Uneven playing field

[Johnny Member]

Saintsaintional's own Todd Sampson. Spare me.

Speak for yourself.

Ummm, I am speaking for myself.

[desertsaint]

Johnny's convinced me. I'm ditching the Saints, joining the hipster crowd in cheering on iProducts in the big leagues and Kickstarter projects in the seconds. Steve Jobs is my new god! Look at that sharemarket performance! we're the Hawthorn of the Dow Jones!

[Johnny Member]

Johnny's convinced me. I'm ditching the Saints, joining the hipster crowd in cheering on iProducts in the big leagues and Kickstarter projects in the seconds. Steve Jobs is my new god! Look at that sharemarket performance! we're the Hawthorn of the Dow Jones!

I'm saying you should do that, I'm saying you're already doing that.

All sports fans are.

[desertsaint]

Johnny's convinced me. I'm ditching the Saints, joining the hipster crowd in cheering on iProducts in the big leagues and Kickstarter projects in the seconds. Steve Jobs is my new god! Look at that sharemarket performance! we're the Hawthorn of the Dow Jones!

I'm saying you should do that, I'm saying you're already doing that.

All sports fans are.

i know johnny. and you're right - to a degree. the degree is what i was saying.

[Enrico_Misso]

Geelong must be kicking themselves.
All they had to do was ask for a home preliminary final at Kardinia Park and it would have been granted.

That is on the basis that the AFL have allocated the GWS Prelim to their boutique stadium that only holds 24,000.
That is only fair as GWS has earnt that right, irrespective of the fact that the two competing clubs in the second most important match of the year have over 110,000 members.

So in the name of consistency a final at KP which holds over 30k would have been a certainty had the Cats just bothered to ask.

[st.byron]

But my point is, it's not 'our' business anymore.

And my other point, is that whether we'd have won 2-3 flags or not is irrelevant.


St Kilda 2016 winning an AFL flag for me, is a completely different ball park to the St Kilda of 1987 winning a flag.


The St Kilda of 1987 was a club. It was a club I grew up supporting passionately and a flag back then would have meant something out of this world to me. I would have felt represented by the club, and I would have felt part of it. I also would have taken incredible pride from the club I was born into as a supporter, taking out the best sporting comp in the world.

However the St Kilda 2016 would have the same sort of appeal and value as the Storm, or West Ham or the Golden State Warriors winning one. They're all basically franchises playing in an entertainment business. I love sport, and get pleasure out of watching it. It's entertaining and I follow a team, and it gives me more pleasure when they win.

But would I still give a s*** a week or two later? Probably not. Not any more. Back in the Moorabbin days though, I would have got a Saints tattoo, sworn to name my first born Tony and still be celebrating 3 years later.


And FWIW, I think that's the issue that lies ahead for the AFL. Supporters like me, and the ones that the AFL lured in with the shiny jumpers, bright lights and high scoring footy - don't love clubs any more. They are consumers of a product. And as consumers do, when something better comes along they simply move on.

Once the diehards like many on this site move on, wake up or die, the average AFL fan will just be a consumer. And they'll be very hard to hold onto when there's soccer, NFL, NBA and even the UFC to contend with. The AFL has always had the emotional members. Always. And the reason for that was the clubs. Now that the clubs aren't clubs anymore, with no genuine link to their fans, these types of supporters will disappear.

There's plenty of entertainment options out there.

Very interesting perspective Johnny and much of what you say I agree with. The same thing has happened with cricket where it's now regarded as a product. I remember hearing the dude they brought in to push the Big Bash, Mike McKenna, refer to it as a product and the fans as their consumers. It turned me right off at the time and sadly that's what big sport has become.

I think the thing that's really changed is the loss of the tribal heartland of each team. Interestingly, with the exception of Hawthorn, those with a tribal heartland or at the very least a geographical place that anchors them with a stadium that really feels like home - those clubs look the healthiest.
Sydney, Adelaide, WCE, Geelong, GWS is heading in that direction. The traditional old clubs who have lost their tribal territory - most of the old Melbourne clubs - are not looking so strong. There's something in having that tribal homeland.

