Why is the AFL never going to be truly equal?

[footyninescom]

Ok everyone agrees that the structure of the AFL is fundamentally flawed for numerous reasons. If it was any other industry where competition was encouraged it wouldn't be viable to have approximately 5/18 of your "franchises" losing money and those "franchises" would fold. Instead the AFL have a monopoly and therefore can do whatever they like as they aren't accountable to normal market conditions.
If you could build from scratch a fair and equal, truly national Australian football competition, how would you do it? (i.e. forget the AFL brand and the clubs that are their intellectual property and start totally from scratch)

 

[Papa G]

given we're talking about the period after the legends stand was built, thats utterly irrelevant to the quote

Why was the Legends Stand built again?

 

[The_Wookie]

Ok everyone agrees that the structure of the AFL is fundamentally flawed for numerous reasons. If it was any other industry where competition was encouraged it wouldn't be viable to have approximately 5/18 of your "franchises" losing money and those "franchises" would fold. Instead the AFL have a monopoly and therefore can do whatever they like as they aren't accountable to normal market conditions.
If you could build from scratch a fair and equal, truly national Australian football competition, how would you do it? (i.e. forget the AFL brand and the clubs that are their intellectual property and start totally from scratch)

there are threads for that already.

 

[footyninescom]

there are threads for that already.

Apologies, I'm new at this. Where can I find those threads?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Apologies, I'm new at this. Where can I find those threads?

I wouldn't worry about it mate.
Victorians are apparantly all for a national comp, but don't want it really national. They want total control. Expansion is good as long as their club is not affected, all their clubs are great clubs yet all clubs outside of victoria were all second rate.
In fact go find the threads, just to get some laughs.

 

[telsor]

Actually thats a far too simplistic version of what happened. Building the Legends stand with AFL commitments to scheduling which turned out not so firm once the holy grail of docklands was apparent almost sent Carlton broke, and by the time the legends stand no non carlton games were being played at the ground.

Compared to Optus, Docklands looked like a good financial deal for clubs other than Carlton, which is why they didn't want to play there.

Carlton's business model for paying off the stand was to use the AFL guarantee to shaft the clubs that were forced to play there.

Not dissimilar to the docklands business plan as it turns out. (mind you, for all the complaints about docklands costs, the MCG isn't much better).

 

[telsor]

I wouldn't worry about it mate.
Victorians are apparantly all for a national comp, but don't want it really national. They want total control. Expansion is good as long as their club is not affected, all their clubs are great clubs yet all clubs outside of victoria were all second rate.
In fact go find the threads, just to get some laughs.

...and WA fans have a massive chip on their shoulder about anything they can twist so it appears not to favor them.

Isn't it fun to generalise in order to demonise those you disagree with?

 

[Rob]

Actually thats a far too simplistic version of what happened. Building the Legends stand with AFL commitments to scheduling which turned out not so firm once the holy grail of docklands was apparent almost sent Carlton broke, and by the time the legends stand no non carlton games were being played at the ground.

Come on Wookie, you're telling half the story again. As part of the club funding the Legends stand, Carlton secured a contract with the AFL to schedule 16 games a year at the ground until 2006 (give or take a year). When the Dogs decided to play their home games there, this more than satisfied that contract. When Docklands was built, the Dogs decided to go there for commercial reasons. The contract remained, and the AFL scheduled home games from a lot of Victorian clubs there. This pissed those clubs off no end because crowds hated the ground, so they campaigned the AFL to buy out the contract. They duly did, and the number of games was reduced to 9 - all Carlton. And they got a multi million dollar payout.
Don't try and pretend Carlton got screwed by the AFL, it was their choice to accept the contract alterations, and they were probably better off with the AFL payout than hosting a bunch of games of other clubs that no-one would show up to anyway.

The important point in the context of my previous posts is that crowds at Optus Oval were, in the main, rubbish. A 3rd rate venue trying to charge premium prices didn't make anyone any money. And if Carlton couldn't make money from that ground, do you really think a much smaller club could make a success of doing something similar? Unless the whole ground was funded by government, I can't possibly see how those clubs aren't significantly better off with what they've got now.

 

[The_Wookie]

Come on Wookie, you're telling half the story again. As part of the club funding the Legends stand, Carlton secured a contract with the AFL to schedule 16 games a year at the ground until 2006 (give or take a year). When the Dogs decided to play their home games there, this more than satisfied that contract. When Docklands was built, the Dogs decided to go there for commercial reasons. The contract remained, and the AFL scheduled home games from a lot of Victorian clubs there. This pissed those clubs off no end because crowds hated the ground, so they campaigned the AFL to buy out the contract. They duly did, and the number of games was reduced to 9 - all Carlton. And they got a multi million dollar payout.
Don't try and pretend Carlton got screwed by the AFL, it was their choice to accept the contract alterations, and they were probably better off with the AFL payout than hosting a bunch of games of other clubs that no-one would show up to anyway.

