When will the AFL see a return on their investment on GWS and Gold Coast?

[Colonial]

Whose choice is that the club or afl ?

AFL

 

[kranger]

Maybe they jumped the gun too early adding these teams, you could argue, but the addition of the Suns certainly seems to have done good for the future of QLD footy.

The thing is, the longer they wait to add teams to an area, the harder it gets to establish and grow.

 

[The Educator]

The thing is, the longer they wait to add teams to an area, the harder it gets to establish and grow.

This pretty much sums it up. If they added these two teams in 2030 we'd be in pretty much the same boat as we were in 2010. Now, in 2030, we will have two 20 year old clubs instead.

 

[Consolaçao]

I'm referring to those clubs making a profit from their own income.

GWS and GOld Coast weren't brought in to turn a profit.

I've done some quick calcs to check whether they are truly financially sustainable (I did this in a few mins, so happy to be corrected)

• The current AFL TV deal is for $4.5bn over 7 years
• That's ~$640m per annum for nine games a week
• One ninth of that figure is $71m per annum, so the ninth game could be said to generate $71m
• Accepting that the 9th game would rate less than the others, there's a case to say that it's worth less than $71m per annum.
• Let's be really pessimistic and put the value at one half of the average of the other 8 games.
• ~$35m per annum in additional TV revenues at a minimum.

According to this link>>

AFL funding ladder revealed: $100m gap between top and bottom clubs

The size of the gap is a sore point for some power clubs, with Essendon president Paul Brasher demanding a say in how the next round of money is doled out.

www.theage.com.au

GWS and GC each took around $20m per annum in funding. Note that powerhouse clubs take around $10m per annum - they don't stand on their own two feet.

By these calcs, that's an annual financial loss of $5m per annum for each of the two clubs. That said, I'm sure there're accounting complexities that I don't understand that might make this figure lower (or higher?) We can be sure though that as they become more established, TV revenues will increase, and their need for funding will decline.

It's all moot anyway - these clubs don't need to return a profit to be justified. All sorts of other benefits flow to the game from their existence.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

GWS and GOld Coast weren't brought in to turn a profit.

I've done some quick calcs to check whether they are truly financially sustainable (I did this in a few mins, so happy to be corrected)

• The current AFL TV deal is for $4.5bn over 7 years
• That's ~$640m per annum for nine games a week
• One ninth of that figure is $71m per annum, so the ninth game could be said to generate $71m
• Accepting that the 9th game would rate less than the others, there's a case to say that it's worth less than $71m per annum.
• Let's be really pessimistic and put the value at one half of the average of the other 8 games.
• ~$35m per annum in additional TV revenues at a minimum.

According to this link>>

AFL funding ladder revealed: $100m gap between top and bottom clubs

The size of the gap is a sore point for some power clubs, with Essendon president Paul Brasher demanding a say in how the next round of money is doled out.

www.theage.com.au

GWS and GC each took around $20m per annum in funding. Note that powerhouse clubs take around $10m per annum - they don't stand on their own two feet.

By these calcs, that's an annual financial loss of $5m per annum for each of the two clubs. That said, I'm sure there're accounting complexities that I don't understand that might make this figure lower (or higher?) We can be sure though that as they become more established, TV revenues will increase, and their need for funding will decline.

It's all moot anyway - these clubs don't need to return a profit to be justified. All sorts of other benefits flow to the game from their existence.

They don't generate 1/9th of tv rights as their games rate lowly.

 

[Consolaçao]

They don't generate 1/9th of tv rights as their games rate lowly.

Maintain concentration and read full post.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Maintain concentration and read full post.

It's pretty obvious they make a loss and that the AFL are gambling on some sort of tirnsround in the future.

 

[Coolangatta]

It's pretty obvious they make a loss and that the AFL are gambling on some sort of tirnsround in the future.

And like I said, what do you want to do about it then? The Suns will help grow the talent pool of the game in the decades to come. Perhaps the Giants will do the same.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

And like I said, what do you want to do about it then? The Suns will help grow the talent pool of the game in the decades to come. Perhaps the Giants will do the same.

Having two franchise clubs means 80 more players are needed.As a result the overall talent pool as an average per club has declined. Those zones don't generate 80 decent players and if those clubs didn't exist there would be still be players recruited from those zones.

 

[Aussie in exile]

GWS and GOld Coast weren't brought in to turn a profit.

