. Which should be about the time the league originally had planned to bring a womens comp in - in 2020.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

AFLW Whats next - 2019 and beyond

Similar threads

C
AFLW Next 4 AFLW Premiers
Replies
11
Views
1K
Perry Pie
Perry Pie
Chief
AFLW AFLW Week 3 Milestones and Key Stats
Replies
2
Views
423
Chief
Chief
C
  • Locked
AFLW Both Fremantle and West Coast 2024 AFLW Season Campaign
Replies
0
Views
369
Connar
C
Liam Boy
AFLW Home Final Privileges and Biased Ground Announcers
Replies
4
Views
990
The Victorian
The Victorian
Teen Wolf
Club CEOs and league interested in return to AFLW State of Origin
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Teen Wolf
Teen Wolf
Biggie
AFLW Sign and Trade - Official Player Movements Discussion
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
9K
briztoon
briztoon

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top