Andrew Demetriou

[Ghost Dog]

This is the thread to discuss Andrew Demetriou and issues related to him.
His performance, decisions and media articles related to the former North Melbourne player, now head of the most powerful sporting organisation in Australia.

[Ghost Dog]

'Rude' AFL supremo 'blocked' Tassie bid

HAD there been a sliding doors moment, this week's spotlight might have been on them, and the people who drove Tasmania's push to secure the AFL's 18th licence remain convinced their bid was doomed from the outset because of the prejudice of one man - Andrew Demetriou.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/rude-afl-supremo-blocked-tassie-bid-20120321-1vkbt.html#ixzz1psKwCHbA

This comment stood out for me.

'Demetriou patted [Lennon's successor as premier] David Bartlett on the head and said, 'You've ticked all the boxes, you're still not getting a team','' Eslake said.


If true, not a good look.

[ledge]

Its puzzling isnt it, they cant sustain a team, dont have a ground good enough, so why are Nth and Hawks playing there?
I would love to see a team in Tassie I actually believe if they had theyre own team it would be a very strong club on its own without AFL fork outs like GWS and GC are going to get for years to come.

[LostDoggy]

Its puzzling isnt it, they cant sustain a team, dont have a ground good enough, so why are Nth and Hawks playing there?
I would love to see a team in Tassie I actually believe if they had theyre own team it would be a very strong club on its own without AFL fork outs like GWS and GC are going to get for years to come.

There is no doubt that a Tasmanaian team would be sustainable but it does nothing towards contributing to the value of TV rights. In order to extract the maximum return from those rights, the game needs at least two clubs in all mainland capitals. It's all about TV sets directed to AFL.

And let us never forget, without TV rights at the level now available, we would cease to exist.

[ledge]

There is no doubt that a Tasmanaian team would be sustainable but it does nothing towards contributing to the value of TV rights. In order to extract the maximum return from those rights, the game needs at least two clubs in all mainland capitals. It's all about TV sets directed to AFL.

And let us never forget, without TV rights at the level now available, we would cease to exist.

But wouldnt this increase the value to a whole state of Tasmania not just a city in TV rights.
I dont quite get what you mean sorry.

[Murphy'sLore]

But most Tasmanians watch AFL already. They need to pull in converts from non-AFL states to 'add value.'

Don't agree with this reasoning but I think that's the justification behind it.

[LostDoggy]

But wouldnt this increase the value to a whole state of Tasmania not just a city in TV rights.
I dont quite get what you mean sorry.

It's simply a matter of numbers. Compare the combined population of Brisbane and South-East Queensland together with Sydney with that of Tasmania. No race.

Then consider that alongside what FTA and Pay TV channels can charge for advertising in those two markets.

And that's why they are now prepared to pay a billion dollars to the AFL for TV rights.

[Ghost Dog]

It's simply a matter of numbers. Compare the combined population of Brisbane and South-East Queensland together with Sydney with that of Tasmania. No race.

Then consider that alongside what FTA and Pay TV channels can charge for advertising in those two markets.

And that's why they are now prepared to pay a billion dollars to the AFL for TV rights.

Personally, I think most AFL fans are pretty welcoming of the Tassie concept.
Most if not all fans would like there to be a Tassie team.
If the AFL wanted it to work, they would make it work. But they don't want it to. Simple as that.
If you are going to talk about numbers, what about Port Adelaide? the stadiums are practically empty when they play.
It will never be a national competition without Tassie IMO.

[ledge]

It's simply a matter of numbers. Compare the combined population of Brisbane and South-East Queensland together with Sydney with that of Tasmania. No race.

Then consider that alongside what FTA and Pay TV channels can charge for advertising in those two markets.

And that's why they are now prepared to pay a billion dollars to the AFL for TV rights.

But there is already sides in Brisbane and Sydney with which most of these would have all ready joined up if they are football fans and GWS is in a rugby area, why wouldnt you be interested in an AFL state, easier to attract to foxtel.
A whole new area and state to get into.

[bornadog]

But there is already sides in Brisbane and Sydney with which most of these would have all ready joined up if they are football fans and GWS is in a rugby area, why wouldnt you be interested in an AFL state, easier to attract to foxtel.
A whole new area and state to get into.

How many teams do you see in the AFL? 18 is already a big number.

[Ghost Dog]

How many teams do you see in the AFL? 18 is already a big number.

Agreed. Port is struggling. Have my sincere doubts about GWS. Especially after I heard their club song! :D

[ledge]

How many teams do you see in the AFL? 18 is already a big number.

My point was I think Tasmania should have been one of the first fledgling clubs, instead of Gold Coast or GWS or even Port or Freo.

How many teams? thats a hard one, the AFL seems to be helping out a lot of clubs at the moment so maybe too many now, but in saying that they have introed 2 new clubs and neither are guaranteed to ever stand on their own.
Tasmania I believe would.
I do believe if we start to get any more a two division split would have to happen.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

There is no doubt that a Tasmanaian team would be sustainable but it does nothing towards contributing to the value of TV rights. In order to extract the maximum return from those rights, the game needs at least two clubs in all mainland capitals. It's all about TV sets directed to AFL.

