Why is the AFL never going to be truly equal?

[The_Wookie]

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.

I havent deleted a single "wa troll" post unless it was off topic or critical of moderation (which is against bigfooty rules, not mine).

 

[telsor]

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?

If Vic spectators paid the same amount, there would still be a significant shortfall. (and that's before supply and demand comes in)

 

[telsor]

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.

Go for it.

No, seriously...Have fun.


Remember though that after the superleague crap with rugby, the AFL wrapped things up very tightly.

No existing clubs will join, or at least, if they do, they'll be unrecognisable.

Player contracts are all with the AFL, so you'll only get those out of contract and willing to go (actually, that was the players association's doing..they wanted to ensure players would get paid if clubs went bankrupt..it also helps deal with restriction of trade issues).

Club colours, names, songs...AFL property (that was the anti-superleague bit).

Oh yeah..They also have these long term deals with all the big stadia in the country.


So yeah, have fun.

It'll be at least 3 years before the standard of competition is comperable (and that's assuming the money offered to players is massively better) and probably 10-30 years before they can play on grounds that will get comperable crowds and who knows how long before sufficient fans move across to a sufficient degree. You're going to find someone with VERY deep pockets to fund what will be a very long period of losing a lot of money.

 

[footyninescom]

Go for it.

No, seriously...Have fun.


Remember though that after the superleague crap with rugby, the AFL wrapped things up very tightly.

No existing clubs will join, or at least, if they do, they'll be unrecognisable.

Player contracts are all with the AFL, so you'll only get those out of contract and willing to go (actually, that was the players association's doing..they wanted to ensure players would get paid if clubs went bankrupt..it also helps deal with restriction of trade issues).

Club colours, names, songs...AFL property (that was the anti-superleague bit).

Oh yeah..They also have these long term deals with all the big stadia in the country.


So yeah, have fun.

It'll be at least 3 years before the standard of competition is comperable (and that's assuming the money offered to players is massively better) and probably 10-30 years before they can play on grounds that will get comperable crowds and who knows how long before sufficient fans move across to a sufficient degree. You're going to find someone with VERY deep pockets to fund what will be a very long period of losing a lot of money.

All valid and fair points and all have been considered.

Your right about it all but just a reminder that contrary to popular belief the AFL have as much ownership of the game of australian football as mcdonalds does hamburgers. It is just their version/brand. Mr hungry jacks can bring out his own rendition of the hamburger just as a start up group can bring out their own version of Australian football.

You're right you cant use any intellectually property of the AFL but you wouldn't use their brands. Youd start from scratch with new entities.

The whole key is to not make the fans choose between the leagues by not running them concurrently I.e don't go head to head with the AFL.
There's a huge gap in the football market over the offseason. Fans of football dont stop liking aussie rules just because the weather changes. If you could come up with a shortened format (like rugby 7s, nrl 9s, t20 cricket or .....Footy Nines) it would be ideal to fill this summer gap.

It would certainly be a niche market to begin with but if you give the fans what they want by offering a high scoring, aesthetically pleasing brand of football, state versus state truly national comp im sure you would get some interest. If you could aim for 5% of AFL fans interested it would be more viable then a lot of national leagues that currently exist (national ice hockey league, theres even a national quiddich league for harry potter fans.)

Operate under your state name and wear the state colours. No one can stop that. That satisfies the desire to see state of origin football that the fans continually ask for and allows neglected states like tasmania and nt to be involed. Im sure these markets would welcome the opportunity with open arms.

In terms of players of course all AFL contracted players are off limits (although the precedence set in the packer vs aust cricket board case states that no organisation can inhibit the opportunity of an individual or group from making an income thats why the acb cant stop any of its contracted players from playing in the ipl) but there is a lot of quality football talent outside of the AFL both players and coaches. As the game is a shortened format and less physically demanding it is attractive to recently retired AFL players as we've seen t20 cricket extend the careers in their shortened format. Player managers are pushing for this for obvious reasons (it lines their pockets too) and the ones we have spoken to believe it could become a bargaining chip to obtain the conditions the AFLPA are chasing.

Would you watch recently retired and physically capable players such as (just throwing these names out there and not eluding to anything) barry hall, brendan fevola, shane crawford pull on the big v to go up against say a simon black of wa or a andrew mcleod of sa on a balmy summers evening at a time of the year when there is no other football to satisfy the die hard football fans. Do you think the players would welcome the chance to prolong their careers and earn some extra dollars doing what they do best?

I guess at the end of the day it all comes down to money. Dont you guys realise that the streets of WA are paved with gold. Some peoples personal wealth over here makes the AFLs revenue look like pocket money and maybe just maybe they are fed up with the unequal and vic centric foundations of the AFL.

As for stadiums, boutique stadiums would be sufficient to start with. As for the AFL locking up the major stadiums you are correct they have locked them in for winter, our research says that summer is fair game. Just a follow up on that, as far as im aware the AFL still have to comply with the fair trade act. It would be wise to look at the the case between the NFL and usfl where the NFL was found to be in contravention of the anti monopoly act (I know its a different jurisdiction but comparable to our anti competitive laws) for trying to lock out the Usfl from stadium and television rights. We believe precedence has been set (and yes you can bring comparable laws from oversees to use as precedence if there is no precedence in that jurisdiction).

Im sure this post will be removed because I've gone off topic and im promoting self interests but I was just responding to telsars rebuttal and trying to get to the crux of this thread by saying the AFL will never be equal so maybe we have to think outside the box and start from scratch to have a truly equal australian football competition.

We will have fun doing this telsar and im sure you will also have fun if you got on board and if you open your mind to the possibilities that exist rather then focusing on why it cant happen.

I invite more debate as criticism allows us to learn and become stronger.

 

[telsor]

So you're proposing a seconds* comp during the the off season.

I doubt the AFL is shaking in it's boots.

You'd also need to deal with cricket (and occasionally soccer) with respect to grounds, boutique or otherwise.

If you want serious competition like your initial statement aluded to, you need to be much bigger and better than that to draw the respect required to get more than a casual interest.



* - more like 3rds, as I imagine most WAFL/SANFL/VFL players would stay where they are unless there is a lot of $$$s on offer. It's a tough sport and an effective 12 month season would be a killer, especially with the heat, and trust me, even with shorter/cut down games, the heat is a killer.

 

[footyninescom]

So you're proposing a seconds* comp during the the off season.

I doubt the AFL is shaking in it's boots.

You'd also need to deal with cricket (and occasionally soccer) with respect to grounds, boutique or otherwise.

If you want serious competition like your initial statement aluded to, you need to be much bigger and better than that to draw the respect required to get more than a casual interest.



* - more like 3rds, as I imagine most WAFL/SANFL/VFL players would stay where they are unless there is a lot of $$$s on offer. It's a tough sport and an effective 12 month season would be a killer, especially with the heat, and trust me, even with shorter/cut down games, the heat is a killer.[/qu

Those factors have been considered.

You would think that the AFL wouldn't be shaking in their boots because it doesnt affect or interfere with anything that currently exists over their traditional season. We are fans of the traditional 18 a side game and have no intention of changing anything that they are currently doing over winter. This concept was born because people wanted to enjoy Australian football over the offseason and thats our target market. If the AFL truly gave a stuff about football they would see that having something like this at this time of the year to complement the AFL season would only strengthen aust football. Instead the sleeping giant of soccer is rapidly awakening and thats what they should be shaking in there boots about. Instead they bring out AFL 9s over summer which has more in common with netball (touch, non contact, no marking contests, played with a small soft ball) then football.

Now I'm not saying that the AFL is shaking in their boots but why would they bring out a game called AFL 9s a year after telling us that they would support our Footy Nines concept. Considering that AFL 9s indoor comps are played with 8 players and theres nothing in their game to justify the 9 in their name its pretty clear that they were concerned enough to try to prevent us from even entering the market (and theres more I could add to this just not in the public domain.)

I guess the AFL are aware of the trend in international sport towards high scoring, aesthetically pleasing shortened format versions. The nrl have scrapped their preseason in favour of nrl 9s, the international rugby board and the International hockey association have submitted to the olympic commitee that their 7s and 9s version be their showcase olympic format and theres no denying the success of Twenty20 cricket. These are proven financially viable formats.

You do realise that in the heat of summer most teams and players especially at the upper echelon are already doing intense preseason training.

We're not planning a full 6 month season as youre right that would be too much. Short sharp tournaments are the way to go in the same vain as the rugby 7 tournaments. 8 states each hosting a weekend long carnival where each team plays two games. Obviously you wouldnt play in the heat of the day. Just like in tennis you could have a morning and evening session. It turns out that each state would play each other twice and the eighth and final state (reigning champs) would host the finals. Sounds reasonably fair and equitable to me or as close to it as possible.

Yes it would be essentially a seconds comp to begin with. A FAQ is that why would any one want to watch a seconds comp. If this was the case no one outside of the US would play basketball or baseball and no one outside of brazil (arguably) should play soccer. The statistics from the WAFL and SANFL suggests that when the local AFL teams are struggling or when they have a bye, there is a spike in attendance. From this we can conclude that fans want to see the best available product at that given time. Over summer we plan on being the best available football product.

Again it all comes down to money as to the calibre of players you could obtain. I know that in WA apart from a few elite wafl players, there is generally better money on offer in the country leagues. After speaking to player managers (including those of high profile ex afl players) the money that theyre asking for is certainly achievable.

Over here most of the boutique grounds are still operated by local councils who are keen for these such events to occur in their localities to help supplement their local businesses. Again money talks, how much would you have to offer to hire a ground/facilities for a weekend.
I think we both agree that hurdles can be overcome and it is possible with cash to back it up. Therefore an equal australian football comp is a possibility it just has to be started from scratch.

 

[telsor]

Probably best taken to another thread...

 

[The_Wookie]

Probably best taken to another thread...

He's responding to your posts, and thats ok, but no more please footyninescom. Any further posts on this matter will be offtopic.

 

[footyninescom]

He's responding to your posts, and thats ok, but no more please footyninescom. Any further posts on this matter will be offtopic.

Agree. It did get off topic. But just reiterating that the AFL will never be truly equal because it was built on unequal foundations and the only way to achieve an even australian football competition would be to think outside the box and start again from scratch.
Thanks telsor for your relevant questions. May not have won you over but at least its got you thinking. At the end of the day even if the concept doesnt work we hope that at the very least it will make the AFL pull their head out of the sand, take a long hard look at themselves and start paying attention to the what the true stakeholders of the game (the fans) want rather then only looking at what increases their bottom line. Non for profit governing body with the greater good of the game of aust football as their main objective or corporate brand protecting their monopoly that is the crux off all the issues that you are discussing in this thread.
Peace out dudes.

 

[Rob]

If Vic spectators paid the same amount, there would still be a significant shortfall. (and that's before supply and demand comes in)

What do you base that on? Even if Vic clubs got just an extra $10 per head per game that's millions a year in additional revenue. Which is going to be just about all profit.

 

[telsor]

He's responding to your posts, and thats ok, but no more please footyninescom. Any further posts on this matter will be offtopic.

I know, I was 'responding' by suggesting we don't derail any further and take it elsewhere, not complaining. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

 

[telsor]

What do you base that on? Even if Vic clubs got just an extra $10 per head per game that's millions a year in additional revenue. Which is going to be just about all profit.

Freo membership prices are around 20% higher than Richmonds (guestimate of average as it varies by type, but I looked through the 11 game, reserved seat..bottom end is about 10%, top end about 40%, although I couldn't find coterie packages for Freo while at Richmond they're higher still).

The AFLs funding and equalisation strategy document said returns were 77% for Patersons, but 41% for the MCG (36% for Etihad). Even a rough look at those numbers suggest that you'd need more than a 20% bump in revenue to fix that.

A 'restricted view' Freo reserved seat (the bottom level) @$280 returns $215.6 to the club
A 'premiership circle' Richmond reserved seat (the top level without going to coterie) @$525 returns $215.25 (actually a bit less, one game is at Etihad).

So when Richmond members pay almost $245 more, the club still gets less.

 

[Rob]

Freo membership prices are around 20% higher than Richmonds (guestimate of average as it varies by type, but I looked through the 11 game, reserved seat..bottom end is about 10%, top end about 40%, although I couldn't find coterie packages for Freo while at Richmond they're higher still).

Yeah, you've grossly understimated the difference. 90%+ of Freo's members have a reserved seat and well over half the seats at Patersons are premium or better. There are hardly any seats in the budget and restricted view sections (i.e less than 10% of the ground) The average adult membership cost would be something in the vicinity of $450 to $500 per person, concessions and kids slightly less. Overall you're probably talking $400 or so average cost for each member.
I heard figures that just 25% or so of Richmond's members have a reserved seat, with the vast majority either GA (which gets you nothing at Patersons) or the 3 game members. You're probably looking at an average cost of $200 or so, probably less.

The AFLs funding and equalisation strategy document said returns were 77% for Patersons, but 41% for the MCG (36% for Etihad). Even a rough look at those numbers suggest that you'd need more than a 20% bump in revenue to fix that.

What does that mean though? A vic club loses 64% of it's membership cost to the stadium? That is out and out rubbish. I have yet to see a financial report of a Victorian club that has *any* significant stadium cost. If that were actually true, then every club would have a mega-millions expense for the stadium. Such an expense is not reflected in the financials of any Vic club i've ever seen.

Nice figures provided by the AFL, but % means nothing unless you know what it's a % of. And it is *extremely* doubtful that stadiums get a significant cut of any Vic club's membership revenue.

A 'restricted view' Freo reserved seat (the bottom level) @$280 returns $215.6 to the club
A 'premiership circle' Richmond reserved seat (the top level without going to coterie) @$525 returns $215.25 (actually a bit less, one game is at Etihad).

So when Richmond members pay almost $245 more, the club still gets less.

You've taken extreme editorial licence there. Richmond simply do not pay $215.25 to the stadium for a member. Here's a link to Richmond's annual reports:

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/club/annual-reports

They're not overly comprehensive and they don't breakdown revenue to much of an extent. But for the sake of argument, let's say Richmond get $8m a year in membership revenue (which is very conservative). If 63% of that is going back to the stadium, you'd expect a minimum $5m expense somewhere on the P&L (more really, as gate takings would add to the stadium expense as well). Such an expense just doesn't exist. Outside of employee wages, there's $3.9m for 'football support' which is probably related to the football department, $3.1m in 'materials, purchases and match day hospitality' which may include stadium expenses but it would be a lot more than that, and it's less from there. Like I said, Richmond simply don't pay 64% of their membership and gate revenues to the stadiums.

As a point of difference, Freo's main cost for Patersons is the $3m+ figure it pays in rent. They don't pay a % figure to the stadium, although there would be some variable costs involved on match day (i.e cleaning costs and security would go up as more people attend). If we get a new member, we keep all of it. That would appear to be much the same as most other clubs in the league. You get a $200 member, you keep $200. There is no evidence that any extra payment be made to the stadium out of that, let alone 64% of it.

Happy to be proven wrong on this - if you could direct me to any Vic club's financials that show such a massive stadium expense then i'll gladly retract. Collingwood's would be in the vicinity of $10m+ given their large membership revenue if your figures are correct.

I'm guessing what the % figures provided by the AFL refer to is the % of gate sales that are kept by the stadium to cover costs. Given tickets at the gate are so cheap in Melbourne combined with the large proportion of members (both club and AFL/MCC/Medallion) that make up the crowd nowadays, such a figure would hardly be surprising. Victorian clubs pay no rent, so the stadium gets back it's match day costs from that money.

I'm also guessing that those % figures don't include rental costs, otherwise under such a methodology the gate sales at Patersons for any given game wouldn't even cover stadium costs. The $300k rental bill alone for a game wouldn't be covered by the 3000 or so (i.e all that is available) single seats sold.

 

[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,

Its never going to change sums up your approach & it is self serving - nothing is forever, e.g the Good Friday game.

As for moving games to SA, its not something I can see initially - there is not the pent up demand that there is in WA - I'd envisage each market being considered separately just as more games are being played in Geelong. Profitability should be the initial determinant.
Games played at a loss would be the first reviewed - would they make a profit if transferred?

Yes, its tough changing things Wookie, but leaders lead.

 

[telsor]

Richmond's financial report there is a summary.

Do you think the $34Million on page 9 listed as "Payments to suppliers and employees" could include rent on grounds? Just because it isn't a seperate line item doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and that it's not a simple flat figure like $3Million/year is part of the problem. I'm sure all Vic teams would love to only pay that.

