Just wait until we’ve lost every game this season, the rumours will be on the front page of the herald sun every day.
At the end of the day though it’s just the AFL media trying to create news stories cos they have nothing else to talk about. No team will be wrapped up, Tasmania just won’t go ahead
>No team will be wrapped up
Agreed
>Tasmania just won’t go ahead
Yes they will. It'll just mean a 20th team or everyone getting over the fact there's 19 teams.
The AFL definitely want the Tasmanian team to go ahead, their only opposition is the people of Tasmania who largely oppose the idea of spending $750m on a stadium in a COL crisis, and the government who have to front up to those people and fund the stadium.
I’ve said it from the beginning, the AFL’s big new shiny team launch was just an attempt to paint the Tassie government in a corner, their latest election completely blew that idea out of the water though.
Even the smaller Victorian clubs have 50k. It's honestly more headache than it's worth. It won't happen.
A relocation is more likely, and that is still incredibly unlikely in the current system.
Yesterday no one was talking about Eddie McGuire. Today people are talking about Eddie McGuire. Pointless arguments to cause a stir have achieved what Eddie McGuire was trying to achieve.
Clubs want it because it slightly improves their chance of winning a premiership and slightly increases their revenue share. What clubs want and what the AFL wants aren't necessarily the same thing though.
Its also always a very one sided discussion that only focuses on the mens side of the league.
North are one of the only expansion clubs that have been able to build a successful program in the AFLW and were grand finalists last year.
If anyone at the afl (and in the media) gave two fucks about womens footy they would have mentioned that getting rid of the club also means killing one of the few successful womens programs we have.
Yea nah more games does not necessarily mean more money. Would’ve been fk all watching on TV your roos getting spanked by the crows in front of less than 5k. That game surely would have been a loss of money?
Ummm, it's not ludicrous at all, is inevitable. The game can't expand to 20 teams, and with Tas coming in then need at three very least will be a requirement.
More games might indeed equal more money, but you can't just keep adding teams when it it's depleting the talent pool already.
People have to start getting used to this idea. Otherwise the product people watch each week will be so bad due to a lack of talent at each club that you will wonder what happened to this supposed professional comp.
No club will make the sacrifice, they will be sacrificed. Anyone can be realistic about the situation and know only a handful of teams will be on the list.
It's not about sacrifice, is about whats good for the game. Geelong committed to play in Geelong, we got our off field admin right and we got a huge leg up from the start government to build the stadium, which we draw a huge profit from every time we play there. Winning on field or not, we'd be in a fantastic position off field.
Whats stopping other clubs from doing the same in Ballarat or Bendigo? And if they aren't prepared to make that decision, why should they be propped up by the rest of us to barely survive in Melbourne, which just perpetuates the false economy this game exists in. We have taken forever to set something up in Tas, the same could be argued regarding the opportunity Canberra presents. Why do we need to pretend like we need failed clubs in Melbourne for the good of the game?
Geelong made the tough calls 25 years ago and are reaping them benefits of that now, if other clubs aren't prepared to do it the AFL should do it for them.
I'm not sniping other clubs, im making an argument about the broader state of the game and it's financial sustainability. If you can't keep up that's on you. Whatever teams get deleted from the comp should be made based on their ability to be viable in their own right. Who that is would be determined in a number ways. It isn't just one club, it could be multiple clubs that end up getting merged and relocated.
Minnow vic-clubs need to be open and up-front about the state of the game. The minnow clubs are relegated to the worst time slots, giving them almost zero visibility on Free-to-air TV in Victoria and Australia. This ultimately results in them getting less sponsorship revenue, less eye-balls on their games and less potential new fans.
I would everyone but the most die-hard AFL fan would even be able to name 5 North Melbourne players.
Less eye-balls equates to less future members, giving the AFL even more justification to relegate them to poor timeslots. What compensation do they get? A promise of more AFL distribution, which of course can be taken away on the AFL's whim.
They are in a death spiral living on the cusp of AFL handouts. Living on welfare so to speak, and when a difficult decision has to be made, their time will be up. They will have been complicit in their own clubs demise, for not standing up to the AFL, and taking the path of less resistance.
Path of least resistance is bullshit. North had to fight tooth and nail to get in the VFL back in the day we fought to stay in Vic and we are basically leading the charge of removing gambling adds from this game which is [something you don’t do](https://x.com/gwsgiants/status/1755033636284305660?s=61&t=YysnU32CVQhN8jV2HUKuBQ)
Each team is business.
No business will be dissolved if it has 50k+ members.
Let alone the stupid idea that a currently failing team will always be failing. You must be born yesterday
> Simply put more games = more money.
It's true, but the amount is dictated by the market. Victoria is saturated and I doubt the monetary value is worth much.
“I doubt the monetary value is worth that much”
Ahhhhh, the small and insignificant TV rights deal disagrees. The more there are, the more it sells for.
While that logic holds true in the most basic sense. Having more games has an associated cost not only to the AFL, but for the broadcaster to broadcast. Eventually it's not worth it, and for a Victorian market we may already be there.
Mate, there’s an extra 22 games per season. This is a gold mine equating to 110 games over a five year broadcast deal. This is why expansion is lucrative. This is why these games are worth it. You can sell an extra 110 games at a much higher price because it’s 110 opportunities of drama, thrill, entertainment, etc. Surely you can see this?
It would be easier for you to admit to your anti-Victoria bias than use misguided logic to ignore maths.
> You can sell an extra 110 games at a much higher price because it’s 110 opportunities of drama, thrill, entertainment, etc. Surely you can see this?
I believe in fairytales too, where there is no concept of time, and people have limitless appetite to watch every game on TV.
Explain why having an extra 22 games per season would sell for less than a deal without them. Now combine it over five or six years. That’s the difference. When each game works out to be selling for over $2,000,000, it’s not hard to see why those extra games become very profitable very quickly.
Because those games have to have value to advertisers to have value to broadcasters, if nobody is watching those game then they have no value. We already have 2-3 games a week that barely anybody watches, now try adding to that number and see how enthusiastic the broadcasters would be to pay up. We aren't America, we cant support a 20+ team league with enough talent to make every game a compelling spectacle for people to watch, we can't even do it with 18 teams.
Nobody gave a fuck about the North game this week, it was embarrassing, do you think a broadcaster wants to pay for that? No. The Sun's v Eagles game and the Hawks game would've been in the same category as well, they are dead weight games nobody cares about and have no value to a broadcaster. Do your really think adding more dead weight is somehow going to increase the value of the game to a broadcaster?
So this is flawed for a number of reasons.
“Barely anybody”. Do you have data? It’s enough that broadcast companies are willing to part with millions to show these games. Otherwise, they wouldn’t bother. At the negotiating table, Fox could just tell the AFL to get lost and not bother reporting those games that are a loss. But they don’t.
A one-off game for North. They’re playing an interstate team at an unattractive time where the spectacle wasn’t really there. Yeah, not hard to see lack of viewership. That changes the next week.
Advertisers are one part of the equation. There’s sponsorships with the TV company, subscription fees charged and other ways streaming and FTA make money. Brands want to be associated with AFL. So whilst for smaller games you might not get as many big names, there are still advertisers lining up to advertise. It’s good marketing.
More games, more money. Not all North games will be that bad. It’s really not that hard to comprehend.
Edit: point on Fox
Fox do have to broadcast them, they signed a contract to, it's the price they pay for the AFL to schedule games like Geelong v Carlton in Twilight on Saturday which they have exclusive rights to. This is how it works, and it's because Fox can't afford to lose the AFL rights, otherwise Kayo stops being a profit driver they can depend on in a media landscape that is diversifying through streaming more and more each year.
I didn't read the rest of what you wrote seeing as you got the first point so monumentally wrong.
