Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
let's be fair
don't allow the unfair....
are Maguire and Pert playing good cop bad cop-
Eddie says lets be fair ( well that's hes opening statement- untill it affects their Friday Nights or ANZAC game or Queens Birthday.
Pert says don't take away our advantage---
Whilst not a Koch fan- he is right when he suggests it's not about equalisation but about compensation for allowing some teams to -have the benefit- of Friday nights and blockbusters
Not that Koch refers to it that way.
"I don't call it equalisation, I call it compensation," he says.
"We should get an equal number of Friday night games and marquee games as other clubs.
"Getting prime-time games means bigger corporate sponsorship, bigger gates and merchandise, higher membership."
People say big teams deserve marquee games - but by the same token marquee games make you a big team.
Remember north pioneered Friday nights and not long after won two flags then everyone cottoned on and they lost that advantage.
It's a real chicken and egg scenario .
But there has to be some equalisation of gate takings because each game is not equal by virtue of time and location.
Take the ANZAC weekend
Consider two games Ess v Coll and say North v Bulldogs
Coll vs Ess played as blockbuster on MCG on the day will get 90,000
Coll vs Ess played as a normal game on that weekend (i.e. not on ANZAC day) will get 65,000 at MCG or 50,000 at Docklands
Nth vs Bulldogs played as a blockbuster on MCG on ANZAC day would get 60,000
Nth vs Bulldogs played as a normal game on that weekend (i.e. not on ANZAC day) will get 40,000 at MCG or 35,000 at Docklands
The AFL have this crowd maximisation policy that says they MUST play the Coll/Ess game to get that 90k crowd.
But it is false logic.
Doing it the way they do with those 2 games gives a tot crowd of 90+35 (if the Nth/Dogs game is at Docklands) = 125k
BUT
Swapping them around gives a tot crowd of 65 (coll/Ess) + 60 (Nth/Dogs at MCG) = 125k
Same total crowd.
All the AFL policy is doing is maximising blockbuster crowds at the expense of other attendances.
Coll/Ess receive a massive financial boost.
But North/Dogs are deprived of the extra revenue they would receive with a 25,000 bigger crowd.
Not to mention the value of the extra exposure will do for their membership and sponsorship.
There are only two alternatives 1) Maintain the current flawed system but spread the revenue to the clubs they are locking out of the deal
or
2) Make it fair and eliminate fixed teams blockbusters. share it around so each club gets a turn at a bigger crowd.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
how would such a change affect the attendance of the ' non aligned' supporter- there are many who attend the ' blockbuster' just because-
would that affectively be the 30,000 differance you allude to Enrico?
many attend because it's the holiday... that number could be retained..
is there a subtle differance between a ' Block buster'
and a 'Marquee' game which is What St Kilda lobbied for and was given in the ' Winmar' game in Indigeneous round Vs Collingwood.
Enrico_Misso wrote:Take the ANZAC weekend
Consider two games Ess v Coll and say North v Bulldogs
Coll vs Ess played as blockbuster on MCG on the day will get 90,000
Coll vs Ess played as a normal game on that weekend (i.e. not on ANZAC day) will get 65,000 at MCG or 50,000 at Docklands
Nth vs Bulldogs played as a blockbuster on MCG on ANZAC day would get 60,000
Nth vs Bulldogs played as a normal game on that weekend (i.e. not on ANZAC day) will get 40,000 at MCG or 35,000 at Docklands
The AFL have this crowd maximisation policy that says they MUST play the Coll/Ess game to get that 90k crowd.
But it is false logic.
Doing it the way they do with those 2 games gives a tot crowd of 90+35 (if the Nth/Dogs game is at Docklands) = 125k
BUT
Swapping them around gives a tot crowd of 65 (coll/Ess) + 60 (Nth/Dogs at MCG) = 125k
Same total crowd.
All the AFL policy is doing is maximising blockbuster crowds at the expense of other attendances.
Coll/Ess receive a massive financial boost.
But North/Dogs are deprived of the extra revenue they would receive with a 25,000 bigger crowd.
Not to mention the value of the extra exposure will do for their membership and sponsorship.
There are only two alternatives 1) Maintain the current flawed system but spread the revenue to the clubs they are locking out of the deal
or
2) Make it fair and eliminate fixed teams blockbusters. share it around so each club gets a turn at a bigger crowd.