I've done some quick calcs to check whether they are truly financially sustainable (I did this in a few mins, so happy to be corrected)

• The current AFL TV deal is for $4.5bn over 7 years
• That's ~$640m per annum for nine games a week
• One ninth of that figure is $71m per annum, so the ninth game could be said to generate $71m
• Accepting that the 9th game would rate less than the others, there's a case to say that it's worth less than $71m per annum.
• Let's be really pessimistic and put the value at one half of the average of the other 8 games.
• ~$35m per annum in additional TV revenues at a minimum.

According to this link>>

AFL funding ladder revealed: $100m gap between top and bottom clubs

The size of the gap is a sore point for some power clubs, with Essendon president Paul Brasher demanding a say in how the next round of money is doled out.

www.theage.com.au

GWS and GC each took around $20m per annum in funding. Note that powerhouse clubs take around $10m per annum - they don't stand on their own two feet.

By these calcs, that's an annual financial loss of $5m per annum for each of the two clubs. That said, I'm sure there're accounting complexities that I don't understand that might make this figure lower (or higher?) We can be sure though that as they become more established, TV revenues will increase, and their need for funding will decline.

It's all moot anyway - these clubs don't need to return a profit to be justified. All sorts of other benefits flow to the game from their existence.

That's just as well

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Did you forget where Dixon came from?

Unless he's the differrnce between us losing a Prelim/GF and winning a GF as Lynch and Cameron did for Vic clubs he's just another player who moved clubs.

 

[Del165198]

https://www.promotix.com.au/event/dROyG8LuS

Still giving away free tickets to games after a decade. Yikes.

Perhaps the AFL could start paying people to attend GWS home games, they could get the Tasmanian government to subsidize it!

 

[Aussie in exile]

https://www.promotix.com.au/event/dROyG8LuS

Still giving away free tickets to games after a decade. Yikes.

Perhaps the AFL could start paying people to attend GWS home games, they could get the Tasmanian government to subsidize it!

That's always going to be the case with them in my opinion, and the question is how many people attending GWS games have got a free ticket?
Only a fool would pay for a ticket if freebies were given out like in this case

 

[Bjo187]

- Firstly mentioning Cameron and May as a reason for these clubs being successful is a very strange take, considering those players came from north Victoria and N.T, so would have been playing in the AFL anyway.

- the ninth game would generate money even if it were an 11 th Victorian team and third S.A team.

- Gold Coast will hopefully be successful on field soon, at grassroots they have a big tick now.

- GWS are struggling off field, 3 moments in time they could have really made themselves a bigger club that were just missed. Missing out on buddy Franklin, missing out on playing in the 2016 gf and their horror gf appearance in 2019.

- Both clubs should be analysed after 25 years. The AFL have made some major mistakes, however they did with the bears and swans early days too.

- it's actually lucky these clubs were introduced in 2010, if they came in now they'd have even less chance of success with the internet, streaming, access to international sports,
kids on the tablet and not watching tv etc.

- At this stage, giants have been successful on field, gold coast have been successful at grassroots level. That's the only wins so far, however, that doesn't mean they won't eventually resonate in their local areas, at least close to what the lions and swans do 30/40 years later.

 

[Consolaçao]

https://www.promotix.com.au/event/dROyG8LuS

Still giving away free tickets to games after a decade. Yikes.

Perhaps the AFL could start paying people to attend GWS home games, they could get the Tasmanian government to subsidize it!

Still giving away free tickets in Adelaide after 150 years. Yikes!

Kids Go Free to the AFL | Rounds 16-19 | 28 Jun - 21 Jul 2024 - Play & Go Adelaide

[ June 29, 2024; July 6, 2024; July 13, 2024; July 20, 2024; ] In rounds 16 to 19, all kids aged 14 years old and under will get free* access to Toyota AFL Premiership Season matches across Australia. Just in time for school holidays, kids are taking over the 2024 Toyota AFL Premiership Season...

playandgo.com.au

 

[Engimal v3]

People are really naive when it comes to GC and GWS. The teams weren't put there to turn a profit, they were put there it further expand the game into NSW and QLD - which has been measurably happening since. They're going nowhere.

 

[Del165198]

Still giving away free tickets in Adelaide after 150 years. Yikes!

Kids Go Free to the AFL | Rounds 16-19 | 28 Jun - 21 Jul 2024 - Play & Go Adelaide

[ June 29, 2024; July 6, 2024; July 13, 2024; July 20, 2024; ] In rounds 16 to 19, all kids aged 14 years old and under will get free* access to Toyota AFL Premiership Season matches across Australia. Just in time for school holidays, kids are taking over the 2024 Toyota AFL Premiership Season...

playandgo.com.au

Those are children's tickets Bucko. A common marketing ploy to get full-paying adults in.

This isn't like GWS needing a rent a crowd just to make the stadium look less embarrassing.

Yes, I'm sure it's time for the obligatory hurrr durrr tarps comments. Our crowds during that era are not comparable to GWS

 

[Walshawk]

GWS and GOld Coast weren't brought in to turn a profit.

I've done some quick calcs to check whether they are truly financially sustainable (I did this in a few mins, so happy to be corrected)

• The current AFL TV deal is for $4.5bn over 7 years
• That's ~$640m per annum for nine games a week
• One ninth of that figure is $71m per annum, so the ninth game could be said to generate $71m
• Accepting that the 9th game would rate less than the others, there's a case to say that it's worth less than $71m per annum.
• Let's be really pessimistic and put the value at one half of the average of the other 8 games.
• ~$35m per annum in additional TV revenues at a minimum.

According to this link>>

AFL funding ladder revealed: $100m gap between top and bottom clubs

The size of the gap is a sore point for some power clubs, with Essendon president Paul Brasher demanding a say in how the next round of money is doled out.

www.theage.com.au

GWS and GC each took around $20m per annum in funding. Note that powerhouse clubs take around $10m per annum - they don't stand on their own two feet.

By these calcs, that's an annual financial loss of $5m per annum for each of the two clubs. That said, I'm sure there're accounting complexities that I don't understand that might make this figure lower (or higher?) We can be sure though that as they become more established, TV revenues will increase, and their need for funding will decline.

It's all moot anyway - these clubs don't need to return a profit to be justified. All sorts of other benefits flow to the game from their existence.

So, are you saying that it doesn’t matter how the clubs go off field? That is is purely about increasing the number of games? Surely that is not enough. If that were the case, we could have just brough pt back Fitzroy and added a second team in Collingwood.

 

[Canberra Pear]

People need to chill about Gold Coast and GWS. They're not even half a generation into a generational project.

Their increase to the broadcast rights has already paid for their foundation. People moan that they've each cost the AFL nearly $250m over a decade, but that's disingenuous. It's more than the rest, but every club has "cost" $100m-plus in that time, and the smaller clubs have cost ~$200m. That's how our league works.

Both clubs need nudges in the right direction, but they'll absolutely pay off in the long-term if things are done right (both teams playing 11 home games at their home stadiums for starters).

The Gold Coast will reach 1m people within a decade, fuelled by southern migration. With sustained wins and improved public transport, crowds will improve. They could easily make the Gold Coast a 50/50 AFL/NRL town.

GWS are struggling with crowds, but they've got a loyal core, and more Sydney-based members than most Sydney NRL clubs. They'll have both a new metro and light rail station directly outside their stadium by 2030, which will boost accessibility. A greater focus on Western Sydney is needed though. GWS is a bigger slog, but a bigger reward.

Both will be worth it, just have to stop pussy-footing around and go all-in on the markets.

 

[Billy ray]

If Gold Coast had Melbourne type pricing and seating arrangements, would add extra 20% to crowd figures.

 

[Bjo187]

If Gold Coast had Melbourne type pricing and seating arrangements, would add extra 20% to crowd figures.

I agree with this, however I think they try to price gouge the traveling supporter, who has no choice but to pay having already made the effort to see their team on the gold coast.

It's a catch 22 really, as it's possibly the only thing that makes the stadium to not be a massive loss maker for the club I'd imagine.

 

[Consolaçao]

Those are children's tickets Bucko. A common marketing ploy to get full-paying adults in.

This isn't like GWS needing a rent a crowd just to make the stadium look less embarrassing.

Yes, I'm sure it's time for the obligatory hurrr durrr tarps comments. Our crowds during that era are not comparable to GWS

It’s all marketing Champ. At the end of the day they’re resorting to giveaways to get bigger crowds. Same thing, albeit at a lesser scale.

And seeing as you (oddly) brought it up, I always supported Port’s right to exist during your tarp era, though so many genuinely thought the club should be wound up.

How short sighted have they turned out to be?

I’m also old enough to remember genuine calls to wind up Sydney and Brisbane for the same reasons people are suggesting GWS and GC need to go.

 

[Del165198]

It’s all marketing Champ. At the end of the day they’re resorting to giveaways to get bigger crowds. Same thing, albeit at a lesser scale.

And seeing as you (oddly) brought it up, I always supported Port’s right to exist during your tarp era, though so many genuinely thought the club should be wound up.

How short sighted have they turned out to be?

I’m also old enough to remember genuine calls to wind up Sydney and Brisbane for the same reasons people are suggesting GWS and GC need to go.

brisbane won a string of flags on the strength of folding another established club. and they're still hardly a massive team despite their relative success.

sydney have been relatively successful thanks to the AFL, superstars like plugger, barry hall and buddy which they afl has always accommodated and yet in a city of 6m people they struggle to average 30k at home.

i also remember when sydney was a complete laughing stock in the early 90s.

have they exponentially capitalised on the huge populations of their home bases in 30 years? absolutely ****ing not.

the afl's big brain idea is purely based on the numbers without looking into actual demographics.

tasmania is an actual football state and despite having the same population as wollongong, people are passionate about it and live and breathe footy still.

the fact that the gutless afl has chosen to **** over an actual football state in perpetuity while slinging cash around like a qantas exec at a gold coast strip club is embarrassing.

the afl is not a "for profit" organisation and should do well to remember that. GC and GWS were never about "growing the game" or whatever magnanimous reason, it was to try to churn dollars because there are a lot of people there.

if they can support a billion teams in melbourne because of passion then it's an absolute crime they haven't put a team in tassie a decade ago.

it's all garbage capitalist expenditure in the hope of future dollars. you can't tell me if you put a team in tassie a decade ago would have cost more money than GWS or GC. and yet despite a decades long appeal the AFL finally caves in based on the Tas govt having to hand over a 375m handout, after all the dollars they've poured down the drain on north and hawthorn.

 

[Coolangatta]

brisbane won a string of flags on the strength of folding another established club. and they're still hardly a massive team despite their relative success.

sydney have been relatively successful thanks to the AFL, superstars like plugger, barry hall and buddy which they afl has always accommodated and yet in a city of 6m people they struggle to average 30k at home.

i also remember when sydney was a complete laughing stock in the early 90s.

have they exponentially capitalised on the huge populations of their home bases in 30 years? absolutely ******* not.

the afl's big brain idea is purely based on the numbers without looking into actual demographics.

tasmania is an actual football state and despite having the same population as wollongong, people are passionate about it and live and breathe footy still.

the fact that the gutless afl has chosen to * over an actual football state in perpetuity while slinging cash around like a qantas exec at a gold coast strip club is embarrassing.

the afl is not a "for profit" organisation and should do well to remember that. GC and GWS were never about "growing the game" or whatever magnanimous reason, it was to try to churn dollars because there are a lot of people there.

if they can support a billion teams in melbourne because of passion then it's an absolute crime they haven't put a team in tassie a decade ago.

it's all garbage capitalist expenditure in the hope of future dollars. you can't tell me if you put a team in tassie a decade ago would have cost more money than GWS or GC. and yet despite a decades long appeal the AFL finally caves in based on the Tas govt having to hand over a 375m handout, after all the dollars they've poured down the drain on north and hawthorn.

I get what you’re saying but as Sydney’s population keeps growing, both clubs are eventually going to get bigger crowds and more members, it’s inevitable.

The only way they won’t is if they put more teams in Sydney. Sydney isn’t Melbourne, and even some Melbourne clubs struggle to get good crowds i.e. Dogs v Port game, most Norf games.

If they stick with two Sydney teams, they should be fine long term. Developing a local rivalry is a good idea.

As for Gold Coast, it’s one team in a market all to itself. There’s only upside. In time, they should check out okay, it’s the lack of success on field that has ****ed Gold Coast sporting codes in the past.

I do agree about Tasmania. For too long they have been denied, as were Canberra in the 80s and 90s too, I believe.

 

[Del165198]

I get what you’re saying but as Sydney’s population keeps growing, both clubs are eventually going to get bigger crowds and more members, it’s inevitable.

The only way they won’t is if they put more teams in Sydney. Sydney isn’t Melbourne, and even some Melbourne clubs struggle to get good crowds i.e. Dogs v Port game, most Norf games.

If they stick with two Sydney teams, they should be fine long term. Developing a local rivalry is a good idea.

As for Gold Coast, it’s one team in a market all to itself. There’s only upside. In time, they should check out okay, it’s the lack of success on field that has ****ed Gold Coast sporting codes in the past.

I do agree about Tasmania. For too long they have been denied, as were Canberra in the 80s and 90s too, I believe.

its not inevitable at all though. look at how many sporting clubs have folded in sydney and the gold coast. teams fold and relocate in america all the time and their population is 10x ours.

sydney is established now, they'd need an exceedingly long period of being shit plus poor management to be under any sort of threat. even then the afl wouldn't let it go, they'd send half the comp's stars up there to fix them back up.

you can't just plonk a team and say it'll succeed because there's lots of people. you could stick a team in auckland. it's not going to work.

different areas of the country just prefer different sports. its a thing. trying to force it doesn't work. i don't have a problem with trying to grow the game, but doing that while kicking sand in the face of a state (tasmania) who has provided so many champions of the game is a bit of an insult.