This changes nothing. All your doing is replacing small teams with weird Hybrid small teams.
Sticking Melbourne/Saints together wont make a bigger, more attractive club. Same with Western Sydney bulldogs and tas Kangaroos.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Why is the AFL never going to be truly equal?
- Thread starter Pie Guy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
This changes nothing. All your doing is replacing small teams with weird Hybrid small teams.
Sticking Melbourne/Saints together wont make a bigger, more attractive club. Same with Western Sydney bulldogs and tas Kangaroos.
It wasn't "fixing things" it was merely an attempt to point out that reducing the number of teams as has been suggested many times on this thread is simply never going to happen, for reasons exactly like you pointed out.
I don't think that's the reason, because as far as I know all shared revenues go to the players. As I understand it, the players get X% share of all revenue. When a club gets a million dollars in sponsorship (for instance) they share X% and the rest they can keep. But all that shared revenue goes to players of all clubs. It doesn't go to other teams that can spend it on off field activities. I think X is somewhere around 50%.
The supposed problem in the AFL isn't player salaries. COLA aside, all teams have the same salary cap and all teams should be able to afford to pay it if their team is good enough. The issue currently is off field expenditure, and the NFL system doesn't do a lot to fix that problem
I'd be surprised if any sporting league in the world did.
Currently the players get 47% of the leagues revenue.
The owners of the NFL clubs have realised that it's in their best interests to have each team to foster an image of being able to compete against one another.
The more revenue that is generated by the NFL = More value is added to the clubs they own. Hell, even when the Carolina Panthers when 2-14 they made $78 million in operating profit.
The NFL system also abuses the hell out of taxpayers for stadiums and facilities allowing owners to pocket more money.
So does the AFL to an extent. But the AFL is broadly based around the same principles, other than AFL clubs all being not for profit (and being grossly overrepresented in one area).
The important thing is that all clubs have the ability to compete. If not now, then in future years. But that doesn't guarantee success, and that's important too. If winning becomes too easy, then it loses it's importance.
The closest club we'd have to NFL clubs here would be West Coast - the bulk of revenue streams are locked in at the start of the year. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference how the club performs during the year. The year they won the spoon they still would have made millions in profit.
There is no set percentage that goes to the players, it is based on an estimate of expected NFL revenues and then locked in through their CBA.
The following revenue is shared equally amongst the teams:
- Broadcast
- Licencing (video games, jerseys, etc)
Ticket sale revenue is split 60% home team, 40% away team.
The reason some teams are worth a lot more is through luxury boxes, food sales, and sponsorships.
- Moderator
- #108
This line of thought is tiresome.
Victorian clubs play at home due to geographic cicumstance and ground rationalisation. Non Victorian clubs travel more because of the distance between the sides.
And yes its an equality, but one that cannot be fixed without drastic reductions of teams in Victoria, and while that sounds fantastic to the ears of the WA and SA guys, league revenues - and thereby club revenues - are heavily dependant on the Victorian clubs who drive the majority of the ratings, attendances and memberships, and all AFL Memberships.
Of course you are as entitled to your view as I, tiresome as you find a view that opposes your own.
Tweaking was the suggestion of Mr Ross, to FIX requires major changes, equalization is the subject of discussion at AFL level .... going back to tweaking Wookie !!
I am talking WA here, not SA - if it has a case for tweaks let it make it.
The WA market can absorb more games that can be played at a profit, Melbourne clubs v interstate clubs frequently lose money (& that cost is effectively met by all the other clubs), the games missed by Melbourne club members can be made up by exactly the same template as the Hawks use for home games/Tassie so there is no new ground being broken here ... extra games in WA strengthen the WAFCs claims to manage the new WA stadium, extra games in WA allow clubs to reward members who don't have current seating rights access to games live.
The extra profits* of these games can be allocated as under the equalization process adopted by the AFL. Financially everyone benefits, the losers are the ground managers in Melbourne, Etihad & the MCC - keep the money inside footy.
* Remember the suggested profits from a Norths game v the Eagles, they are real.
Not perfect, just different. More equal, less equal?
Who are the winners, who are the losers?
- Moderator
- #110
Actually Melbourne clubs subsidise other Melbourne clubs AND the Queensland and New South Wales ones AND Port Adelaide. Please take a guess at which AFL state drives by far the most league revenue - in fact its likely to drive more AFL revenue than all the other states combined. North games in Perth doesn't help Norths members or supporters, and it certainly holds no benefit in terms of AFL growth.
In order for North and the Bulldogs to generate more cashflow they simply need less games against the far less popular non Victorian sides, and more games against Victorian opposition. The fixture needs to be recallibrated to spread this out more evenly without sending additional games to a captive WA or SA market.
The AFL can do a lot with the fixture but cant do anything about existing contracts until they expire, so the chances of games going anywhere else are minimal at best, and the situation is likely to improve when the contract at Etihad expires in any case as the AFL take over ownership. Particularly for the duration of Hawthorns contract at Launceston, and now St Kildas deal at Auckland.
And what makes you think the AFL want to strengthen the WAFCs claim to anything? The AFL operates quite happily with cricket and government managed stadiums across the Eastern seaboard. The WAFC's golden goose ie. peppercorn rent at subiaco, is far from assured to continue at the new stadium, and the predicted profits of a few years ago might not materialise at the new stadium.
I agree with most of what you say Wookie, but that comment above is a load of crap.
What teams like North and the Bulldogs need to do to increase their cashflow is improve their yield for spectators that come through the gate (including members). If they can get just an extra $10 per head per game, then that's $2.5-$3 million extra per annum. Increase that to $20 per head (probably bringing it very close to what is achieved at Subiaco) and it's an extra $5-6 million per annum - without getting a single extra person through the gates. Financial independence achieved.
Obviously easier said than done, but that's the long term solution. AFL handouts, favourable fixtures, dubious membership figures, incessive whinging about stadium deals - none of it is going to fix the inherent problem of small crowds paying low prices. They're constantly comparing Geelong's stadium deal to their own, but have a look at what Geelong charge for tickets. Very very few $20 GA tickets at Kardinia Park. You certainly couldn't cough up a $20 and park your arse on the wing like you can at Etihad.
The rich clubs need somebody to play against.
- Moderator
- #113
Its supply and demand. Victorian football supporters can elect to go to any of 110 or so matches throughout the year, as opposed to 22 in any of the other states. More matches = more supply = cheaper prices.
The clubs that bring in the big crowds are what brings in the money if you are a victorian club. So North, St Kilda, Melbourne and the Bulldogs need to get home games against the likes of Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton and Richmond - which currently isnt possible under the guaranteed blockbuster system. You dont make money playing Fremantle or Port Adelaide in Melbourne, which is why Hawthorn and North play those games in tasmania where they are paid to play, and Melbourne and the Dees play Port in Darwin where they get paid to play.
Heres the important part though, there really is no such thing as a handout from the AFL. The Clubs generate ALL the income, and theoretically are entitled to all the proceeds thereof. Quite frankly Im amazed that theres any funding for lower leagues at all.
Theres no evidence that these geographic issues affect the chances of premiership success (aabout eleven flags out of the past 20...interstate sides are over represented if anything ).....and theres no evidence that geographic location affects financial success either, there are rich and poor Vis teams just like there are rich and poor non Vic teams
I'd agree Timmy, this is not about on field success, but it is about equalisation as surely as taking money from some clubs & gifting it to others.
I'm after a more equitable access to games for WA fans, who also pay more than some other markets - even Wookie acknowledges supply/demand, sadly he denies its application. Increase supply to to meet demand where appropriate.
Its not as if the various markets are treated equally & more games in Perth to meet demand does not equal more games in Adelaide where the market conditions are unlike Perth - equally Sydney or Brisbane.
That the game nationally profits seems relevant versus on going loss making fixtures - we dont fixture the Pies & the Cats at Geelong, e.g why feature North & the Eagles in Melbourne?
One size does not fit all as is best demonstrated by the Hawks home games in both Melbourne & Tas, its working both on the field & off for Hawthorn.
Build a bigger ground then. Arent you already doing that?
Would a third team in Perth satisfy West Coast supporters demands for a seat at the footy? WOuld they change sides to guarantee themselves said seat?
How does that address loss making games in Melbourne or is that just something the equalisation addresses by funding gifting money from the Pies to others? Why gift money when there is a sustainable solution.
WA fans still get to see only 11 games compared with 17 by Vic fans - I'm suggesting up to 15 games in Perth for each side, not 17. one game a year for the 6 lowest drawing Vic clubs v the WA clubs.
Its not as if the WA fans are suddenly treated as equals to the Vics.
About the same as Pies fans, as is demonstrated by those noisy Pattos@subi crowds who must make you yearn to return to Vic Park Timmy. How many Pies fans changed allegiance to North Tim?
That is something equalisation addresses by gifting money from the Pies to others. I'm all for it. Theres no other solution.
The rest of your proposal is pure rubbish. Currently you have ten games with home ground advantage and ten games without. The balance is spot on and give or take a game its the same as the Vic teams (in fact some teams like Collingwood are on the wrong side of that ledger, giving away home state advamtage more than they recieve it)
If you want to see more games in Perth, get a new team there (which you agree wont work).
Or buy a television.
Or get a bigger ground so at least as many fans as possible can see the games that are available for viewing.
Or buy a Freo Membership
Not self interest Timmy, I live in Melbourne. Equalisation is outside the fence, Perth fans deserve a fair go too, particularly when it addresses the red ink.
I'm happy with the Eagles putting even more back into the game than the $mils we go already - good to see you are prepared to pull your weight
. Mind you I'm not sure that clubs that cant pay their way need to follow the leader to the US for altitude training, when clubs like the Eagles can pay but remain unconvinced, but its not all straight up.
Perth fans get a game every week. If they arent a big enough town for a third or fourth team then too bad.
The one thing is equal in this competition is net interstate home state advantage (ie number of home games vs interstate travelling clubs, compared to number of interstate travelling away games) All teams are basically at zero on that ledger, give or take a variance of one.
You can't complain about he great deal Geelong get without mentioning that they charge significantly more for tickets as well. But for a small number of standing room, the whole ground is reserved seats, and with the new stand a massive chunk of the ground is premium reserved seats (with premium prices).
The Melbourne (as in the city, not the club) model is high crowds, low ticket prices. This is contrary to the rest of the country. Now if you're not going to draw high crowds, you'll find it virtually impossible to be viable if you maintain those low ticket prices.
Alternatively, come up with a model that will work long term. That's why you pay CEOs big bucks. Favourable fixturing is not a long term solution. Shit CEOs will just bitch about how great Geelong have it.
Similar threads