[SaintPav]

Saintsaintional's own Todd Sampson. Spare me.

Speak for yourself.

Ummm, I am speaking for myself.

and for everyone else too as per your generalisation about all sports fans.

[SaintPav]

Geelong must be kicking themselves.
All they had to do was ask for a home preliminary final at Kardinia Park and it would have been granted.

That is on the basis that the AFL have allocated the GWS Prelim to their boutique stadium that only holds 24,000.
That is only fair as GWS has earnt that right, irrespective of the fact that the two competing clubs in the second most important match of the year have over 110,000 members.

So in the name of consistency a final at KP which holds over 30k would have been a certainty had the Cats just bothered to ask.

Nice sarcasm

[stevie]

Why didn't the Crows refuse to play a Sat night game instead of a fairer arve or twilight game?

[spert]

Ultimately, no CEO or executive of any organisation is going to say that they hope their interstate venture will be a failure, and we don't want it to expand. What we need is strong leadership at our club in all negotiations, as we have suffered from spineless boards and presidents in the past.

[Johnny Member]

Saintsaintional's own Todd Sampson. Spare me.

Speak for yourself.

Ummm, I am speaking for myself.

and for everyone else too as per your generalisation about all sports fans.

My opinions are on behalf of myself.

The rest is fact. Not spoken on behalf of anyone. Sport is an entertainment business, and 'fans' and members are 'consumers'. The AFL themselves call us this.

If you watch, and/or pay to watch sport - you are consuming their product. That's fact.

[Johnny Member]

Ultimately, no CEO or executive of any organisation is going to say that they hope their interstate venture will be a failure, and we don't want it to expand. What we need is strong leadership at our club in all negotiations, as we have suffered from spineless boards and presidents in the past.

I think the trickle down economics employed by the AFL mean it doesn't really matter what we do.

The model is that the AFL make big money, and filter it out to clubs. They're not giving out money to be nice, or as 'handouts' as such - they're doing it because they need 18 clubs. The more people watching these clubs means the TV money is greater. The closer the games, mean more people watch. The more 'free flowing' and 'high scoring' means more people watch.

It's why Essendon and Collingwood get the ANZAC Day handout each year. And why the Saints and North get Sunday arvo games at Docklands each year. It's simply about maximising exposure.

It's also why we have all these 'inclusive' messages coming out of the AFL. It's not cause they're nice guys who want to help the community and include everyone - it's cause they don't discriminate against who forks out the cash to consume their product!

It's also why the AFL were so desperate to protect Essendon, and to help them out of the s*** as quickly a possible. There's probably 100k customers at risk if Essendon went down. That's bad for business.


The reality is though, in my opinion, is that there simply isn't enough of a market for there ever to be more than 4-5 'big' Victorian clubs. And even if there is, the AFL are still going to need games played on Sunday's at Docklands. There will always be a class system within the comp.

So unless you can get a bigger audience than Essendon, Collingwood, Hawthorn or Richmond - then they're always going to get the lion's share of the big ticket games.

The other reality is, that while the Saints and the Bulldogs are huffing and puffing and trying to convince their customers that they're on the right right track and will be a powerhouse one day - as long as Essendon, Collingwood and Hawthorn and Richmond keep getting the big time slots and the big exposure, they're never going to get in front of these clubs.

Think of the NBA just for example. How many people jump on the GSW or the Cavs, or even the Spurs because they're on TV a lot here? And because there's an Aussie or two in their lineups? If you know you get to see certain teams play regularly, you tend to find yourself following them. Or, if you're making a choice to pick a team - most people pick teams that they will actually get to watch.

The massive exposure these clubs get given by the AFL send them light years ahead of the rest. And keep them there.

