Friday Night Footy - where do we rank?

[Throughandthrough]

Obviously we weren't deemed worthy to score a Friday night gig this year.

With the rise of Bonti etc, will we be worthy enough to be the feature match at least once next season?

If we are, at whose expense?

(Written after switching off an inept Carlton performance)

[bornadog]

Carltons Expense, they are woeful.

[chef]

Carltons Expense, they are woeful.

Apart from last night their friday night games have been very entertaining and pulling a crowd.

[chef]

We'll get one if we're lucky next year.

[Go_Dogs]

We'll get one if we're lucky next year.

Yes, I won't be holding my breath that we will get one, although there does appear to be a lot of media excitement about our youngsters which bodes well (although perhaps the same could've been said after our finish to last season).

[bornadog]

We'll get one if we're lucky next year.
Based on the AFL's reasoning the Saints shouldn't get one like they did this year

[chef]

Based on the AFL's reasoning the Saints shouldn't get one like they did this year

They shouldn't but when it comes to the AFL who knows.

[wimberga]

I'd say 1, maybe 2 would be achievable but as Chef pointed out, this is the AFL....

[F'scary]

We need to be matched against the big Vic clubs twice a season each: Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Richmond & Hawthorn.

Then we would be bound to get onto some of the better time slots, including Friday night.

[Remi Moses]

That was Ports first Friday night game in 3 years
Under the AFL's criteria Caaaarlton shouldn't be getting a Friday night game next season.

[azabob]

We need to be matched against the big Vic clubs twice a season each: Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Richmond & Hawthorn.

Then we would be bound to get onto some of the better time slots, including Friday night.

Yep, and on free to air.

[Mantis]

Carltons Expense, they are woeful.

The Carlton v Geelong game last Friday was very good.

[ledge]

Carlton has won one out of 6 Friday night games I think they said on tv last night

[chef]

Carlton has won one out of 6 Friday night games I think they said on tv last night

But the majority were tight games that were enjoyable to watch.

[ledge]

I'm sure that didn't enter the AFLs mindset when we were playing close Friday night games and im sure we didn't lose 6 out of 7

[chef]

I'm sure that didn't enter the AFLs mindset when we were playing close Friday night games and im sure we didn't lose 6 out of 7

Not sure what results have do with it, would think bums on seats, corporate box numbers and TV numbers are what really counts to the AFL.

[Remi Moses]

But the majority were tight games that were enjoyable to watch.

That's not the point though. Under the AFL's own edict 7 wins shouldn't earn a team Friday night footy.

[Remi Moses]

Not sure what results have do with it, would think bums on seats, corporate box numbers and TV numbers are what really counts to the AFL.

Have everything to do with it. A bottom 5 team against one of the top teams isn't going to generate eyes on the screen.

[chef]

Have everything to do with it. A bottom 5 team against one of the top teams isn't going to generate eyes on the screen.

If the bottom 5 side is a Richmond or a Carlton or a Collingwood than they are going to generate those eyes, as well as corporate interest and bums on seats.

The AFL doesn't give a stuff about being equal(I think thats pretty blatant), revenue is what really matters.

[chef]

That's not the point though. Under the AFL's own edict 7 wins shouldn't earn a team Friday night footy.

In a perfect world this would be true, sadly we are one of the have nots.

[Doc26]

With prime interest in Friday night games, why is it that two Friday night games is rarely part of the conversation ? Where is it written that Friday night shall be for one and only one game ?

With clash games a regular occurrence at other time slots i.e Saturday afternoon, Saturday evening and Sunday dusk it's not like it's without precedent. Sunday dusk has proven to be a basket case, why not replace it with another Friday night game to help even the ledger or is Fox and Seven truly running the show.

[AndrewP6]

, why not replace it with another Friday night game to help even the ledger or is Fox and Seven truly running the show.

That's it in a nutshell.

[ledge]

Play an interstate game and a Melbourne game Friday nights

[soupman]

I think since we do have a fixture then it should atleast present to fairly allocate the games.

This season there were 23 rounds, which means 23 Friday night games (a split round makes up for the Good Friday debacle).

That means there are 46 Friday night slots to fill with teams. It i ridiculous to suggest that for two seasons we haven't been worthy of a single slot in 92, especially when there are only 17 other competitors.

What should happen is that every team should be guaranteed 2 Friday night games a season, one home and one away. That takes 36 of the slots. That leaves 10. My preference would be to see these 10 distributed amongst the top 4 who have earnt the timeslot, with each getting 2, and then two wildcard slots to be allocated as seen fit. Alternatively and more realistically they would be the broadcast partners slots to choose, helping them try and maximise their ratings.

I would have a similiar system for Saturday night games (2 a week=92), with every team getting 4 for the season, leaving 20 to be randomly allocated. A Thursday night timeslot would forfeit one of that clubs Saturday slots.

I would continue applying this for all timeslots to make the fixture as even as possible, giving every team a fair fixture, but still allowing the broadcaster the opportunity to manipulate some matchups.

It is however logical and fair, and thus would not be implemented under the AFL's nurture the strong, use the weak policy. I look forward to Collingwoods 7 Friday night games next year and our none because after all it's for the good of the game.

[G-Mo77]

Wait. There are games on Friday night? I thought they scrapped Friday night footy. :)

[Guido]

What should happen is that every team should be guaranteed 2 Friday night games a season, one home and one away.
Should St Kilda and Melbourne really be guaranteed Friday night slots next year? Free to air networks and Foxtel have tipped in billions in to the game across the last decade, they should be able to say they want top quality games for certain time slots, or that clubs with double the supporters should be given preference in line ball calls.

We got our share of Friday night games when a top 4 team, I don't buy into this theory that it's some kind of anti-poor club agenda - an anti-poor team agenda, most definitely. But with the right long term decision making and systems in place, every team has the scope to be top 4.

And although we are definitely disadvantaged with elements of fixturing and TV scheduling, in pure dollar terms, with a 100% randomly allocated fixture a 100% fair TV schedule and no discretionary assistance, IMO our bottom line would be much worse off.

[LostDoggy]

Should St Kilda and Melbourne really be guaranteed Friday night slots next year? Free to air networks and Foxtel have tipped in billions in to the game across the last decade, they should be able to say they want top quality games for certain time slots, or that clubs with double the supporters should be given preference in line ball calls.

We got our share of Friday night games when a top 4 team, I don't buy into this theory that it's some kind of anti-poor club agenda - an anti-poor team agenda, most definitely. But with the right long term decision making and systems in place, every team has the scope to be top 4.

And although we are definitely disadvantaged with elements of fixturing and TV scheduling, in pure dollar terms, with a 100% randomly allocated fixture a 100% fair TV schedule and no discretionary assistance, IMO our bottom line would be much worse off.

Let's give up then and not even question he AFL.

[Greystache]

I don't why people are getting wound up about who "earned" Friday night games and who didn't. It's a convenient line the AFL throws out when some of the smaller clubs are down the ladder, but like everything else AFL, it's as flimsy as the rest of their excuses. When the bigger clubs are back down the ladder they'll go back to the "maximising attendances" policy as justification for piling on Friday night games for big clubs down the bottom of the ladder.

Like everything else in the AFL, the earning of Friday night games is a charade, the fixture and timeslot allocations are a orchestrated as everything else. Support the rich and tell the poor to stop complaining.

[Guido]

I don't why people are getting wound up about who "earned" Friday night games and who didn't. It's a convenient line the AFL throws out when some of the smaller clubs are down the ladder, but like everything else AFL, it's as flimsy as the rest of their excuses. When the bigger clubs are back down the ladder they'll go back to the "maximising attendances" policy as justification for piling on Friday night games for big clubs down the bottom of the ladder.

Like everything else in the AFL, the earning of Friday night games is a charade, the fixture and timeslot allocations are a orchestrated as everything else. Support the rich and tell the poor to stop complaining.
No-one's arguing that they're not orchestrated, but 5 Friday night fixtures in 2009 against Essendon, Geelong, Richmond and Collingwood and another 7 Friday night fixtures across those next two years says they were allocated based somewhat on the team's performance rather than how rich/poor or small/big the club was.

Some of our games while we've been down have been almost unwatchable. There's at least a dozen games across the last few years which the club should consider itself lucky were on Foxtel in a nothing timeslot, because if they were on a Friday night they would have caused irreparable damage as opposed to have helped in any way.

[Greystache]

No-one's arguing that they're not orchestrated, but 5 Friday night fixtures in 2009 against Essendon, Geelong, Richmond and Collingwood and another 7 Friday night fixtures across those next two years says they were allocated based somewhat on the team's performance rather than how rich/poor or small/big the club was.

Some of our games while we've been down have been almost unwatchable. There's at least a dozen games across the last few years which the club should consider itself lucky were on Foxtel in a nothing timeslot, because if they were on a Friday night they would have caused irreparable damage as opposed to have helped in any way.

That was before the new broadcast rights deal and is a bygone era.

Carlton played 8 Friday night games alone this season, losing 7 by an average margin of 28 points. That on the back of finishing 9th the season before and getting a final by default. Collingwood got 6 on the back of finishing 8th. Port finished 6th (and knocked out Collingwood) and got 1.

Previous year's performance is irrelevant unless you're a small club.

[Maddog37]

Gotta agree with Greystache here. The afl will do whatever it can to keep the big clubs happy and lip service to the rest.

[Cyberdoggie]

Here's some interesting figures for you:

Comparing Carlton who technically finished outside the 8 but are credited inside due to 1 win, and Freo who were runners up.

Fremantle this year have 2 home first game of the round matches (1xfriday, 1xthursday) and 4 in total Home and Away matches that were the first game of the round at night.


Carlton had 4 home games for first match, and 8 H&A games.
That's 34% of their games for the year were the first game of the round.
Carlton also had 13 night games for the year. 57% of their games are under lights.

Complete list of first match of the round numbers:
Carl 8
Haw 7
Ess 7
Coll 6
Nth 5
Gee 5
SS 4
Freo 4
Ade 3
Rich 3 (10 games under lights)
Stk 2
Bris 1
WCE 1
Port 1

Mel, WB, GC, GWS 0


So looking at the above do you think it's performance based?
I know some clubs push for certain days/times more as a preference for their members but in general it looks like the big 4 from Melbourne get rewarded the most.