And let us never forget, without TV rights at the level now available, we would cease to exist.

Whilst your argument is hard to dispute the huge influx of monies through increased TV rights is doing little to solve the finances of struggling Victorian Clubs like the WB, North Melbourne, Melbourne etc. The competition is still being dominated by the wealthy clubs such as Collingwood, Geelong, Hawthorn and WCE.
Westcoast and Adelaide will continue to be the dominant Clubs in their respective states and the same will occur with the Sydney Swans as compared with GWS.
This is simply creating a lop sided competition all in the cause of our frenzied attack on other football codes in states like Qld and NSW, which is completely money driven.
Compare the deal financially Geelong now enjoys with it's finances playing at home compared with our pathetic deal at Etihad. The same could be said when considering Collingwood's cosy deal at the MCG with our own. There is simply too many anomalies that the AFL has created in its mad push to create more wealth at the expense of maintaining a competitive and vibrant competition

[ledge]

Whilst your argument is hard to dispute the huge influx of monies through increased TV rights is doing little to solve the finances of struggling Victorian Clubs like the WB, North Melbourne, Melbourne etc. The competition is still being dominated by the wealthy clubs such as Collingwood, Geelong, Hawthorn and WCE.
Westcoast and Adelaide will continue to be the dominant Clubs in their respective states and the same will occur with the Sydney Swans as compared with GWS.
This is simply creating a lop sided competition all in the cause of our frenzied attack on other football codes in states like Qld and NSW, which is completely money driven.
Compare the deal financially Geelong now enjoys with it's finances playing at home compared with our pathetic deal at Etihad. The same could be said when considering Collingwood's cosy deal at the MCG with our own. There is simply too many anomalies that the AFL has created in its mad push to create more wealth at the expense of maintaining a competitive and vibrant competition

We even floated the idea of playing interstate games at Geelong to raise more money for us and Andrew knocked it back.

[LostDoggy]

Whilst your argument is hard to dispute the huge influx of monies through increased TV rights is doing little to solve the finances of struggling Victorian Clubs like the WB, North Melbourne, Melbourne etc. The competition is still being dominated by the wealthy clubs such as Collingwood, Geelong, Hawthorn and WCE.
Westcoast and Adelaide will continue to be the dominant Clubs in their respective states and the same will occur with the Sydney Swans as compared with GWS.
This is simply creating a lop sided competition all in the cause of our frenzied attack on other football codes in states like Qld and NSW, which is completely money driven.
Compare the deal financially Geelong now enjoys with it's finances playing at home compared with our pathetic deal at Etihad. The same could be said when considering Collingwood's cosy deal at the MCG with our own. There is simply too many anomalies that the AFL has created in its mad push to create more wealth at the expense of maintaining a competitive and vibrant competition

The influx of money from TV rights has done plenty for North, Melbourne and the Bulldogs. It has allowed us to exist.

The issues you raise about the iniquity of stadiums deals is another point altogether and nothing to do with TV rights.

You have put Hawthorn in the ranks of the wealthy clubs and rightly so. They are there because of their own efforts in growing their membeship base through their decision to target Tasmania and as a result of their on-field efforts over en extended period of time.

They came into the AFL with North and ourselves and have thrived despite their historical disadvantages including a lousy area of support.

[Bulldog4life]

The influx of money from TV rights has done plenty for North, Melbourne and the Bulldogs. It has allowed us to exist.

The issues you raise about the iniquity of stadiums deals is another point altogether and nothing to do with TV rights.

You have put Hawthorn in the ranks of the wealthy clubs and rightly so. They are there because of their own efforts in growing their membeship base through their decision to target Tasmania and as a result of their on-field efforts over en extended period of time.

They came into the AFL with North and ourselves and have thrived despite their historical disadvantages including a lousy area of support.

That "lousy area" of support is a relatively wealthy area. This helps when buying memberships.

[LostDoggy]

That "lousy area" of support is a relatively wealthy area. This helps when buying memberships.

It was a geographically small area of stately homes inhabited by people who spent their Saturday afternoons doing tapestry and knocking off the odd glass of sweet sherry. Not a football person in sight.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

It was a geographically small area of stately homes inhabited by people who spent their Saturday afternoons doing tapestry and knocking off the odd glass of sweet sherry. Not a football person in sight.

Hawthorn had 13,000 members at the time of the aborted merger with Melbourne. Since then it has attracted 55,000 members including 8,000 in Tasmania. It's success in the '80's in playing in 7 grand finals in succession plus it's relocation to Waverley gave it penetration into the outer Eastern region apart from its previous inner base. The Hawks were also able to build a team of 400 volunteers as part of a huge membership drive. They had a dynamic President in Ian Dicker who deserves great credit in making Hawthorn, one of the real powerhouses in the AFL. It is a great story.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

The influx of money from TV rights has done plenty for North, Melbourne and the Bulldogs. It has allowed us to exist.

The issues you raise about the iniquity of stadiums deals is another point altogether and nothing to do with TV rights.

You have put Hawthorn in the ranks of the wealthy clubs and rightly so. They are there because of their own efforts in growing their membeship base through their decision to target Tasmania and as a result of their on-field efforts over en extended period of time.

They came into the AFL with North and ourselves and have thrived despite their historical disadvantages including a lousy area of support.

The Bulldogs have struggled to survive ever since it's first finals appearance in 1938. The latest Tv rights will assist our survival but one might ask at what cost?
For example we are the only AFL Club to lose potentially two top six players in Harbrow and Ward. This simply doesn't occur in the top 4-5 clubs who have the resources to retain its better players. We rarely attract a Jolley or a Ball who were able to help Collingwood win a flag two years ago. Our lack of depth continues to be a major problem with perhaps only our six best players considered good enough to make a Geelong, Collingwood and Hawthorn senior team. Apart from North Melbourne we probably have to work harder than any other League Club for its success.
The ability for example to promote at least 4 rookie players like Boyd, Morris, Picken and Daulhaus is symtomatic of the level we go to to unearth talent and to be able to compete.
The introduction of the Suns and GWS again weakens our ability to recruit quality young players in order to compete against the stronger Clubs. I question the wisdom of going to 18 clubs. The generosity of a Channel 7 may not always be there for the AFL as being a licence to print money. I like your passion and argument but at the end of the day are we seriously really any better off on the field and ultimately that is what counts.

[SonofScray]

Vlad has been pretty good for the AFL. One thing that I feel he has been wrong in, yet succeed masterfully at is the ability to make the League bigger than the game, or any club. The purpose of each weekend is to enhance the league's brand amnd its coffers, hence the insatiatable need to monitor behaviour and manage perceptions.

He has exerted a huge level of control over the game itself, not just his League. I don't like that at all. I don't like the homogenisation of Club's under his reign, the loss of autonomy. For mine, the AFL has grown a bit too powerful as its own entity, it is an arrogant organisation which does at it pleases and gets its way regardless.

I fiind the management of the 'bump' under Vlad's reign to be really poor and unbalanced. Incidental high contact while performing a long established skill of the game gets players severely punished yet cowardly and unsportsmanlike acts such as jumper punches and the like go unpunished, or in some cases rewarded where a player retaliates.

It is sympotmatics of a lot of what his team have done, or are doing. Its all about improving the brand and being seen to be doing something, even if it is responding to moral outrage, or reacting to a passing trend, or being dictated to by the networks. It rarely seems as if it is genuine, or neccessary or right. Just a string of business cliches.

[SonofScray]

......at what cost?


That is really the key question. I think it has been their biggest masterstroke, no one is in a position to really consider it and speak up anymore. If they are, they won't because they are the direct beneficiaries.

The integrity of the competion and Club's individual identies are at risk as a result of the system in place now. The game of Aussie Rules certainly has suffered.

[jeemak]

Vlad has been pretty good for the AFL. One thing that I feel he has been wrong in, yet succeed masterfully at is the ability to make the League bigger than the game, or any club. The purpose of each weekend is to enhance the league's brand amnd its coffers, hence the insatiatable need to monitor behaviour and manage perceptions.

He has exerted a huge level of control over the game itself, not just his League. I don't like that at all. I don't like the homogenisation of Club's under his reign, the loss of autonomy. For mine, the AFL has grown a bit too powerful as its own entity, it is an arrogant organisation which does at it pleases and gets its way regardless.

I fiind the management of the 'bump' under Vlad's reign to be really poor and unbalanced. Incidental high contact while performing a long established skill of the game gets players severely punished yet cowardly and unsportsmanlike acts such as jumper punches and the like go unpunished, or in some cases rewarded where a player retaliates.

It is sympotmatics of a lot of what his team have done, or are doing. Its all about improving the brand and being seen to be doing something, even if it is responding to moral outrage, or reacting to a passing trend, or being dictated to by the networks. It rarely seems as if it is genuine, or neccessary or right. Just a string of business cliches.

Your first two paragraphs sum up the situation perfectly for me.

We have been in a lucky position as a football club (as have NM, Melb, Port and a couple of others) with respect to the AFL's mantra of maximising profits for the long term sustainability and development of the game. As soon as they determine that 18 teams doesn't equal value in TV rights and attendances we're going to find ourselves in some trouble.

You can say that Vlad has been good for our club and in a lot of ways you might be right, though as soon as the philosophy of the AFL changes and they decide a Victorian team or two needs to go - and this will happen - you can count on Vlad banging the AFL's drums the hardest.

He knows from which side his bread gets buttered, and I can assure you it isn't ours.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Still don't like him.