Richmond had 560K attend home games...Going by the AFL's document, that would mean profit to the club of around $3.5Million...or about $6.40 per person. Going by GA admission prices ( $20 adult, $12 concession...call it $16.40 as both a lowball average and to simplify the maths) that means the MCG took 5.6 Million in rent from us (actually a lot more as this doesn't factor in better seats).

Now, I concede this is a very rough figure...for one, Richmond didn't play all 11 games at the G, I factored the average rather than individual games, roughly looking it up on the table provided on page 7 and it doesn't include different deals on things like signage, pourage, etc etc, but regardless it's clearly a significant underestimate estimate, we still paid almost twice what you did for 'rent'. The actual figure is certainly far higher.

Short version, if you're going to dispute the AFL figures, you need a better argument.


As for membership..90% is premium..really? How silly. Why do they bother even having categories?

Do you have coterie members though? For Richmond, 3121 members (about 1000 of us I believe) pay $1025/year...almost 50% more than your highest...and of course, there are levels above that (Inner sanctum is about $1995, not sure how many there are..several hundred at least). Both these groups have waiting lists. Reserved seating in several categories is also usually sold out. In spite of what you seem to think, 3 game GA members are a small category.

 

[Rob]

Richmond's financial report there is a summary.

Do you think the $34Million on page 9 listed as "Payments to suppliers and employees" could include rent on grounds? Just because it isn't a seperate line item doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and that it's not a simple flat figure like $3Million/year is part of the problem. I'm sure all Vic teams would love to only pay that.

Richmond had 560K attend home games...Going by the AFL's document, that would mean profit to the club of around $3.5Million...or about $6.40 per person. Going by GA admission prices ( $20 adult, $12 concession...call it $16.40 as both a lowball average and to simplify the maths) that means the MCG took 5.6 Million in rent from us (actually a lot more as this doesn't factor in better seats).

Now, I concede this is a very rough figure...for one, Richmond didn't play all 11 games at the G, I factored the average rather than individual games, roughly looking it up on the table provided on page 7 and it doesn't include different deals on things like signage, pourage, etc etc, but regardless it's clearly a significant underestimate estimate, we still paid almost twice what you did for 'rent'. The actual figure is certainly far higher.

Short version, if you're going to dispute the AFL figures, you need a better argument.

I would have thought pointing to official club financials is pretty damn good argument. If there is a massive payment to stadiums, then it almost without doubt would be covered in that document.
The $34m you're referring to is from the cash flow statement, and it would pretty much include all expenditure by the club. What that includes is anyone's guess. What i'm referring to is the statement of financial performance, which breaks down expenses. I agree that just because it's not explicitly mentioned in one club's financials doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but you'd have to agree that it must be in one of those figures (given it lists all expenses). And i'd suggest it's highly unusual that *no Vic club* mentions it anywhere in their financials. As an idea for the sort of thing you'd expect, have a read of the 'lease expense' in the P&L as well as note 14 in Brisbane's 2012 AR:

http://www.lions.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/BrisbaneLions/Branding/Landing Page Images/PDFs/Financial Report 2012_NEW_HR.pdf

You'd think at least some mention of their stadium expenses would be expected at a minimum.

Add to that the sheer magnitude of the numbers you're suggesting - over $10m per annum in the case of a few clubs - it would be completely absurd to make no mention of what is a highly material expense. They'd virtually have to hide it in amongst multiple other expenses - why would they do that?

So the big question has to be - if you really did pay $5.6 million (or whatever it is) in rent to the MCG, where is it recorded? Why not simply a completely orthodox 'rent expense' or 'lease expense' figure? The fact no club in Victoria reports it it's a fair call to say it doesn't exist, at least not on the scale you're claiming.

As for membership..90% is premium..really? How silly. Why do they bother even having categories?

I'd say 60-70% is premium or better (i.e premium gold or box seats). The remaining category is 'standard' which is about 20%.

Finals ticketing is worse. The AFL ticket 80% of the ground as premium.

Do you have coterie members though? For Richmond, 3121 members (about 1000 of us I believe) pay $1025/year...almost 50% more than your highest...and of course, there are levels above that (Inner sanctum is about $1995, not sure how many there are..several hundred at least). Both these groups have waiting lists. Reserved seating in several categories is also usually sold out. In spite of what you seem to think, 3 game GA members are a small category.