Really need to check this over past years and into next year as Carlton and Collingwood should both finish outside the 8 this year, so you would expect them to get less priority.

[bornadog]

Gotta agree with Greystache here. The afl will do whatever it can to keep the big clubs happy and lip service to the rest.
ditto

[Guido]

That was before the new broadcast rights deal and is a bygone era.

Carlton played 8 Friday night games alone this season, losing 7 by an average margin of 28 points. That on the back of finishing 9th the season before and getting a final by default. Collingwood got 6 on the back of finishing 8th. Port finished 6th (and knocked out Collingwood) and got 1.

Previous year's performance is irrelevant unless you're a small club.
A bygone era? What changed between broadcast deals? The networks didn't want to make money 3/4 years ago? lol

Fact is that Collingwood will always get their half a dozen games, ditto Essendon, when the fixture was designed Carlton were odds on to make the 8 with Malthouse at the helm, the networks lap that kind of bullshit up.

On the other side of the coin however, pretty much every club (including ours) requests to get Collingwood/Essendon/Carlton, and if it falls on a Friday night, even better - add their fan bases measured at between 600,000-1 million supporters across the country each into the equation, some money hungry networks, and yes, big clubs get games allocated for a number of different reasons.

This does not mean a great, consistent top 4 team playing an exciting brand of footy will be excluded from Friday nights just because they're a smaller/poorer club. When we get back to being a top 4 club, I'd put money on us getting back to having 3/4/5 Friday night games (which is MORE than what we would be allocated given a 100% even distribution).

[Greystache]

Here's some interesting figures for you:

Complete list of first match of the round numbers:
Carl 8
Haw 7
Ess 7
Coll 6
Nth 5
Gee 5
SS 4
Freo 4
Ade 3
Rich 3 (10 games under lights)
Stk 2
Bris 1
WCE 1
Port 1

Mel, WB, GC, GWS 0

Thanks for taking the time to put that together CD.

Essendon with 7. This is the same Essendon that hasn't won a final in more than a decade (only Richmond has a worse record), haven't finished above 8th in that time, and all they have to show from all those year is 2 finals thrashing against team that were nothing more than also rans. That's without bringing up the whole bringing the game into disrepute aspect.

[Prince Imperial]

Realistically we are not going to get any Thursday/Friday night matches next year. Hopefully we will get a better go on Saturday nights though. Only one of our home games (against Brisbane) was in this slot this year whilst we have had three Sunday twilight home matches (with the next day being a work day). If the AFL has any semblance of fairness this will be reversed but I'm not getting my hopes up.

[Greystache]

This does not mean a great, consistent top 4 team playing an exciting brand of footy will be excluded from Friday nights just because they're a smaller/poorer club. When we get back to being a top 4 club, I'd put money on us getting back to having 3/4/5 Friday night games (which is MORE than what we would be allocated given a 100% even distribution).

So in the periods of the cycle when we're at our peak we can expect fractionally MORE than average, and in the years we're not we'll get F all. And you're saying we should be happy? If we can be in the top 20% of the competition all the time we'll break about even from an exposure point of view, but if we follow the natural course of events (being top 4 one in every 4.5 years) we'll end up with about with about 33% of our share of Friday night exposure, while Carlton, Collingwood, and Essendon will get 300% regardless of performance.

Again, and we should be accepting of that? Lol

[Guido]

So in the periods of the cycle when we're at our peak we can expect fractionally MORE than average, and in the years we're not we'll get F all. And you're saying we should be happy? If we can be in the top 20% of the competition all the time we'll break about even from an exposure point of view, but if we follow the natural course of events (being top 4 one in every 4.5 years) we'll end up with about with about 33% of our share of Friday night exposure,
Across the last 7/8 years we've received, what, 18 odd Friday night matches? In a 100% fair comp, how many should we have received?


Again, and we should be accepting of that? Lol
It's not going to change no matter how much we bitch about it, so I think yes, we should accept it.

If you want the AFL to deliver a 100% fair Friday Night draw and expect businesses to invest hundreds upon hundreds of millions into broadcasting deals that guarantee them 15 odd games a season of low-rating, bottom 4 rubbish (involving teams like Melbourne and St Kilda this year) in prized prime time slots, then good luck with that.

On the other hand we can quit our whinging and moaning and focus on controlling what we can control, make ourselves a consistent drawcard without the busts and have those businesses fighting to have us feature on their coverage.

[Greystache]

It's not going to change no matter how much we bitch about it, so I think yes, we should accept it.

If you want the AFL to deliver a 100% fair Friday Night draw and expect businesses to invest hundreds upon hundreds of millions into broadcasting deals that guarantee them 20 odd games a season of low-rating, bottom 4 rubbish (like Melbourne and St Kilda this year) in prized prime time slots, then good luck with that.

On the other hand we can quit our whinging and moaning and focus on controlling what we can control, make ourselves a consistent drawcard without the busts and have those businesses fighting to have us feature on their coverage.

Sitting quietly and copping it while the gap we're trying to bridge is systematically widened is just giving up. Nothing more, nothing less.

With that approach we may as well focus our energy on the VFL and try to build a dynasty in the next competition down.

[bornadog]

It's not going to change no matter how much we bitch about it, so I think yes, we should accept it.

.

Lets do nothing and play every Sunday at 4.40pm, because if we do say nothing, that is what will happen.

[Guido]

Lets do nothing and play every Sunday at 4.40pm, because if we do say nothing, that is what will happen.
If we just stop with our persecution complex and focus on becoming a gun team with exciting talent and playing an even better brand of football, knocking the door down to a flag year in year out like Hawthorn or Geelong, we'll be stuck on Sunday 4:40 timeslots will we?

It's all about what we say, it's all about how much and how loud we whinge to the AFL, THAT'S what's stopping us from playing Friday nights, is it?

[whythelongface]

Across the last 7/8 years we've received, what, 18 odd Friday night matches? In a 100% fair comp, how many should we have received?

It's not going to change no matter how much we bitch about it, so I think yes, we should accept it.

If you want the AFL to deliver a 100% fair Friday Night draw and expect businesses to invest hundreds upon hundreds of millions into broadcasting deals that guarantee them 15 odd games a season of low-rating, bottom 4 rubbish (involving teams like Melbourne and St Kilda this year) in prized prime time slots, then good luck with that.

On the other hand we can quit our whinging and moaning and focus on controlling what we can control, make ourselves a consistent drawcard without the busts and have those businesses fighting to have us feature on their coverage.

Are all the games involving bottom half of the table teams low-rating? It would be interesting to see the ratings for all the games that have been played on a Friday night to see if this were actually the case.

I see where you are coming from in regards to broadcast rights but inevitably if the AFL wants the so-called lesser teams to survive then there should be a more even spread of prime time TV games. This way those clubs can hopefully then attract some more members.

[Greystache]

Across the last 7/8 years we've received, what, 18 odd Friday night matches? In a 100% fair comp, how many should we have received?

In the past 5 years we've played 9, that's despite 2 of them coming on the back of top 4 finishes, and since the new TV rights deal we've played 0.

In the past 2 years alone (since the new TV rights deal came in);

Carlton has played 11, despite a finishing 8th and 9th (8th on default).

Essendon has played 14, despite a finishing 8th (9th), and 9th

Collingwood has played 14, on the back of 4th and 6th

[LostDoggy]

If we just stop with our persecution complex and focus on becoming a gun team with exciting talent and playing an even better brand of football, knocking the door down to a flag year in year out like Hawthorn or Geelong, we'll be stuck on Sunday 4:40 timeslots will we?


OMG, Guido you're a genius, let's just become a gun football team to solve of our issues!

[bornadog]

In the past 5 years we've played 9, that's despite 2 of them coming on the back of top 4 finishes, and since the new TV rights deal we've played 0.

In the past 2 years alone (since the new TV rights deal came in);

Carlton has played 11, despite a finishing 8th and 9th (8th on default).

Essendon has played 14, despite a finishing 8th (9th), and 9th

Collingwood has played 14, on the back of 4th and 6th

The evidence is right there.

The more Friday nights those teams get, the more exposure, the more members, the more sponsorships - its self feeding and really a short term view and a total detriment to having an 18 club viable comp. At the other end we are going backwards.

[Guido]

OMG, Guido you're a genius, let's just become a gun football team to solve of our issues!
Can you try add something to the conversation? What's your view? Complaining and blaming everyone else about the disadvantages we face is the way forward?

When one was facing a merger in 1996 and the other was $10mil in debt in 1999, I really question how much time, resources and effort Geelong's and Hawthorn's presidents, CEOs and footy departments put into whinging about stuff they had no control over, and how much they put into turning their respective clubs around.

[Guido]

In the past 2 years alone (since the new TV rights deal came in);

Carlton has played 11, despite a finishing 8th and 9th (8th on default).

Essendon has played 14, despite a finishing 8th (9th), and 9th

Collingwood has played 14, on the back of 4th and 6th

There's nothing really new here, and it's been this way since about 2000. Now, the question is, what has 15 years of clubs like ours, Melbourne and North complaining to the AFL about big 4 clubs getting priority for Friday night fixtures achieved until this point?

And with the TV networks clearly being the biggest contributor to the AFLs finances and their business models being based on ratings (priority given to great teams or very well supported teams), what can realistically change going forward?

[bornadog]

Can you try add something to the conversation? What's your view? Complaining and blaming everyone else about the disadvantages we face is the way forward?

When one was facing a merger in 1996 and the other was $10mil in debt in 1999, I really question how much time, resources and effort Geelong's and Hawthorn's presidents, CEOs and footy departments put into whinging about stuff they had no control over, and how much they put into turning their respective clubs around.

I don't think our club is constantly whinging about our lot, but I do believe we should not just lie back and take it up the proverbial.

The club is doing everything possible to try and lift the on field performance and is doing a bloody good job off field as well.

Whilst I understand what you are saying about Friday night footy, I just don't believe the current regime of the AFL are going to ever come out with a fair draw where all teams are given a chance to promote themselves. All the current policy does is give those teams with more exposure, more blockbusters and better draws, the chance to be bigger and more powerful. Have a look at ANZAC day and the membership figures for Collingwood and Essendon, added with Friday nights. It has spiralled to huge numbers. Lets see Collingwood play 4.40 on Sunday (per recently when the lowest attendance of a match with Carlton for 40 plus years happened), every week, or play Cairns, Canberra, Launceston, Geelong and see what happens to their financial fortunes.

If the AFL doesn't listen then the Presidents of WB, North, Saints, Melbourne, GWS, GC, get together and put forward a motion of no confidence in the entire AFl Commissioners until they listen.

[Maddog37]

You need cash to put a good team on the park. No cash due to poor fixture and low exposure means you can't improve coaching, recruiting etc which in turn leads to no improved on field performance.

Around in circles we go.......

[bornadog]

You need cash to put a good team on the park. No cash due to poor fixture and low exposure means you can't improve coaching, recruiting etc which in turn leads to no improved on field performance.

Around in circles we go.......

The AFL's solution is tax the richer clubs and the money goes to poorer clubs football department.

I know our club was one of the instigators of this but I don't agree. In the end the way we will grow our revenue is better exposure on TV, better stadium deals, better draw and of course on field performance. Otherwise per my post above, the rich get richer and they give us handouts.

[Guido]

I don't think our club is constantly whinging about our lot, but I do believe we should not just lie back and take it up the proverbial.

The club is doing everything possible to try and lift the on field performance and is doing a bloody good job off field as well.

Whilst I understand what you are saying about Friday night footy, I just don't believe the current regime of the AFL are going to ever come out with a fair draw where all teams are given a chance to promote themselves. All the current policy does is give those teams with more exposure, more blockbusters and better draws, the chance to be bigger and more powerful. Have a look at ANZAC day and the membership figures for Collingwood and Essendon, added with Friday nights. It has spiralled to huge numbers. Lets see Collingwood play 4.40 on Sunday (per recently when the lowest attendance of a match with Carlton for 40 plus years happened), every week, or play Cairns, Canberra, Launceston, Geelong and see what happens to their financial fortunes.

If the AFL doesn't listen then the Presidents of WB, North, Saints, Melbourne, GWS, GC, get together and put forward a motion of no confidence in the entire AFl Commissioners until they listen.
Really good post.

I just don't like time being wasted on things we can't control.

We do get a few million a year as discretionary assistance from the AFL (which you would assumed is largely funded by TV money), which I don't think 2 additional Friday night matches/other preferred time slots and the associated additional gate receipts, members, sponsorships would make up.

Just focus on recruitment, development, list management, getting the right people in the right positions, and IMO these issues will work themselves out without any divine intervention - the networks will be begging we play Friday nights rather than the other way around.

Geelong, had they made the mistakes that we made with appointments, recruiting and list management that we did, and ended up being near the bottom 4 for a few years, would not be getting many, if any, Friday night games. St Kilda is the same. Hawthorn when they were a bottom 4 team and with their boring colours and style, how many networks preferred them to Collingwood and Essendon? Now, they are #1 on the wish lists.

Just get good, leave the non-stop whinging to North.

[Guido]

You need cash to put a good team on the park. No cash due to poor fixture and low exposure means you can't improve coaching, recruiting etc which in turn leads to no improved on field performance.

Around in circles we go.......
We had the resources to be top 4 for a few years, no reason we can't do it again.

Ports spends way less than Collingwood on their footy operations, look at their respective results.

Get the footy department (particularly recruitment and list management right), and you're more than half way there. Everyone's salary cap (other than Sydney) is the same, so it largely comes down to decision making - you don't need to spend millions to get good decisions makers in the right roles.

[Maddog37]

So we need to outperform the big clubs when they spend 4-5 million a year on footy departments just by being hard workers? Sounds good after 5 years when they have plowed 20million extra into recruiting etc all the hard work in the world won't make up for that advantage.

I say tax the the crap out of them. Better still, share all gate receipts and membership income. Alternatively construct a fair and equal draw that puts all clubs on level footing.

[Guido]

So we need to outperform the big clubs when they spend 4-5 million a year on footy departments just by being hard workers? Sounds good after 5 years when they have plowed 20million extra into recruiting etc all the hard work in the world won't make up for that advantage.

I didn't say work harder, everyone works hard. I'm saying spending isn't a guarantee of success. West Coast spends as much as anyone, made the finals 2 times since 2008, including bottom 4 finishes and a wooden spoon.

Port is more efficient with their resources. Fremantle, I haven't seen their numbers, but I very much doubt they are in the top 4 spenders footy department wise. At a guess, Adelaide would be though - how many Grand Finals for them since 2000?

St Kilda on the other hand was a kick away from the flag two years in a row with one of the lowest spending footy departments in the comp.

And the downfall of clubs, be they poor or rich? IMO it doesn't come down to spend, it comes down to decision making. Carlton in the late 90s was as rich as clubs come, by the early 2000s they were a mess due to earlier choices. Even ourselves, over the last 10 years we've blown millions and millions and quality draft picks on recruits who contributed nothing at the pointy end of the finals - the AFL, TV networks, fixturing or stadium deals did not force us into those deals. Lack of money in the footy department had nothing to do with any of them - it was decision making - and the right decisions in those situations many contributors on here could have offered/made for free.

[Maddog37]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/the-spending-gap-between-the-afls-rich-and-poor-has-ballooned-to-56-million/story-fni5ezdm-1226811508363

For info.

I thoroughly agree regarding some decision making but some players perhaps could have developed better with more resources which need to be funded. Chicken and egg.

[Guido]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/the-spending-gap-between-the-afls-rich-and-poor-has-ballooned-to-56-million/story-fni5ezdm-1226811508363

For info.

I thoroughly agree regarding some decision making but some players perhaps could have developed better with more resources which need to be funded. Chicken and egg.
Assuming the same disjointed list, how much difference do you think an extra $4-5mil per year invested in our footy department in 2012, 2013 and 2014 would have made to our performances in those years?

With things like player development, I reckon our young player development would rank close to the top 4 in the comp already, so I don't know how much that kind of money would improve it.

[Maddog37]

Injury management would also be impacted wouldn't it?

[Greystache]

There's nothing really new here, and it's been this way since about 2000. Now, the question is, what has 15 years of clubs like ours, Melbourne and North complaining to the AFL about big 4 clubs getting priority for Friday night fixtures achieved until this point?

And with the TV networks clearly being the biggest contributor to the AFLs finances and their business models being based on ratings (priority given to great teams or very well supported teams), what can realistically change going forward?

If you can't see a paradigm shift since the new TV rights deal came in then I'm going to struggle to get my point across, but I'll give it one last try.

The AFL has shortsightedly painted itself into a corner, and in doing so has sold a large number of teams down the river. The AFL is creating an environment where only a handful of teams will have any possibility of drawing high ratings or big crowds, because they'll have been the only teams new supporters would have ever seen. If the current approach continues the AFL will be dependent on it's 6 or so chosen children to keep the league's value high, not the other way around. The league will be beholden to their clubland masters And with so few teams with rating or crowd pulling abilities the value of their beloved TV rights will actually decline.

The TV networks will look at the league and say "we're only interested in games between these 8 clubs and this is what we'll pay, you can throw in the rest of the garbage but we're not paying top dollar for it".

Bringing attention to this crazy approach is our commercial responsibility as a business, and as a business team, it is in fact a major component of their jobs. The footy department can take care of themselves, they should in no way be affected by the business side of the operation. If our sole business strategy is to be the best footy team, we're going out of business, because I'll give you a quick head's up, there's 17 other teams trying to do the same thing.

You can talk about AFL funded compensation as an equalisation tool but that's just boganomics. The league is bleeding the club to within an inch or it's life and then giving us a few drips of saline to keep us out of a coma. Then to make matters worse, they take that blood and inject it into our opponents to increase their white blood cell count.

[Guido]

Injury management would also be impacted wouldn't it?
Collingwood's the highest spending club in the league, according to that article, right? Yet have a look at their current crisis with soft tissue injuries. It's cost them a finals spot. Essendon similar story across the last couple of years, Carlton have their question marks with training load/injury management as well. 3 of the top footy department spends in the league right there. Where's Port? Spending $4mil less, yet would tear all three of them apart come first week of finals.

Recruitment - with our supposedly tiny budget, Stringer, Hrovat, Macrae and Bonts in the last couple of seasons. I'm just making a massive assumption here, but I reckon someone like Clayton might have been on double, and I don't think there's a chance in hell he would have delivered the same results.

#RightPeopleRightPositions

[Maddog37]

If you can't see a paradigm shift since the new TV rights deal came in then I'm going to struggle to get my point across, but I'll give it one last try.

The AFL has shortsightedly painted itself into a corner, and in doing so has sold a large number of teams down the river. The AFL is creating an environment where only a handful of teams will have any possibility of drawing high ratings or big crowds, because they'll have been the only teams new supporters would have ever seen. If the current approach continues the AFL will be dependent on it's 6 or so chosen children to keep the league's value high, not the other way around. The league will be beholden to their clubland masters And with so few teams with rating or crowd pulling abilities the value of their beloved TV rights will actually decline.

The TV networks will look at the league and say "we're only interested in games between these 8 clubs and this is what we'll pay, you can throw in the rest of the garbage but we're not paying top dollar for it".

Bringing attention to this crazy approach is our commercial responsibility as a business, and as a business team, it is in fact a major component of their jobs. The footy department can take care of themselves, they should in no way be affected by the business side of the operation. If our sole business strategy is to be the best footy team, we're going out of business, because I'll give you a quick head's up, there's 17 other teams trying to do the same thing.

You can talk about AFL funded compensation as an equalisation tool but that's just boganomics. The league is bleeding the club to within an inch or it's life and then giving us a few drips of saline to keep us out of a coma. Then to make matters worse, they take that blood and inject it into our opponents to increase their white blood cell count.


Beautifully put.

[LostDoggy]

PG said at a Bulldogs function (meet the players in Dec last year or something) that one of the reasons we're not getting the exposure at key time slots is that the 'crowd' also looks pathetic - read colour, numbers, fanfare. He was told, to the effect, that the tv cameras don't want to pan behind the goals after scoring due to the lacklustre support/perception conveyed of the Bulldogs brand.

Likely one of the key reasons why the cheer squad was disbanded. You should have already noticed more colour etc in that region. Richmond, Carlton, Collingwood have continued to fill these areas with bums on seats, colour and passion throughout good and lean times.

Yes these factors are all related to the above discussion. Results on field, result in more attendance etc. But the AFL, the puppets for the TV rights holders, won't grant these core timeslots just for the sake of equality. It's too late now for this season, but imagine if all attendees, within reason, sat at one end and created a spectacle of cohesion and attendance like many soccer games do - just one mass of red, white & blue? Do you think the cameras would pan there, executives would take notice?

[Guido]

If you can't see a paradigm shift since the new TV rights deal came in then I'm going to struggle to get my point across, but I'll give it one last try.

The AFL has shortsightedly painted itself into a corner, and in doing so has sold a large number of teams down the river. The AFL is creating an environment where only a handful of teams will have any possibility of drawing high ratings or big crowds, because they'll have been the only teams new supporters would have ever seen. If the current approach continues the AFL will be dependent on it's 6 or so chosen children to keep the league's value high, not the other way around. The league will be beholden to their clubland masters, not the other way around. And with so few teams with rating or crowd pulling abilities the value of their beloved TV rights will actually decline.

The TV networks will look at the league and say "we're only interested in games between these 8 clubs and this is what we'll pay, you can throw in the rest of the garbage but we're not paying top dollar for it".

We have to deal in reality - Channel 7 and Foxtel run a business, and they either want top drawing teams or top performing teams in those slots. You agree with that? They pay their hundreds of millions per year for the privilege and are allowed to request this.

What is your solution to them wanting the highest rating teams in the highest rating timeslots? What is your solution to businesses wanting what is in their best interests?

That the AFL somehow dictate that networks must have games involving bottom teams 5 teams at least 20 times a season, even if some are downright unwatchable?

If the AFL takes, say, a $30mil hit on the broadcast rights on that policy, where do you think their first withdrawal of funds will be from? It won't be from helping Gold Coast or GWS. Nor will they say that player salaries will need to be lowered to help out the poorer clubs. IMO if history is any guide, it'll be from financial support for its own clubs.

If our sole business strategy is to be the best footy team, we're going out of business, because I'll give you a quick head's up, there's 17 other teams trying to do the same thing.

IMO this goes to the core of the self defeating culture that has plagued this club for the last 90 years.

Being the best club should be our #1 strategy, it should permeate through the blood of every board member, employee, through every player, it should be what everyone goes back to when asking any question on the direction of the club - what do we need to do to be the best club in the land.

Of course there's 17 other teams trying to do the same thing, same environment that Sydney, Geelong and Hawthorn have excelled in the last generation. Same environment where some clubs have won over 15 premierships and others 1.

"Oh we can't be the best team, there's another 17 teams trying to be the best team." Get stuffed with this defeatist bullshit.

Stop looking for reasons on why we can't succeed, just too many excuses on every friggin level. "The AFL, the other clubs, fixturing, stadium agreements, everyone's against us"

We can be the bloody best, on every bloody level. There is NOTHING stopping us.


You can talk about AFL funded compensation as an equalisation tool but that's just boganomics. The league is bleeding the club to within an inch or it's life and then giving us a few drips of saline to keep us out of a coma. Then to make matters worse, they take that blood and inject it into our opponents to increase their white blood cell count.
For 80 years that kind of compensation didn't exist.

Over the last 12 years, rather than them trying to actively kill us, we've actually received well over $20mil in assistance directly from the AFL - there are many alternative CEOs and commissions who would not have given us a cent which could very well have seen us dead by now, so I for one am thankful for it.

[LostDoggy]

We've also been earning the AFL a hell of a lot of money, and paying off Etihad for them. I can't understand how you can be so pragmatic about how the broadcasters run their respective business' but you can't grasp how this behavior is detrimental to smaller clubs. Remember the AFL is a not for profit organization but they are acting like a bank!

[GVGjr]

We had the resources to be top 4 for a few years, no reason we can't do it again.

Ports spends way less than Collingwood on their footy operations, look at their respective results.

Get the footy department (particularly recruitment and list management right), and you're more than half way there. Everyone's salary cap (other than Sydney) is the same, so it largely comes down to decision making - you don't need to spend millions to get good decisions makers in the right roles.

I agree with this, you don't have to spend like a top 4 side to be in finals contention. We have made some short term decisions that didn't play out the way we wanted but as a result we now have a vastly improved football department and a great platform to once again start punching above our weight.

Smart decisions will get us back into contention.

[Maddog37]

I think that in our hearts we all believe this otherwise we wouldn't be posting on WOOF.

I just think that after seeing Sydney play it really illustrated the difference between the haves and have nots.

[soupman]

We have to deal in reality - Channel 7 and Foxtel run a business, and they either want top drawing teams or top performing teams in those slots. You agree with that? They pay their hundreds of millions per year for the privilege and are allowed to request this.

What is your solution to them wanting the highest rating teams in the highest rating timeslots? What is your solution to businesses wanting what is in their best interests?

That the AFL somehow dictate that networks must have games involving bottom teams 5 teams at least 20 times a season, even if some are downright unwatchable?

If the AFL takes, say, a $30mil hit on the broadcast rights on that policy, where do you think their first withdrawal of funds will be from? It won't be from helping Gold Coast or GWS. Nor will they say that player salaries will need to be lowered to help out the poorer clubs. IMO if history is any guide, it'll be from financial support for its own clubs.

Great series of posts Guido.

I'm certainly not trying to say the AFL is completely at fault here, and I understand both the commercial realities it faces and the assistance it has given us.

The fact is though that the AFL has decided what in its best interests as a business is not necessarily in the best interests of half the business it is responsible for protecting. The AFL shouldn't be a for profit business out to print money. It's role should be for the promotion, growth and administration of the sport, and a huge part of that should be ensuring the best deal for the competition and the clubs.

At the moment their clear belief s that the best deal involves getting a shitload of cash at fairnesses expense, and thus giving in to the networks whim regarding fixturing. What it should be about is ensuring the competition is as even as possible, and gives every club as even a chance to win as possible.

Yes underneath my proposal a club like Melbourne would get prime time matches, as would we. But that needs to happen. As someone said before me who are new supporters going to follow? The club which is on TV every Friday night or the club they have never seen before because they are always playing some random Sunday timeslot on Fox.

Yes we did get a pretty decent run in 2008-10, but it wasn't so good as to forgive the total lack of exposure we have been given these past few seasons.

There needs to be a higher baseline as to what clubs are allocated, because at the moment it is too easily exploited. Under my proposal there are still plenty of opportunities to manufacture ratings orientated matchups in certain timeslots, while still giving clubs and their supporters and sponsors the security that they will have prime time exposure.

Aiming to be the best is still what everyone is aiming to do, but it's going to be difficult to attract new supporters if none of them see us until we have been one of the better sides for two or more seasons. Sure the AFL has handed out "compensation", but considering what we are giving up (prime time slots, playing in shit timeslots against other small clubs, playing interstate, paying off Etihad for the competitions benefit), I question whether I would rather the money in handout form or similar money coming in through new supporters and public exposure.

That compensation money should be about providing the clubs with protection and security when they hit trouble or lean patches, not merely a pay off for being forced to bend to the administrators and Foxtels whim.

[Sedat]

Kudos to everyone's contributions on this thread - it has been fantastic and thoughtful reading, with opposing sides making very valid and measured posts.

I guess it goes to the heart of what we want to stand for as a club. What do we want our brand to be portrayed as? That will come from the top down and be articulated in everything we do both on and off the ground. Our playing style was as much of a lure for FTA networks as our relative success during the 2006-2010 period - we were one of the most attractive teams to watch, and our terrific crowds and excellent ratings reflected that.

Aside from a handful of matches at the back end of last season and in the last couple of months this season, we have been a very unattractive (and unsuccessful) team to watch from 2012 to 2014 - such is the reality of a list bereft of mid-range experience and a complete overhaul of the previous playing style taking time to be perfected. So I don't think we have deserved too much in the way of FTA exposure and Friday night slots in the last 3 years, because in a competitive market we have had an inferior product to most of the rest of the competition. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but I think that our game style will become far more attractive once the young emerging group take over as our core game plan facilitators and on-field leaders - about 18 months to 2 years away and should theoretically be sustained for 4-5 years thereafter - which I then expect to see a spike in FTA and Friday night exposure.

I do, however, agree that the fixture has become contrived and compromised almost beyond repair since the last TV rights deal (and the AFL have been complicit in this contrivance), resulting in an artificial tiering of sorts between the Victorian based teams. It is getting into dangerous ground that the AFL needs to closely monitor and take more control of - ultimately clubs report in to the AFL, not the other way around. Likewise not every single request from the networks need to be facilitated - for example there is no night GF yet, which would increase ratings and ad revenue substantially for the networks. IMO there does need to be a correction of the fixture back towards the AFL protecting the overall health of the competition and not just focusing every single time on lining the hip pockets of a select few stakeholders.

[Maddog37]

The punters will respond to a pure and fair competition in the long run. The essence of our sport should be about promoting fairness and the spirit of the game.

The afl has placed money over integrity which will always result in a hollow outcome for all.

[Eastdog]

Obviously we weren't deemed worthy to score a Friday night gig this year.

With the rise of Bonti etc, will we be worthy enough to be the feature match at least once next season?

If we are, at whose expense?

(Written after switching off an inept Carlton performance)

If we finish above the bottom 4 we should get at least 1 Friday night match next year. It's amazing how St. Kilda got a Friday night match this season and yet they are worse at the moment than we currently are. I really for me want some good MCG exposure as well against some Victorian clubs. It's just not acceptable that we only play at the G once a year and this is the ground where finals are won and lost not Etihad or any other ground.