The important point in the context of my previous posts is that crowds at Optus Oval were, in the main, rubbish. A 3rd rate venue trying to charge premium prices didn't make anyone any money. And if Carlton couldn't make money from that ground, do you really think a much smaller club could make a success of doing something similar? Unless the whole ground was funded by government, I can't possibly see how those clubs aren't significantly better off with what they've got now.

A crowd average that sat above 22,000 for most of its years after the stand was completed, aside from 2002 after the Legends stand, suggest that crowds werent as bad as you imply. Its higher than the averages at the WACA, Kardinia Park and SCG were for some of the time matches were played at Princes Park. And the Ground rental was less than $88,000 PER YEAR.

if we're only going to tell part of the story - There was a lot more than the Legends stand (which in itself was poorly managed) involved in Carlton going broke, there was some phenomenally bad management at Carlton in the early 2000s, drop offs in attendance, membership and sponsorship. Boards were being voted in, and then dumped until Pratt stepped in in 2006. it was an unstable time that no Carlton fan remembers fondly - both in form and administration.

If we get back to what I originally said, ground rationalisation played a part - i never said it was the be all and end all - even if thats occupied the last page or two of discussion. Facilities may not have been as up to date as you might like, but clubs like St Kilda - which wholly owned Moorabin freehold - could have played there for a lot longer with considerable viability - with good management.

Rugby League shows to an extent that you can play at less than ultra modern stadiums with varying degrees of success.

 

[Kwality]

Ok everyone agrees that the structure of the AFL is fundamentally flawed for numerous reasons. If it was any other industry where competition was encouraged it wouldn't be viable to have approximately 5/18 of your "franchises" losing money and those "franchises" would fold. Instead the AFL have a monopoly and therefore can do whatever they like as they aren't accountable to normal market conditions.
If you could build from scratch a fair and equal, truly national Australian football competition, how would you do it? (i.e. forget the AFL brand and the clubs that are their intellectual property and start totally from scratch)

Any business planner would differentiate the loss makers:

• the new expansion clubs
• the Melbourne based clubs
• the national clubs

Why are they different? Some are growing the game in specific areas of major population growth, some are integral to the national image of the game, and some have a historic claim in the games heartland.

We have a template going forward, therein lies the problem.

 

[The_Wookie]

Any business planner would differentiate the loss makers:

• the new expansion clubs
• the Melbourne based clubs
• the national clubs

Why are they different? Some are growing the game in specific areas of major population growth, some are integral to the national image of the game, and some have a historic claim in the games heartland.

We have a template going forward, therein lies the problem.

Sport is not a proper business. While in some areas it may resemble a business, AFL clubs, and even the league operate as non profit organisations.

• the model the AFL is pursuing re league funding and handouts is mirrored by the NRL and the FFA in Australian sport.
• the NFL - the worlds richest paid league - uses equalisation of gate receipts and tv rights to keep things clubs level - even the less profitable ones.
• Even the big EPL clubs realise the benefits of having smaller clubs around, which is why tv rights are still pooled over there instead of the big clubs selling their own. (its also why to date Collingwood havent done it here)
• The AFL is directly responsible for some clubs being better off than others - particularly including the fixture, forcing clubs to pay compulsory minimum levels of salary caps, and in Melbourne directly competes against the clubs for memberships, and thus attendances, as well as hobbling sponsorship opportunites that conflict with the league.

 

[fabulousphil]

Ok everyone agrees that the structure of the AFL is fundamentally flawed for numerous reasons. If it was any other industry where competition was encouraged it wouldn't be viable to have approximately 5/18 of your "franchises" losing money and those "franchises" would fold. Instead the AFL have a monopoly and therefore can do whatever they like as they aren't accountable to normal market conditions.
If you could build from scratch a fair and equal, truly national Australian football competition, how would you do it? (i.e. forget the AFL brand and the clubs that are their intellectual property and start totally from scratch)

That is actually not true, there are many many companys etc that have some profitable franchises and some unprofitable franchises, the good offsets the bad, sometimes the bad close down, other times the bad stay open for many years.

Some Bunnings stores (example) keep the other less profitable ones running, in the hope that they can turn it around.

We have what we have, and i for one are happy that teams such as WB, Saints, North etc are in the comp, even Port Adelaide, i think what they bring far outweighs pen pushers talking about market conditions, viability, fundamental flaws in the league etc.

 

[madmug]

Sport is not a proper business. While in some areas it may resemble a business, AFL clubs, and even the league operate as non profit organisations.

