Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  14
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 19 of 19
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    11,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Broadcasting rights

    Quote Originally Posted by angelopetraglia View Post
    There are no shareholders to pay profits or dividends too. I'm not sure what metrics the senior team are rewarded on, but it should be about growing the game, particpation, audience and crowds, not necessarily revenue. You could grow profit and kill the game.

    The AFL is a very different beast to a for profit business that really has three key stakeholders, a) shareholders b) their team c) customers. You are always balancing the need of those three, if you prioitise one too far, it normally spells trouble.
    I get the theory but in practice an organisation like the AFL (and realistically many NGOs) and a corporation are not really any different. The AFL may not pay shareholders but I'm not convinced that maximising revenue is not their primary goal (look at the fixture, actual custodians of the game would at least introduce some sort of equity over 2-3 years if they were serious about running a fair competition)

  2. Likes angelopetraglia liked this post
  3. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Doglands
    Posts
    41,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Broadcasting rights

    It's a control move by the AFL to ensure one of the broadcasters maintains what's probably already in place.
    Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"

  4. Likes Sedat liked this post
  5. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,404
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Broadcasting rights

    Quote Originally Posted by hujsh View Post
    I get the theory but in practice an organisation like the AFL (and realistically many NGOs) and a corporation are not really any different. The AFL may not pay shareholders but I'm not convinced that maximising revenue is not their primary goal (look at the fixture, actual custodians of the game would at least introduce some sort of equity over 2-3 years if they were serious about running a fair competition)
    I don't think we are too far apart in what we are saying.

    I'm guessing the key metrics are TV audience numbers, crowds, memberships and grass roots particpation. To hit the first three they stack the fixutre to maximise those numbers at the expense of smaller drawing clubs like ours.

    They want equity on the playing field, because that drives interest and crowd numbers. They are not pursuing equity in the fairness of the fixture for each club from a financial or coverage perspective as that doesn't align with their key metrics.

    "Show me the incentive, I?ll show you the outcome"

  6. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2023
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Broadcasting rights

    Quote Originally Posted by ledge View Post
    Dani Laidley just got a job.
    Would presage a significant dive in ratings.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •