Eddie makes you chuckle- Age

[saintspremiers]

Pooling the revenue is NOT the answer.
It will eventually lead to some clubs hosting huge crowds with huge sponsorship.
And other clubs with poor crowds and little sponsorship.
Propping them up with ever increasing subsidies is NOT a long term solution.

What you want is for each club to get EXPOSURE
- exposure in blockbusters
- exposure on Fri nights
- exposure on free-to-air Sat night games

Exposure = new members
Exposure = sponsorship
Exposure = financial (semi) independence.

Yes true but will the TV networks still pay through the nose for broadcast rights?

[Enrico_Misso]

Possibly spreading the blockbusters and free to air games around might decrease the TV rights in the short term.
But this is all about a long term plan for a healthy vibrant competition.

You also have to remember that the vast bulk of the TV audience for any televised game is neutral.
The criteria for them to keep watching to the end is
- is the game close?
- is the game entertaining?

Building up some hype between Coll and Essendon might hold the attention of neutral viewers for one quarter.
But if the game is one-sided they will switch off in droves.

Having a competition where all clubs get exposure and supporters and sponsorship will lead to interest in all games.

Hopefully the broadcasters will realise that the quality of the game ultimately determines how many viewers watch to the end NOT who is playing.

[dragit]

Pooling the revenue is NOT the answer.
It will eventually lead to some clubs hosting huge crowds with huge sponsorship.
And other clubs with poor crowds and little sponsorship.
Propping them up with ever increasing subsidies is NOT a long term solution.

What you want is for each club to get EXPOSURE
- exposure in blockbusters
- exposure on Fri nights
- exposure on free-to-air Sat night games

Exposure = new members
Exposure = sponsorship
Exposure = financial (semi) independence.

Yes true but will the TV networks still pay through the nose for broadcast rights?

Who gives a sheet, the AFL is meant to be a non profit orginisation… 18 clubs with around 40,000 (720,000) members is better long term than 6 X 80,000 + 12 X 20,000 (720,000)...

50,000 (X9 = 450,000) each round should be the aim...
Not 90,000... 60,000... 50,000... 40,000 & 6 X 25,000 (390,000)

North Vs Saints Anzac day would bring 50,000... Ess V Coll would bring at least 70,000 2 days later
or
Coll V Ess Anzac day 90,000... North Vs Saints, 30,000... 2 days later.

What is better for the longer term of the competition?

Enrico is 100% spot on.

[plugger66]

Pooling the revenue is NOT the answer.
It will eventually lead to some clubs hosting huge crowds with huge sponsorship.
And other clubs with poor crowds and little sponsorship.
Propping them up with ever increasing subsidies is NOT a long term solution.

What you want is for each club to get EXPOSURE
- exposure in blockbusters
- exposure on Fri nights
- exposure on free-to-air Sat night games

Exposure = new members
Exposure = sponsorship
Exposure = financial (semi) independence.

Yes true but will the TV networks still pay through the nose for broadcast rights?

Who gives a sheet, the AFL is meant to be a non profit orginisation… 18 clubs with around 40,000 (720,000) members is better long term than 6 X 80,000 + 12 X 20,000 (720,000)...

50,000 (X9 = 450,000) each round should be the aim...
Not 90,000... 60,000... 50,000... 40,000 & 6 X 25,000 (390,000)

North Vs Saints Anzac day would bring 50,000... Ess V Coll would bring at least 70,000 2 days later
or
Coll V Ess Anzac day 90,000... North Vs Saints, 30,000... 2 days later.

What is better for the longer term of the competition?

Enrico is 100% spot on.

AFL is non profit. It would also not be 18 teams if the broadcast rights dropped by a big amount. Its that simple. yes they would have to finish the contract for 9 games a week but wouldnt have that in the next contract if they were actually losing money by having to give many clubs certain amount to stay alive. The fiaxture will never be level so at least make it so they good huge broadcast rights so the poorer sides continue. Its fantasy land stuff to suggest we could get most clubs with similar members. We didnt even get 40k when we played in 2 GF's in a row. And also had plenty of Friday night games.

Anzac day is supposed to be about celebrating that day and our game. A 50k crowd that happens weekly doesnt do a lot. You watch the lack of publicity if that happens and when there is less publicity there is less money in the game.

The question I would ask if what you say is that obvious to happen then why wouldnt it be done. Afterall the AFL have supported 16 to 18 clubs for years. My guess is all their data suggests they couldnt do what you say. it just wouldnt work.

[dragit]

Its fantasy land stuff to suggest we could get most clubs with similar members. We didnt even get 40k when we played in 2 GF's in a row. And also had plenty of Friday night games.

It may well never happen, but it should be the aim… 18 healthy clubs, not 5-6 billionaires & 5-6 on life support. The AFL are coming to terms with this, hence their investigation into genuine equalization > fixtures, stadium deals, sponsor deal, footy department spending cap… we're just scratching the surface… it's coming, slowly.

The question I would ask if what you say is that obvious to happen then why wouldnt it be done.

$.
Not a lot of incentive to equalize the competition if your personal bonus structure is centered around Collingwood playing Essendon twice every year…
I honestly can't see the broadcast money dropping by a huge amount, the last one was 1.25b, the next they are talking 1.6b. Does it matter if they only get 1.55b instead? For the sake of integrity and genuine equalization I think it would be worth it. I don't think the AFL are going broke any time soon, regardless of how the fixture is decided.

[Con Gorozidis]

Its BS from Koch. They get to play a showdown twice a year every year.

Crocodile tears to say they dont get blockbusters. They just get less

Not sure that is the point - the point is there is inequality in match scheduling.
I tend to agree with posters that exposure is something that needs to be addressed.
The blockbuster is self re-enforcing - in other words if you constantly have block busters then you become a bigger club and then you can constantly justify why you 'deserve' a blockbuster.

And as someone said - who gives a shite if the broadcasters shine a bit. The AFL is supposed to be not for profit. Adding 10% to wages at AFL house or to players does absolutely nothing at all for the fans and the game itself.
These peeps are supposed the custodians of the game - they don't 'OWN' the game. The game was around a lot longer before the AFL came into existence.
Somehow we have all been brainwashed that the main reason for the games existence is to maximise profits for AF house - this is a crap paradigm.
It does not have to be like that .

[Con Gorozidis]

continuing on my rant - and I agree 100% with dragit.

Since when has the games mgt been about maximising profits for broadcasters?
When did we get brainwashed into thinking that was the main reason for the games existence?
Total bs.

Its the people game.

It is like how people have been brainwashed into thinking Gine Rinehart 'owns' all of our resources and 'deserves' her billions. (but don't start me on that!)

[plugger66]

Its fantasy land stuff to suggest we could get most clubs with similar members. We didnt even get 40k when we played in 2 GF's in a row. And also had plenty of Friday night games.

It may well never happen, but it should be the aim… 18 healthy clubs, not 5-6 billionaires & 5-6 on life support. The AFL are coming to terms with this, hence their investigation into genuine equalization > fixtures, stadium deals, sponsor deal, footy department spending cap… we're just scratching the surface… it's coming, slowly.

The question I would ask if what you say is that obvious to happen then why wouldnt it be done.

$.
Not a lot of incentive to equalize the competition if your personal bonus structure is centered around Collingwood playing Essendon twice every year…
I honestly can't see the broadcast money dropping by a huge amount, the last one was 1.25b, the next they are talking 1.6b. Does it matter if they only get 1.55b instead? For the sake of integrity and genuine equalization I think it would be worth it. I don't think the AFL are going broke any time soon, regardless of how the fixture is decided.

It wouldnt matter if they got 1.55B but last time I looked dropping from 1.2B means less than 1.55B. You realise they are talking that amount because Channel 9,7 and 10 will bid to get to get the big games. Suctions dont work unless 2 or more bid just like you guessing they will only drop .05B im guessing if the games arent big games so only one station may bid and they could drop 350 million. Who knows its all guess work for us but I dont think it would be guess work for the AFL.

[saintbrat]

Despite them having a great stadium deal the Cats have not made huge profits

hence Colin Carter makes sense

"Carter wrote a seminal paper on equalisation for the AFL, and said Collingwood would lose Anzac Day if the AFL were truly equalised.

“There is (good will) and the larger clubs are talking nonsense if they talk like that,’’ he said.

“There are legitimate grounds for compensation and one of those is the fixture. Let’s not kid ourselves, the fixture is worth millions.

“The big clubs play more often, they get better fixturing spots and if you put a value on that you come up with pretty large numbers.

“I feel pretty strongly that if the bigger clubs want to have an equalised competition (but won’t share revenue) they can give up Anzac Day and give up their share of Friday night fixtures.

“I would be saying to Eddie (McGuire) and Andrew (Newbold) and all of the rich fellas on the block, that let’s start off by quantifying your advantage which the other clubs don’t get, and after we have done that, let’s see if we need to do more.”

Read more: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/t ... z2txNWmt4t

[matrix]

showdowns dont count
thats just thee way it is with two teams in one state
no diff to watching collingwood essendon and getting 50 thousand at mcg
same as dockers eagles
how about making the whole fixture a f****** draw and get it over with
koch should be involved in the afl in my opinion
love him or hate him he will do wonders for port and footy i reckon

[gringo]

I can't believe they haven't somehow started an assault on our culture to hide the Marley Williams thing. Usually a Collingwood stuff up starts a round of Saints culture issues coming out.

[bobmurray]

Eddie should have his photo in the dictionary, as the definition for knob

[saintbrat]

none so blind as those who are blinded by fanatacism..
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/e ... 3417t.html
mmm- trade tampering to circumvent free agencies introduction... players training when not allowed...

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-pre ... 6844580625

probably more a case of every team has tweaked the system at some point...

[saintbrat]

and Robbo firing back
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/e ... 6845128215


is he wondering where his' sources ' may be now.