• the model the AFL is pursuing re league funding and handouts is mirrored by the NRL and the FFA in Australian sport.
• the NFL - the worlds richest paid league - uses equalisation of gate receipts and tv rights to keep things clubs level - even the less profitable ones.
• Even the big EPL clubs realise the benefits of having smaller clubs around, which is why tv rights are still pooled over there instead of the big clubs selling their own. (its also why to date Collingwood havent done it here)
• The AFL is directly responsible for some clubs being better off than others - particularly including the fixture, forcing clubs to pay compulsory minimum levels of salary caps, and in Melbourne directly competes against the clubs for memberships, and thus attendances, as well as hobbling sponsorship opportunites that conflict with the league.

I agree, the AFL is run on day to day commercial lines to ensure the bills are paid & the game grows but it is a non profit organisation & is charged with developing the game as a whole
But If this is so then why is the financial blow torch & crap about TV rights etc applied every time discussion of a team from Tasmania is brought up?. No I'm sorry but the arguments about sustainability, equity, fairness, historic value, economics are definitely a movable feast for both BFers & the AFL itself.
Different factors are applied with liberal amounts of self interest when it comes to the discussions of expansion & especially to Tasmania where we put up with 2 FIFO carpet baggers, but apparently we're not up to having our own team!.
Not too many years ago Demitriou spoke about the right of Western Sydney to have its own AFL team, but not here. WHY?
Talk about Animal farm, we're all equal but some are more equal than others.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I don't think anyone here really disagrees with having a Tassie team. But if it comes at the cost of a Vic club then using the AFL's arguments you've alluded to above (growth, TV revenue etc) it doesn't stack up. If you use financial arguments to argue the merits of some Vic clubs who still pull in over 30K members at ther worst then the argument for a Tassie team doesn't stack up. But I think most agree Tassie should be the next team admitted regardless of if it will "grow" the game.

 

[The_Wookie]

I agree, the AFL is run on day to day commercial lines to ensure the bills are paid & the game grows but it is a non profit organisation & is charged with developing the game as a whole
But If this is so then why is the financial blow torch & crap about TV rights etc applied every time discussion of a team from Tasmania is brought up?. No I'm sorry but the arguments about sustainability, equity, fairness, historic value, economics are definitely a movable feast for both BFers & the AFL itself.
Different factors are applied with liberal amounts of self interest when it comes to the discussions of expansion & especially to Tasmania where we put up with 2 FIFO carpet baggers, but apparently we're not up to having our own team!.
Not too many years ago Demitriou spoke about the right of Western Sydney to have its own AFL team, but not here. WHY?
Talk about Animal farm, we're all equal but some are more equal than others.

ive argued for a Tasmanian side for years, and it should have been ahead of GWS,

 

[Rob]

A crowd average that sat above 22,000 for most of its years after the stand was completed, aside from 2002 after the Legends stand, suggest that crowds werent as bad as you imply. Its higher than the averages at the WACA, Kardinia Park and SCG were for some of the time matches were played at Princes Park. And the Ground rental was less than $88,000 PER YEAR.

if we're only going to tell part of the story - There was a lot more than the Legends stand (which in itself was poorly managed) involved in Carlton going broke, there was some phenomenally bad management at Carlton in the early 2000s, drop offs in attendance, membership and sponsorship. Boards were being voted in, and then dumped until Pratt stepped in in 2006. it was an unstable time that no Carlton fan remembers fondly - both in form and administration.

If we get back to what I originally said, ground rationalisation played a part - i never said it was the be all and end all - even if thats occupied the last page or two of discussion. Facilities may not have been as up to date as you might like, but clubs like St Kilda - which wholly owned Moorabin freehold - could have played there for a lot longer with considerable viability - with good management.

Rugby League shows to an extent that you can play at less than ultra modern stadiums with varying degrees of success.

Sure, when the government pays for it. I believe the NSW government now has a policy of only funding a select number of grounds, and you'll find as the stands at those grounds age and the maintenance costs go up then NRL clubs will move to the major grounds on the basis of cost (and spectator comfort).

It's capital costs that kill you when you have your own ground - modern stadium infrastructure is hugely expensive. Metricon is about as basic a ground as you can get, and it cost $100 million. No club has that - or even the capacity to borrow it, and even if they did it's still a vastly inferior ground to Docklands or the MCG. It would be much, much cheaper to simply be one of many tenants at either of those grounds. Never mind that you're going to attract far larger crowds at those venues.

 

[madmug]

ive argued for a Tasmanian side for years, and it should have been ahead of GWS,

I dont agree with that premise. I think expanding a national competition to better cover the country is a sensible long term strategic objective. Working toward a better presence in the nations biggest city has to be a big part of that.
But seeing that we have an 18 team competition in which Tasmania is used as a door mat & not with any fairness or respect is a disgrace. This situation has evolved because of having too many teams in one place all fighting for survival. No one has the guts to rationalise the teams in the competition. Two in Perth but 9 in Melbourne is a recipe for inequality.
Rationalise or rust, thats how it looks to me.