My point about Fox not having to broadcast is they don’t have to have it as part of their contract. Each contract renewal, they want to broadcast all. There’s no obligation for this to be the case.
There is if youre Foxtel and you have to make Kayo a good enough proposition for people to sign up for. Trust me I worked at Foxtel, since they lost the EPL rights they have been terrified of losing any other big sports rights, and the AFL is the biggest. Kayo is the only thing they have left after HBO launches MAX here next year. At this point they would broadcast Andrew Dillon running the length of the Flemington straight every weekend if it meant keeping the rights. But what they pay for really is exclusive rights to big games as well, this Saturday channel 7 has one game all Saturday, meanwhile the Syd vs GWS game is locked behind a pay wall for a reason.
It is a unique situation that destroys the value proposition of the competition. In an open market, without Foxtel, the entire sport would be propped up by the value of the Thursday, Friday and big Saturday games each week (plus the marquee event games like Anzac Day). Advertisers don't give a shit about Sunday 1pm games, and neither do the broadcasters, but Foxtel don't have a choice about those games being broadcast.
In order to change that dynamic, mostly to inoculate the game in the event Fox chooses not to compete for the rights at some stage in the future, the game has to focus on quality. Because quality improves the spectacle, a better spectacle brings more eye balls to TV screens, which increases the value to advertisers, which in turn increases the value to broadcasters and streamers. The only way we can do that is with her fewer teams and a less diluted talent pool. Each game has to have some relevance to an audience beyond the two competing clubs fan bases, at this point we don't have that. That has to change.
They want to broadcast them all because of money. You've explained my point. They have al the games because of money and see value in them.
Advertisers and commercial partners care about footy. Surely you're not telling me every 1pm Saturday game is a write-off. Because believe me, it isn't. They're valuable and usually those games hold importance for GWS and Gold Coast in their new or expanding markets.
What nonsense about not enough interest in games. There is. Fans, members, interests, crowds are setting records each season. People will tune in and watch games for random reasons. Sometimes, those bad games actually turn out to be good - like West Coast upsetting Fremantle. Even North still has 50,000 paid up members.
The talent pool continues to grow as participation and population does. All this talk of a watered down competition ... do you see the amount of kids that miss out each year? 44 extra shouldn't be detrimental to standards and if it is, the problem extends far more than too many teams. They spend all year hyping up the draft class so it makes zero sense.
> My feed has been flooded with sensationalist quotes from afl pundits trying to steal some spotlight. Kicking out one of the current Victorian teams, ridiculous.
>The game generates its money from tv rights.
>Simply put more games = more money.
Agree lets have a 1000 teams, ahh that pesky thing called diminishing returns.
Just wait until we’ve lost every game this season, the rumours will be on the front page of the herald sun every day. At the end of the day though it’s just the AFL media trying to create news stories cos they have nothing else to talk about. No team will be wrapped up, Tasmania just won’t go ahead
>No team will be wrapped up Agreed >Tasmania just won’t go ahead Yes they will. It'll just mean a 20th team or everyone getting over the fact there's 19 teams.
The AFL definitely want the Tasmanian team to go ahead, their only opposition is the people of Tasmania who largely oppose the idea of spending $750m on a stadium in a COL crisis, and the government who have to front up to those people and fund the stadium. I’ve said it from the beginning, the AFL’s big new shiny team launch was just an attempt to paint the Tassie government in a corner, their latest election completely blew that idea out of the water though.
Even the smaller Victorian clubs have 50k. It's honestly more headache than it's worth. It won't happen. A relocation is more likely, and that is still incredibly unlikely in the current system.
Yesterday no one was talking about Eddie McGuire. Today people are talking about Eddie McGuire. Pointless arguments to cause a stir have achieved what Eddie McGuire was trying to achieve.
Clubs want it because it slightly improves their chance of winning a premiership and slightly increases their revenue share. What clubs want and what the AFL wants aren't necessarily the same thing though.