Of course there are coterie clubs and the like (I sit near one of them called 'Dockers Den') but I couldn't give you figures. I know where are something like 170 corporate boxes at Subi and they're usually full. That's where clubs make massive dollars and where the smaller clubs really suffer.[/QUOTE][/quote]

 

[telsor]

So the big question has to be - if you really did pay $5.6 million (or whatever it is) in rent to the MCG, where is it recorded? Why not simply a completely orthodox 'rent expense' or 'lease expense' figure? The fact no club in Victoria reports it it's a fair call to say it doesn't exist, at least not on the scale you're claiming.

So, either it's recorded as part of another category, like I suggested, or Richmond actually pays no rent. Which do you think is more likely?

How's this as an 'equalisation' measure....The AFL handles the grounds, and clubs each pay them the same flat 'rental' fee for 11 games and whatever they take from the gate is their issue. (maybe some tweaks due to ground capacity...renting Metricon for the same price as the MCG isn't fair after all)

If, as you suggest, it's all due to Vic clubs not charging enough, then you shouldn't have a problem with this, should you? After all, Patersons & Etihad are roughly the same size..surely using one should cost as much return as using the other.

 

[Rob]

So, either it's recorded as part of another category, like I suggested, or Richmond actually pays no rent. Which do you think is more likely?

Victorian clubs pay no rent. Not cash anyway. Their 'rent' is in the form of relinquishing part of the ground for sale by the stadium itself, i.e MCC members and Medallion club predominantly. Such arrangements are usually beneficial to the smaller clubs, as that extra space taken up by stadium members would essentially remain empty if they were given a clean stadium and charged a big annual rent.
Running costs are another matter entirely. Security, cleaners, police, gate attendants, ushers.....that adds up to a fair bit.

How's this as an 'equalisation' measure....The AFL handles the grounds, and clubs each pay them the same flat 'rental' fee for 11 games and whatever they take from the gate is their issue. (maybe some tweaks due to ground capacity...renting Metricon for the same price as the MCG isn't fair after all)

Look, if the AFL want to go down that path good on them. My solution is that the AFL gets out of the stadium business altogether, it's a relic from the old VFL days. Stadia are a business of the home club, and they really should be the entity signing up to the deals. The AFL doesn't stage the games (outside finals), the clubs do. Therefore the AFL have no business being involved with stadium managers, outside of approving of the deal to the extent that they agree to schedule games there. Clearly there need to be minimum standards.

There's no reason why multiple Victorian clubs couldn't form a bloc and negotiate direct with the stadium and sell comparable products to AFL memberships.

If, as you suggest, it's all due to Vic clubs not charging enough, then you shouldn't have a problem with this, should you? After all, Patersons & Etihad are roughly the same size..surely using one should cost as much return as using the other.

The problem I have with this is that effectively my membership is subsidising Victorians' cheap tickets. The high ticket prices I pay contribute to my club being financially sound, and the money generated by all clubs gets unevenly distributed to teams that insist on charging bargain basement prices to games. If my club had the same ticket prices we'd go broke, it'd cost us between $5 and $10 million a year. Our profit is nowhere near that, around 1/10th of it.

BTW, I don't think it's all due to low ticket prices, but you can't complain about how much better stadium returns are in other parts of the country when you're charging $20 for a seat on the wing. Gee, why would a club that charges $70 for the same sort of seat be making more money?

I do laugh at your suggestion that Patersons and Etihad are in some way the same facility and cost the same to use though. Clearly you haven't been to Patersons.

 

[telsor]

If the WACA and AFL got together and decided that the WACA would spend spend $400M on grandstands, and the AFL would play 22 games a year there, then told your clubs to do the negotiating for ground access (and indirectly, paying off the loans), what sort of deal would you get? We can't all have our hands held by our major shareholders.

You want the AFL out of the stadium game? Cut the umbilical with the WAFL and pay commercial rents.

$20 a seat on the wing? Tell me, where is this? You've clearly never been to the MCG, and massively overrate the difference in costs. For $20 you get standing room and some (less desirable) parts of the nosebleed section. The wings are reserved for AFL/MCG members, and premium seating (like my $1025/year ticket) gets you one deck up on the flank.

You might want to check a seating chart someday...Might also show you how much of the ground is taken up by reserved seats which cost considerably more than $20.

BTW if you think rent is paid by AFL/MCG members you're way off track.