I always have a chuckle when I read the term 'handouts' associated with the poor clubs, and the suggestion that they're being propped up. I mean seriously, how do you think North would be going now if they played at the MCG most Saturday arvos and had a 'blockbuster' handed to them 3-4 times a year every year for 15 years?

It's like Gina Reinhart getting tax concessions, while we cut the pension for the battlers cause they're draining the system.



FWIW, it's better to just watch the game, and forget about the off-field stuff. It's irrelevant. It's no longer important at all whether your club is doing well off-field. The AFL need 18 clubs, so they're not going to do anything with any club. No matter how much debt they have.

Although it's bulls*** that we had to travel 4 times in the second half of 2010 whilst Collingwood played the last 9 games of the season at the MCG - it's the system.

People watching is more important to fairness or an even comp. An even comp will never happen as it's not the aim of the game.


So you can either crack the s***s and refuse to consume their product, or simply sit back and be entertained by the game each week. Or do neither and go and consume the NFL's or the EPL's product instead.

[desertsaint]

i just hope the afl have taken note of the potential to draw big crowds at st kilda. going over all afl finals since 1990 we are only behind collingwood, richmond (small sample size of 9 so their ave is inflated due to rarity of appearances), geelong, and essendon. In best attendance single finals year by club we are third (2009), and we have the largest gf attendance in the afl era.
we have the largest footy crowd at etihad (geelong 2009), and the fifth largest against brisbane (2004) so the vast majority were saints fans.
Really think if we play our cards right, and etihad is paid out, we can become a power club and ensure our long term survival in melbourne, because, like the post above, i also cannot see more than six melbourne clubs in the next twenty years.

[Johnny Member]

i just hope the afl have taken note of the potential to draw big crowds at st kilda. going over all afl finals since 1990 we are only behind collingwood, richmond (small sample size of 9 so their ave is inflated due to rarity of appearances), geelong, and essendon. In best attendance single finals year by club we are third (2009), and we have the largest gf attendance in the afl era.
we have the largest footy crowd at etihad (geelong 2009), and the fifth largest against brisbane (2004) so the vast majority were saints fans.
Really think if we play our cards right, and etihad is paid out, we can become a power club and ensure our long term survival in melbourne, because, like the post above, i also cannot see more than six melbourne clubs in the next twenty years.

I wasn't suggesting there'll only be 6 Melbourne clubs.

I was saying there can only really be 6 (at best) big Melbourne clubs.

There will always ben 18 teams, and I can't imagine where they could attempt to put a new team.

My post above was stating the opposite. That all clubs are safe, as the AFL needs that many games played per season in order to get the dollars from the TV deals.

The whole 'oh no, my club is going to fold cause we're broke' thing is a thing of the past.

Clubs aren't 'broke' at all. They aren't given a fair deal by the AFL, therefore on face value their finances look bad. But if you look at the business as a whole (the AFL and all 18 clubs together), things are good financially. And that's what matters. The money, exposure and 'concessions' handed to the big clubs, mean that they stay big and get bigger. As a result, the AFL gets more people watching, and subsequently more money comes in.

Simply put - an AFL with a huge Essendon, Collingwood, Richmond, Sydney, etc. etc. and a 'broke' North, Brisbane, St Kilda etc. etc. makes far more money that an AFL with all 18 clubs doing Ok.

It's trickle down economics. Simple.


But you know the downside of trickle down economics though?

Same as our society. The rich get richer, but the poor will have at least have job. However the job is s***, boring and hard and makes them miserable and unhappy which makes for a s*** society.

[saintspremiers]

Why didn't the Crows refuse to play a Sat night game instead of a fairer arve or twilight game?

Who says they had any say in it?

Unless they did and fancied their chances better at night than a 3.20 "semi twilight" slot.

Even a 3.20 start would make it tricky to fly back home that night with curfews at both Sydney and Adelaide airports.

And before you say why not a 2.30 start, remember that rule that ratings over fairness ALWAYS!!

[asiu]

the rich get bitchier 'n the 'poor' get the opportunity to evolve another picture