Why is the AFL never going to be truly equal?

[Kwality]

So all Vic clubs need to move games to somewhere else, and pay for the priviledge, just so WA fans with a chip on their shoulder can feel good about themselves?

I asusme you also require us to play other Vic teams in the Broken Hill Cup (or wherever), because you still want your club to play on the MCG?

Of course, by moving all those games, the contracts with the MCG & Etihad would need to be renegotiated (minimum games and all), making games there less profitable...Can we tax WA teams to cover the losses?

Perhaps recouch your words to fans everywhere are entitled to equal access to footy.

Access to the MCG is an issue given the Grand Final is played there.

The Etihad agreement involves a reduction in games next year & just as Geelong is looking for some of those games ... national comp in the 21st century.

IF equalization is not your go telsor, just say so - your view does not appear pro Vic & elitist unlike earlier claims of anti Vic bias.

As for the tax, when games run at a profit footy wins not the stadium managers, it grows the cake, there is more for everyone - it would be reflected in increased AFL dividends for ALL.

Just as the Hawks have profited by moving away from a 20th century template, so might other Melbourne clubs.

 

[telsor]

Perhaps recouch your words to fans everywhere are entitled to equal access to footy.

Access to the MCG is an issue given the Grand Final is played there.

The Etihad agreement involves a reduction in games next year & just as Geelong is looking for some of those games ... national comp in the 21st century.

IF equalization is not your go telsor, just say so - your view does no appear pro Vic & elitist unlike earlier claims of anti Vic bias.

As for the tax, when games run at a profit footy wins not the stadium managers, it grows the cake, there is more for everyone - it would be reflected in increased AFL dividends for ALL.

Fans everywhere are entitled to equal access to the footy?

So, WCE is going to start playing games at Broome and Kalgoolie? To stop 50,000 going to a game so that 5-10,000 can have a game in their neighborhood just so they have access is stupid.

I'm not against equalisation. I am against stupid ideas. Just because your team has a problem with travel doesn't mean all teams should have a hand tied behind their back so everyone has the same problem. To solve your idea, all teams should get on a plane and fly around 10 times a year, with the plane taking a 'long' route to ensure they all travel the same time...Even if the end result is that they end up back where they started.

That's not equalisation, that's idiocy. Add to that that it's a minor issue (Freo didn't seem to have a big problem with it this year) that you're beating up just to show how tough you've got it and yeah, I'm going to call you on it.

 

[The_Wookie]

Perhaps recouch your words to fans everywhere are entitled to equal access to footy.

Access to the MCG is an issue given the Grand Final is played there.

The Etihad agreement involves a reduction in games next year & just as Geelong is looking for some of those games ... national comp in the 21st century.

IF equalization is not your go telsor, just say so - your view does no appear pro Vic & elitist unlike earlier claims of anti Vic bias.

As for the tax, when games run at a profit footy wins not the stadium managers, it grows the cake, there is more for everyone - it would be reflected in increased AFL dividends for ALL.

Dont be having a go at Telsor just because he doesnt toe the WA troll line.

So you arent aware that the AFL dividend has increased year on year for every club for every year bar 1 since 1993? That the AFL pays the clubs an additional 1.2 million per yer year beyond the agreed amount to EVERY club as a bonus, and has done since 2007? That the AFL recognised its mistake at Etihad and paid Etihad initially the money to give the clubs back for the first year or two.

http://www.worldofwookie.com/footywiki/index.php/AFL_Derived_Revenues

 

[Kwality]

Dont be having a go at Telsor just because he doesnt toe the WA troll line.

So you arent aware that the AFL dividend has increased year on year for every club for every year bar 1 since 1993? That the AFL pays the clubs an additional 1.2 million per yer year beyond the agreed amount to EVERY club as a bonus, and has done since 2007? That the AFL recognised its mistake at Etihad and paid Etihad initially the money to give the clubs back for the first year or two.

http://www.worldofwookie.com/footywiki/index.php/AFL_Derived_Revenues

The written word passed you by this morning Wookie? How does a strategy that increases AFL dividends for ALL be taken as a reference to the history of AFL dividends.

Interesting that what you described as an anti Vic bias is now the WA troll line.

 

[The_Wookie]

The written word passed you by this morning Wookie? How does a strategy that increases AFL dividends for ALL be taken as a reference to the history of AFL dividends.

Interesting that what you described as an anti Vic bias is now the WA troll line.

Actually I have - as it is considered by many others - always referred to it as the wA troll line, because you havent come up with new material in the last 2 years and every time this subject comes up be it finances, the fixture or equalisation, you havent had a new idea since christ knows when.