 

[Colonial]

Sure, when the government pays for it. I believe the NSW government now has a policy of only funding a select number of grounds, and you'll find as the stands at those grounds age and the maintenance costs go up then NRL clubs will move to the major grounds on the basis of cost (and spectator comfort).
.

Yep, the idea is, there will be 3 areas for stadiums. East (SCG SFS) Middle (ANZ Skoda) and west. The west hasn't been decided on yet, Penrith have a 40k multipurpose stadium they are pushing and Parra are pushing a rectangle upgrade. Liverpool and Campbelltown also have something in the works to show the government.

 

[Colonial]

ive argued for a Tasmanian side for years, and it should have been ahead of GWS,

And we love you to. Personally I disagree though I believe they should have their own team just not ahead of us, I now have my own team so for selfish reasons....
Also just a point the massive tv deal just gotten for having a 2 QLD and NSW team means the bailouts that have been coming thick and fast can be paid easily by the AFL and also not effect junior funding.

 

[telsor]

Also just a point the massive tv deal just gotten for having a 2 QLD and NSW team means the bailouts that have been coming thick and fast can be paid easily by the AFL and also not effect junior funding.

You're kidding right?

The AFL would get a bigger deal if they didn't insist on forcing the networks to program relatively low rating shows (AFL football in NSW/QLD) in good timeslots.

Yes, in time there will be some advantage term from a 'national product', but in the short-mid term, they're not going to pay much for it because nobody watches.

For now, your club is a massive drain on the league. You exist because the league is gambling that in time you'll be a big enough positive to make it worthwile.

 

[madmug]

You're kidding right?

The AFL would get a bigger deal if they didn't insist on forcing the networks to program relatively low rating shows (AFL football in NSW/QLD) in good timeslots.

Yes, in time there will be some advantage term from a 'national product', but in the short-mid term, they're not going to pay much for it because nobody watches.

For now, your club is a massive drain on the league. You exist because the league is gambling that in time you'll be a big enough positive to make it worthwile.

So where do you think the league would be now without the 'expansion' clubs?
How much more equal would it be?, considering how 'equal' it was before the AFL started?
Would the VFL rate as well with national & international sponsors? How would the NRL & A-league be up against just the VFL in & around Melbourne?

 

[telsor]

So where do you think the league would be now without the 'expansion' clubs?
How much more equal would it be?, considering how 'equal' it was before the AFL started?
Would the VFL rate as well with national & international sponsors? How would the NRL & A-league be up against just the VFL in & around Melbourne?

Did you see what I was replying to?

the massive tv deal just gotten for having a 2 QLD and NSW team

Do you really think the networks paid bucket loads more money due to a couple of infant teams that few would watch?

In the future, quite possibly. As I said, these clubs are a long term play, but claiming that the size of the current TV deal was due to these clubs is a fallacy. If anything, the AFL would have got less for forcing the networks to waste airtime showing them when a replay of australias funniest home videos would have rated better.

 

[Colonial]

So where do you think the league would be now without the 'expansion' clubs?
How much more equal would it be?, considering how 'equal' it was before the AFL started?
Would the VFL rate as well with national & international sponsors? How would the NRL & A-league be up against just the VFL in & around Melbourne?

But but but, if we just had the VFL originals. All the top athletes would come from around the country to play for these great historical clubs, tv stations would be lined up to pay top dollar.

Nothing like blind stupidity

 

[Colonial]

Do you really think the networks paid bucket loads more money due to a couple of infant teams that few would watch?

In the future, quite possibly. As I said, these clubs are a long term play, but claiming that the size of the current TV deal was due to these clubs is a fallacy. If anything, the AFL would have got less for forcing the networks to waste airtime showing them when a replay of australias funniest home videos would have rated better.

Having a game every week in both NSW and Qld was a big thing. Its a fallacy to say otherwise. Your blind hatred is showing, as is your lack of knowledge about anything north of the border.

 

[telsor]

Having a game every week in both NSW and Qld was a big thing. Its a fallacy to say otherwise. Your blind hatred is showing, as is your lack of knowledge about anything north of the border.

You know, when you go the man, not the ball, it usually means your argument sucks.

It's a big thing for the AFL, for the expansion of the game and the long term development of the game in NSW & QLD.

Showing low rating programming is NOT a big thing for the networks.

Low ratings = low advertising revenue. They're not going to be forking out a fortune for something that wont make them money during the current contract.


Just because I don't accept your false claims doesn't mean I don't support the expansion of the league.