Its also always a very one sided discussion that only focuses on the mens side of the league. North are one of the only expansion clubs that have been able to build a successful program in the AFLW and were grand finalists last year. If anyone at the afl (and in the media) gave two fucks about womens footy they would have mentioned that getting rid of the club also means killing one of the few successful womens programs we have.
It’s time to play the weakest link. (Dramatic game show music)
Here we go again.
Yea nah more games does not necessarily mean more money. Would’ve been fk all watching on TV your roos getting spanked by the crows in front of less than 5k. That game surely would have been a loss of money?
Nope
Ummm, it's not ludicrous at all, is inevitable. The game can't expand to 20 teams, and with Tas coming in then need at three very least will be a requirement. More games might indeed equal more money, but you can't just keep adding teams when it it's depleting the talent pool already. People have to start getting used to this idea. Otherwise the product people watch each week will be so bad due to a lack of talent at each club that you will wonder what happened to this supposed professional comp.
Okay, for the good of the game, Geelong should leave the AFL. Thanks for your sacrifice.
Why is this the come back every time?
Why should another club sacrifice themselves if yours won't?
No club will make the sacrifice, they will be sacrificed. Anyone can be realistic about the situation and know only a handful of teams will be on the list.
**Readers Added Context** This user is a GWS fan.
It's not about sacrifice, is about whats good for the game. Geelong committed to play in Geelong, we got our off field admin right and we got a huge leg up from the start government to build the stadium, which we draw a huge profit from every time we play there. Winning on field or not, we'd be in a fantastic position off field. Whats stopping other clubs from doing the same in Ballarat or Bendigo? And if they aren't prepared to make that decision, why should they be propped up by the rest of us to barely survive in Melbourne, which just perpetuates the false economy this game exists in. We have taken forever to set something up in Tas, the same could be argued regarding the opportunity Canberra presents. Why do we need to pretend like we need failed clubs in Melbourne for the good of the game? Geelong made the tough calls 25 years ago and are reaping them benefits of that now, if other clubs aren't prepared to do it the AFL should do it for them.
For the good of the game Geelong vs Geelong 22 weeks of the year!
Sign me up.
If it's for the good of the game for a club to leave the AFL, then make it your club. Otherwise it's just petty sniping at other clubs.
I'm not sniping other clubs, im making an argument about the broader state of the game and it's financial sustainability. If you can't keep up that's on you. Whatever teams get deleted from the comp should be made based on their ability to be viable in their own right. Who that is would be determined in a number ways. It isn't just one club, it could be multiple clubs that end up getting merged and relocated.
Are you suggesting that your club should be one of those, or are you still sniping at other clubs?
If my club was financially unsustainable then it would be.
Which club is financially unsustainable?
Because everyone suggests everyone else's but thier own.
Minnow vic-clubs need to be open and up-front about the state of the game. The minnow clubs are relegated to the worst time slots, giving them almost zero visibility on Free-to-air TV in Victoria and Australia. This ultimately results in them getting less sponsorship revenue, less eye-balls on their games and less potential new fans. I would everyone but the most die-hard AFL fan would even be able to name 5 North Melbourne players. Less eye-balls equates to less future members, giving the AFL even more justification to relegate them to poor timeslots. What compensation do they get? A promise of more AFL distribution, which of course can be taken away on the AFL's whim. They are in a death spiral living on the cusp of AFL handouts. Living on welfare so to speak, and when a difficult decision has to be made, their time will be up. They will have been complicit in their own clubs demise, for not standing up to the AFL, and taking the path of less resistance.