The Rules of Kwality posting appear to be

• More games in perth
• less travel for perth teams
• oh by the way North games in perth werent allowed by the AFL how unfair was that
• too many victorian teams
• commission wont make hard decisions and get rid of vic teams
• etc etc

its like clockwork.

As for the rest, Im merely pointing out that AFL dividends have always increased for all, even when the league made an overall loss, as it did last year, and that those dividends are already high.

 

[Kwality]

Fans everywhere are entitled to equal access to the footy?

So, WCE is going to start playing games at Broome and Kalgoolie? To stop 50,000 going to a game so that 5-10,000 can have a game in their neighborhood just so they have access is stupid.

I'm not against equalisation. I am against stupid ideas. Just because your team has a problem with travel doesn't mean all teams should have a hand tied behind their back so everyone has the same problem. To solve your idea, all teams should get on a plane and fly around 10 times a year, with the plane taking a 'long' route to ensure they all travel the same time...Even if the end result is that they end up back where they started.

That's not equalisation, that's idiocy. Add to that that it's a minor issue (Freo didn't seem to have a big problem with it this year) that you're beating up just to show how tough you've got it and yeah, I'm going to call you on it.

You are confusing two issues that can be addressed under the equalization banner:
1. the travel involved in our national comp is not spread evenly
2. fans outside Vic are limited to 11/12 games per year whilst some fans in Vic get 17 games

Just as equalization will take money from clubs with plenty .... is it too hard to understand?

All clubs live within the current structure do their best so I'm not sure why you characterize this issue as how tough we've got it, equalization is being discussed - its not like I'm suggesting clubs without access to pokies should be subsidized.

 

[Kwality]

The written word passed you by this morning Wookie? How does a strategy that increases AFL dividends for ALL be taken as a reference to the history of AFL dividends.

Interesting that what you described as an anti Vic bias is now the WA troll line.

Perhaps you could address the dividend issue ?

 

[The_Wookie]

You are confusing two issues that can be addressed under the equalization banner:
1. the travel involved in our national comp is not spread evenly
2. fans outside Vic are limited to 11/12 games per year whilst some fans in Vic get 17 games

Just as equalization will take money from clubs with plenty .... is it too hard to understand?

All clubs live within the current structure do their best so I'm not sure why you characterize this issue as how tough we've got it, equalization is being discussed - its not like I'm suggesting clubs without access to pokies should be subsidized.

Its never going to change. Deal with it. The AFL has refused any suggestion of moving victorian games to WA and SA. It doesnt fit with its strategies. Welcome to living in a large country with most of the teams on the eastern seaboard,

 

[madmug]

Again, nothing had to be said to justify the development of the league that ensued. It was an expansion of an existing league. It wasnt the creation of a new one, and unfortunately the folks that got their first arent really wanting to leave if they dont have to.

Thats not the point at issue.
We were talking about equality & structural issues that have led to our current imbalance. Then we get into the issue of how this league arrived at where it is. Claiming the VFL somehow kept other leagues clubs alive with transfer fees is utter crap. I ask for proof & I get a change of argument. Clever? NOT.
Just admit the VFL shaped the changes to suit itself & many of its clubs who were financially shot. Keeping them in a national league is just what has caused this problem.
Calling things a WA troll is just a cop out.
Face the real problem TOO many DUD suburban teams.

 

[telsor]

You are confusing two issues that can be addressed under the equalization banner:
1. the travel involved in our national comp is not spread evenly
2. fans outside Vic are limited to 11/12 games per year whilst some fans in Vic get 17 games

Just as equalization will take money from clubs with plenty .... is it too hard to understand?

All clubs live within the current structure do their best so I'm not sure why you characterize this issue as how tough we've got it, equalization is being discussed - its not like I'm suggesting clubs without access to pokies should be subsidized.

No 1 Is not a big deal except in your mind. Teams from WA (indeed, all states) seem capable of winning flags in spite of this 'burden', so where is the gross injustice in it?

No 2 So the issue is that it isn't fair for the *fans*? We not only need to equalise the clubs, but also the fan experience? Again, if you think this is a major factor of inequality within the league, you really have a very miopic view on things don't you.

 

[Colonial]

No 1 Is not a big deal except in your mind. Teams from WA (indeed, all states) seem capable of winning flags in spite of this 'burden', so where is the gross injustice in it?

No 2 So the issue is that it isn't fair for the *fans*? We not only need to equalise the clubs, but also the fan experience? Again, if you think this is a major factor of inequality within the league, you really have a very miopic view on things don't you.

To be fair one of the main arguments is crowd numbers, hell of allot easier to have a high avg when you play against teams who you share the ground with, or the one next door.

 

[telsor]

To be fair one of the main arguments is crowd numbers, hell of allot easier to have a high avg when you play against teams who you share the ground with, or the one next door.

Considering Vic grounds pay by far the worst returns, I'm not sure where the advantage of this is. Vic clubs make less money from these 'big' crowds than other teams get for a fraction of those numbers. Pull a 30K crowd in Melbourne and you get the token minimum payout for all games. I doubt that's true anywhere else.

 

[The_Wookie]

Thats not the point at issue.

We were talking about equality & structural issues that have led to our current imbalance. Then we get into the issue of how this league arrived at where it is. Claiming the VFL somehow kept other leagues clubs alive with transfer fees is utter crap. I ask for proof & I get a change of argument. Clever? NOT.
Just admit the VFL shaped the changes to suit itself & many of its clubs who were financially shot. Keeping them in a national league is just what has caused this problem.
Calling things a WA troll is just a cop out.
Face the real problem TOO many DUD suburban teams.

The league did expand in part to solve the financial problems which is where license fees came in. It was also because of demand. Clubs from WA and SA, and even Queensland started to line up to join the VFL in the 80s.. The WAFL had known since 1980 that VFL expansion was inevitable. The NFL even recommended joint state league teams put in for the VFL. The SANFL tried twice to put in a team and were told the same story everyone else was - pre 1986 the league didnt want to expand

The biggest historical factor in the league expanding out of Victoria was the adoption of the Commission in 1986 that set expansion as a key principle, and lead to the formation of the current commission setup in 1993. The license fee was about the immediate need for money, and even that became secondary after Seven finally came to the table on tv rights at the end of 1987. Ask yourself this, what was the greater impact, the 8 million license fee money, or the 30 million tv rights money that doubled the leagues revenue over 5 years.

And as for dud teams, we've had this discussion several times. Overall Victorian clubs pay their fair share of the revenue, the memberships, the attendances, the ratings, and even the recruits. Theres an imbalance between the top and bottom financial teams that the draft and cap cant address, but the changes to the fixture and exposure will help where historically it has been lacking.

As for profitable clubs, the fact is that in recent years of all the non victorian clubs only the WA ones are profitable. perhaps we should do away with the others too. Brisbane and Port in particular have been poor financially. Sydney is still relying on a COLA after 30 years, and has been little more than an AFL subsidary since the 90s.

 

[Kwality]

No 1 Is not a big deal except in your mind. Teams from WA (indeed, all states) seem capable of winning flags in spite of this 'burden', so where is the gross injustice in it?

No 2 So the issue is that it isn't fair for the *fans*? We not only need to equalise the clubs, but also the fan experience? Again, if you think this is a major factor of inequality within the league, you really have a very miopic view on things don't you.

gross injustice - what nonsense, its equality or inequality. Travel 10 times, travel 5 times.

Some fans get 17 games, some are limited to 11.

You claim to support equalisation. ,

 

[telsor]

gross injustice - what nonsense, its equality or inequality. Travel 10 times, travel 5 times.

Some fans get 17 games, some are limited to 11.

You claim to support equalisation. ,

When half the clubs only keep their doors open because of league largess (nb. 5 out of these 9 are NOT from Vic).
When clubs have trouble retaining players because of the 'go home factor' and/or some clubs having massively better facilities.
When fixtures are dictated by crowds and TV ratings, driving smaller clubs further down through lack of exposure.
When grounds offer massively different returns.

Yeah, you're right, your issues, that have no evidence of having any real impact, are way more important than any of those. You focus on them and leave the real equality issues to people who can look at it seriously, rather than just nitpicking about things that *might* adversely effect your club in some tiny way.

 

[Kwality]

When half the clubs only keep their doors open because of league largess (nb. 5 out of these 9 are NOT from Vic).
When clubs have trouble retaining players because of the 'go home factor' and/or some clubs having massively better facilities.
When fixtures are dictated by crowds and TV ratings, driving smaller clubs further down through lack of exposure.
When grounds offer massively different returns.

Yeah, you're right, your issues, that have no evidence of having any real impact, are way more important than any of those. You focus on them and leave the real equality issues to people who can look at it seriously, rather than just nitpicking about things that *might* adversely effect your club in some tiny way.

Yep,equality.

 

[telsor]

Yep,equality.

Fine, relocate all non Vic clubs to Vic. They can represent you from here. Problem solved.

2 teams (equally allocated) fly to each center each week to play a game, then return home to Vic.

After all, it's fair that Richmond fans in Perth get to see their team as often as WCE fans, right?

 

[Kwality]

Fine, relocate all non Vic clubs to Vic. They can represent you from here. Problem solved.

2 teams (equally allocated) fly to each center each week to play a game, then return home to Vic.

After all, it's fair that Richmond fans in Perth get to see their team as often as WCE fans, right?

What genius !! Earlier you were suggesting the Broken Hill Cup, have you relocated ?

Let me dumb it down for you, that's for YOU .
Equality or inequality.
Travel 10 times, travel 5 times.
Some fans get to see 17 games, some are limited to 11.

I look to forward to your amazing comprehension.

 

[telsor]

What genius !! Earlier you were suggesting the Broken Hill Cup, have you relocated ?

Let me dumb it down for you, that's for YOU .
Equality or inequality.
Travel 10 times, travel 5 times.
Some fans get to see 17 games, some are limited to 11.

I look to forward to your amazing comprehension.

You were the one who proposed the broken hill cup by suggesting Vic teams needed to travel just for the sake of travelling and not suggesting destinations, even when asked. I just put a name to it.

Let me summarise for you.

You're blowing small problems to ridiculous degrees just because they're the only problems your team has.

There are no simple or reasonable solutions, so I'll propose ridiculous and unrealistic solutions, both because they're the only ones possible, and because it illustrates how stupid your problems are.

My solution means all teams travel the same amount and that fans get to see all teams equally. If you think you can do better, go for it.

 

[Kwality]

Its never going to change. Deal with it. The AFL has refused any suggestion of moving victorian games to WA and SA. It doesnt fit with its strategies. Welcome to living in a large country with most of the teams on the eastern seaboard,

You were the one who proposed the broken hill cup by suggesting Vic teams needed to travel just for the sake of travelling and not suggesting destinations, even when asked. I just put a name to it.

Let me summarise for you.

You're blowing small problems to ridiculous degrees just because they're the only problems your team has.

There are no simple or reasonable solutions, so I'll propose ridiculous and unrealistic solutions, both because they're the only ones possible, and because it illustrates how stupid your problems are.

My solution means all teams travel the same amount and that fans get to see all teams equally. If you think you can do better, go for it.

You didn't let me down Captain Comprehension.

 

[telsor]

You didn't let me down Captain Comprehension.

So your solution to a minor problem is to create a bigger problem by giving additional home ground advantage to WA and SA teams?

I believe that's referred to as the cutting your nose off to spite your face solution.

 

[Kwality]

So your solution to a minor problem is to create a bigger problem by giving additional home ground advantage to WA and SA teams?

I believe that's referred to as the cutting your nose off to spite your face solution.

You cant be that bad Captain Comprehension, you're joshin' ....

 

[telsor]

You cant be that bad Captain Comprehension, you're joshin' ....

I admit there have been posts I've made in this thread that haven't been entirely serious, but in saying that I think home ground advantage is a bigger issue than travelling a few extra times and how often fans get to see their teams live? I'm not 'joshing' in the least.

 

[Rob]

Considering Vic grounds pay by far the worst returns, I'm not sure where the advantage of this is. Vic clubs make less money from these 'big' crowds than other teams get for a fraction of those numbers. Pull a 30K crowd in Melbourne and you get the token minimum payout for all games. I doubt that's true anywhere else.

Vic spectators pay by far the cheapest prices. You think money gets generated out of thin air? People actually have to pay before it ends up with the club.

If 2 shops on each side of the continent selling exactly the same product sold one at half the price of the other, which one do you think would get the best return if they each sold 30k of them?

 

[footyninescom]

Thats not the point at issue.
We were talking about equality & structural issues that have led to our current imbalance. Then we get into the issue of how this league arrived at where it is. Claiming the VFL somehow kept other leagues clubs alive with transfer fees is utter crap. I ask for proof & I get a change of argument. Clever? NOT.
Just admit the VFL shaped the changes to suit itself & many of its clubs who were financially shot. Keeping them in a national league is just what has caused this problem.
Calling things a WA troll is just a cop out.
Face the real problem TOO many DUD suburban teams.

Careful Madmug I've already had some of my posts deleted from this thread obviously because I'm just another wa troll who disagreed with the wookmeisters pov.
The AFL can never be equal because it's still the VFL with a shiny new badge. If you want equal you have to start from scratch. Contrary to the belief from the vic centric that the AFL is untouchable, I can assure you that people outside of vic have had enough and that plans are in motion for a truly nationals and as equal as possible competition. To those who really want equality get behind it. For those who are satisfied with the status quo because it suits your vested interests (vic clubs), enjoy the glory days while they still remain and keep oppressing the truth. The revolution is coming.