 

[Kwality]

If the WACA and AFL got together and decided that the WACA would spend spend $400M on grandstands, and the AFL would play 22 games a year there, then told your clubs to do the negotiating for ground access (and indirectly, paying off the loans), what sort of deal would you get? We can't all have our hands held by our major shareholders.

You want the AFL out of the stadium game? Cut the umbilical with the WAFL and pay commercial rents.

$20 a seat on the wing? Tell me, where is this? You've clearly never been to the MCG, and massively overrate the difference in costs. For $20 you get standing room and some (less desirable) parts of the nosebleed section. The wings are reserved for AFL/MCG members, and premium seating (like my $1025/year ticket) gets you one deck up on the flank.

You might want to check a seating chart someday...Might also show you how much of the ground is taken up by reserved seats which cost considerably more than $20.

BTW if you think rent is paid by AFL/MCG members you're way off track.

Now you want to tell WA cricket what to do.

Here is a quote from a footy guy, a senior public servant & a member of the steering committee for the new stadium - yeh to some he is anti Vic, what a joke ...
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/19617184/its-still-the-vfl-says-wa-sports-boss/

 

[telsor]

Now you want to tell WA cricket what to do.

Here is a quote from a footy guy, a senior public servant & a member of the steering committee for the new stadium - yeh to some he is anti Vic, what a joke ...
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/19617184/its-still-the-vfl-says-wa-sports-boss/

It was just an example to put WA clubs in a similar negotiating position, I never suggested it was likely or realistic.

That said, you're not exactly known for your reticence about telling Victorian clubs what it should do, so don't get on your high horse about someone making suggestions about WA.

As for the article...So? A game that was never likely to happen wasn't going to be held in WA...Not to mention, I'd assume government and industry groups from around the country would (and should) throw their hats in for any kind of 'special event'...was there anything in the article to suggest they've been unfairly distributed so far? (actually, there are so few I'm not sure it's really relevant). If it were to become an annual event, then yeah, it should be moved around. If it's a one off, then wherever suits it's purpose best is the place for it.

 

[madmug]

Now you want to tell WA cricket what to do.

Here is a quote from a footy guy, a senior public servant & a member of the steering committee for the new stadium - yeh to some he is anti Vic, what a joke ...
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/19617184/its-still-the-vfl-says-wa-sports-boss/

Ron Alexander is quite right & voicing what is obvious to those of us not blinded by the VFL light.
As said, Inequality & inequity is simply the result of the imbalance in the structure of the AFL. The AFL is far too interested in benefiting Victoria, its Government & its economy. Even with the benefits of being given a 'right of passage' in the national competition, VFL/AFL clubs are still screaming about how 'unfair' things are.
What a farce.
Geez, we now even have StKilda become 'reinterested' in playing games in Tasmania, & touting their history with Tasmanian players (Baldock, Stewart, Reiwolt etc) Thats it boys, line up at the Treasury door, all take & no give.
VFL clubs have no shame when it comes to money. But thats what you get with too many clubs in the same market.

 

[telsor]

North and the Saints have their timing wrong.

Saints spent a while called the southern saints

Play 'southern' out of Hobart and North out of Launceston.


Ron Alexander follows his job description and made a populist comment with no facts to back it up and suddenly anyone who asks for details is "blinded by the vfl light"...sure.

He wants International rules? hmm...Last home series aside (when they were promoting the game on gold coast so played Melb and Metricon), the previous 3 were all split between Melbourne and Perth. Clearly they're missing out. I'm sure he really meant to say Perth should have fewer games and their games should have been split with Adelaide. I suppose they could have moved the Melbourne game, but given the choice, they kept the higher drawing game... How unreasonable.

All up, games hosted has been..
Vic 8
WA 5
SA 2
QLD 1
ACT 1

You know, QLD & ACT aside, that's not too far off matching the populations (at least, of AFL fans), indeed, WA is probably over represented...Damn those parocial Victorians.


Anyone else want to make an unenlightened bitch and be beaten down by facts?





* NB, I edited the state game figures to add the 86 & 90 series that I had missed...Didn't really change much except adding canberra.

 

[Kwality]

You are joshin'.

 

[telsor]

You are joshin'.

About people whinging about things when the facts don't back them up?

Seems pretty realistic to me.