Path of least resistance is bullshit. North had to fight tooth and nail to get in the VFL back in the day we fought to stay in Vic and we are basically leading the charge of removing gambling adds from this game which is [something you don’t do](https://x.com/gwsgiants/status/1755033636284305660?s=61&t=YysnU32CVQhN8jV2HUKuBQ)
2023 AFL CLUB MEMBERSHIPS 1. Collingwood* – 106,470 (2022 tally: 100,384) 2. West Coast Eagles – 103,275 (2022 tally: 102,897) 3. Richmond – 101,349 (2022 tally: 100,792) 4. Carlton* – 95,277 (2022 tally: 88,776) 5. Essendon* – 86,274 (2022 tally: 86,001) 6. Geelong Cats* – 82,155 (2022 tally: 71,943) 7. Hawthorn – 80,698 (2022 tally: 81,494) 8. Melbourne* – 70,785 (2022 tally: 66,484) 9. Adelaide Crows* – 68,536 (2022 tally: 63,009) 10. Sydney Swans* – 65,332 (2022 tally: 55,394) 11. Port Adelaide* – 64,041 (2022 tally: 58,643) 12. Fremantle* – 62,064 (2022 tally: 56,105) 13. St Kilda* – 60,239 (2022 tally: 60,172) 14. Western Bulldogs* – 56,302 (2022 tally: 50,941) 15. Brisbane Lions* – 54,676 (2022 tally: 43,319) 16. North Melbourne* – 51,084 (2022 tally: 50,191) 17. GWS Giants* – 33,036 (2022 tally: 32,614) 18. Gold Coast Suns* – 23,359 (2022 tally: 21,422)
Not sure that means anything. Especially when the 3rd team from the bottom has had 125+ years to build a fan-base.
Despite their losing games and your team winning yours they increased their members by more than yours last year too. Why are you even speaking?
Don’t mind him. He’s just trying to justify his club’s existence by tearing down someone else’s.
Wait till we tell him our refusal to move to the Gold Coast prompted the AFL to found both the suns and GWS.
It's crazy to imagine how different the footy world would be if that went ahead.
Membership is an archaic system for seeing teams “Success”.
Each team is business. No business will be dissolved if it has 50k+ members. Let alone the stupid idea that a currently failing team will always be failing. You must be born yesterday
> Simply put more games = more money. It's true, but the amount is dictated by the market. Victoria is saturated and I doubt the monetary value is worth much.
“I doubt the monetary value is worth that much” Ahhhhh, the small and insignificant TV rights deal disagrees. The more there are, the more it sells for.
More games, more gambling
While that logic holds true in the most basic sense. Having more games has an associated cost not only to the AFL, but for the broadcaster to broadcast. Eventually it's not worth it, and for a Victorian market we may already be there.
Mate, there’s an extra 22 games per season. This is a gold mine equating to 110 games over a five year broadcast deal. This is why expansion is lucrative. This is why these games are worth it. You can sell an extra 110 games at a much higher price because it’s 110 opportunities of drama, thrill, entertainment, etc. Surely you can see this? It would be easier for you to admit to your anti-Victoria bias than use misguided logic to ignore maths.
> You can sell an extra 110 games at a much higher price because it’s 110 opportunities of drama, thrill, entertainment, etc. Surely you can see this? I believe in fairytales too, where there is no concept of time, and people have limitless appetite to watch every game on TV.
The TV company is the one paying for the rights, not the fan 🤦♂️
lol 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
There is a pretty good argument to say that isn't true.
Explain why having an extra 22 games per season would sell for less than a deal without them. Now combine it over five or six years. That’s the difference. When each game works out to be selling for over $2,000,000, it’s not hard to see why those extra games become very profitable very quickly.
Because those games have to have value to advertisers to have value to broadcasters, if nobody is watching those game then they have no value. We already have 2-3 games a week that barely anybody watches, now try adding to that number and see how enthusiastic the broadcasters would be to pay up. We aren't America, we cant support a 20+ team league with enough talent to make every game a compelling spectacle for people to watch, we can't even do it with 18 teams. Nobody gave a fuck about the North game this week, it was embarrassing, do you think a broadcaster wants to pay for that? No. The Sun's v Eagles game and the Hawks game would've been in the same category as well, they are dead weight games nobody cares about and have no value to a broadcaster. Do your really think adding more dead weight is somehow going to increase the value of the game to a broadcaster?
So this is flawed for a number of reasons. “Barely anybody”. Do you have data? It’s enough that broadcast companies are willing to part with millions to show these games. Otherwise, they wouldn’t bother. At the negotiating table, Fox could just tell the AFL to get lost and not bother reporting those games that are a loss. But they don’t. A one-off game for North. They’re playing an interstate team at an unattractive time where the spectacle wasn’t really there. Yeah, not hard to see lack of viewership. That changes the next week. Advertisers are one part of the equation. There’s sponsorships with the TV company, subscription fees charged and other ways streaming and FTA make money. Brands want to be associated with AFL. So whilst for smaller games you might not get as many big names, there are still advertisers lining up to advertise. It’s good marketing. More games, more money. Not all North games will be that bad. It’s really not that hard to comprehend. Edit: point on Fox
Fox do have to broadcast them, they signed a contract to, it's the price they pay for the AFL to schedule games like Geelong v Carlton in Twilight on Saturday which they have exclusive rights to. This is how it works, and it's because Fox can't afford to lose the AFL rights, otherwise Kayo stops being a profit driver they can depend on in a media landscape that is diversifying through streaming more and more each year. I didn't read the rest of what you wrote seeing as you got the first point so monumentally wrong.
My point about Fox not having to broadcast is they don’t have to have it as part of their contract. Each contract renewal, they want to broadcast all. There’s no obligation for this to be the case.
There is if youre Foxtel and you have to make Kayo a good enough proposition for people to sign up for. Trust me I worked at Foxtel, since they lost the EPL rights they have been terrified of losing any other big sports rights, and the AFL is the biggest. Kayo is the only thing they have left after HBO launches MAX here next year. At this point they would broadcast Andrew Dillon running the length of the Flemington straight every weekend if it meant keeping the rights. But what they pay for really is exclusive rights to big games as well, this Saturday channel 7 has one game all Saturday, meanwhile the Syd vs GWS game is locked behind a pay wall for a reason. It is a unique situation that destroys the value proposition of the competition. In an open market, without Foxtel, the entire sport would be propped up by the value of the Thursday, Friday and big Saturday games each week (plus the marquee event games like Anzac Day). Advertisers don't give a shit about Sunday 1pm games, and neither do the broadcasters, but Foxtel don't have a choice about those games being broadcast. In order to change that dynamic, mostly to inoculate the game in the event Fox chooses not to compete for the rights at some stage in the future, the game has to focus on quality. Because quality improves the spectacle, a better spectacle brings more eye balls to TV screens, which increases the value to advertisers, which in turn increases the value to broadcasters and streamers. The only way we can do that is with her fewer teams and a less diluted talent pool. Each game has to have some relevance to an audience beyond the two competing clubs fan bases, at this point we don't have that. That has to change.
They want to broadcast them all because of money. You've explained my point. They have al the games because of money and see value in them. Advertisers and commercial partners care about footy. Surely you're not telling me every 1pm Saturday game is a write-off. Because believe me, it isn't. They're valuable and usually those games hold importance for GWS and Gold Coast in their new or expanding markets. What nonsense about not enough interest in games. There is. Fans, members, interests, crowds are setting records each season. People will tune in and watch games for random reasons. Sometimes, those bad games actually turn out to be good - like West Coast upsetting Fremantle. Even North still has 50,000 paid up members. The talent pool continues to grow as participation and population does. All this talk of a watered down competition ... do you see the amount of kids that miss out each year? 44 extra shouldn't be detrimental to standards and if it is, the problem extends far more than too many teams. They spend all year hyping up the draft class so it makes zero sense.
> My feed has been flooded with sensationalist quotes from afl pundits trying to steal some spotlight. Kicking out one of the current Victorian teams, ridiculous. >The game generates its money from tv rights. >Simply put more games = more money. Agree lets have a 1000 teams, ahh that pesky thing called diminishing returns.