Think you are basing those figures on WB and North going pretty well. What happens if they are bottom 3. Doubt the figures would be anythink like that where as the other figures probably wouldnt change. Secondly there is no thrill about saying there will be 60k to a game because that happens many times a year where as sell outs are as regular. The build up of a sell out games generates more publicity that a 40-60k game.
Eddie is a one eyed arsehole.
The fairest way to decide which teams play on ANZAC day is the top 2 placed Victorian teams from the previous year. Simple as that.
Enrico_Misso wrote:Take the ANZAC weekend
Consider two games Ess v Coll and say North v Bulldogs
Coll vs Ess played as blockbuster on MCG on the day will get 90,000
Coll vs Ess played as a normal game on that weekend (i.e. not on ANZAC day) will get 65,000 at MCG or 50,000 at Docklands
Nth vs Bulldogs played as a blockbuster on MCG on ANZAC day would get 60,000
Nth vs Bulldogs played as a normal game on that weekend (i.e. not on ANZAC day) will get 40,000 at MCG or 35,000 at Docklands
The AFL have this crowd maximisation policy that says they MUST play the Coll/Ess game to get that 90k crowd.
But it is false logic.
Doing it the way they do with those 2 games gives a tot crowd of 90+35 (if the Nth/Dogs game is at Docklands) = 125k
BUT
Swapping them around gives a tot crowd of 65 (coll/Ess) + 60 (Nth/Dogs at MCG) = 125k
Forget the maths of the crowd numbers, it's just about opportunity.
Koch hits the nail on the head when he says that non-"blockbuster" teams (if you like) don't get the same amount of opportunity to build their supporter base, to build their corporate sponsorship or to build their merchandise sales. In effect, the rich get richer off this sort of fixturing.
This is why the Saints are so happy to secure *potential marquee* type games such as the NZ game, the Monday game vs the Blues and the Indigenous Round game vs the Pies (albeit at Etihad). It's peanuts in comparison to fixtures like the ANZAC game but it still gets them a whiff of that sort of action.
Enrico_Misso wrote:Take the ANZAC weekend
Consider two games Ess v Coll and say North v Bulldogs
Coll vs Ess played as blockbuster on MCG on the day will get 90,000
Coll vs Ess played as a normal game on that weekend (i.e. not on ANZAC day) will get 65,000 at MCG or 50,000 at Docklands
Nth vs Bulldogs played as a blockbuster on MCG on ANZAC day would get 60,000
Nth vs Bulldogs played as a normal game on that weekend (i.e. not on ANZAC day) will get 40,000 at MCG or 35,000 at Docklands
The AFL have this crowd maximisation policy that says they MUST play the Coll/Ess game to get that 90k crowd.
But it is false logic.
Doing it the way they do with those 2 games gives a tot crowd of 90+35 (if the Nth/Dogs game is at Docklands) = 125k
BUT
Swapping them around gives a tot crowd of 65 (coll/Ess) + 60 (Nth/Dogs at MCG) = 125k
Forget the maths of the crowd numbers, it's just about opportunity.
Koch hits the nail on the head when he says that non-"blockbuster" teams (if you like) don't get the same amount of opportunity to build their supporter base, to build their corporate sponsorship or to build their merchandise sales. In effect, the rich get richer off this sort of fixturing.
This is why the Saints are so happy to secure *potential marquee* type games such as the NZ game, the Monday game vs the Blues and the Indigenous Round game vs the Pies (albeit at Etihad). It's peanuts in comparison to fixtures like the ANZAC game but it still gets them a whiff of that sort of action.
But what comes first the chicken or the egg. They get the blockbusters because they were a big team in the first place. Anyway with proper management and onfield success you can grow. Look at the Hawks, Tigers and the cats. They have probably replaced carlton and maybe Essendon as the top clubs and apart from the Tigers having one blockbuster game it has had bugger all to do with the fixture. We had our chance with 10 years of clost to the unltimate success and we stuffed up. Not sure if it was due to mismanagent or a poor supporter base. Its nearly impossible to beleive we couldnt grow.
The only answer to the equalisation question is to make everything EQUAL - the fixtures, the TV programming, a cap on sponsorships and dollar value and so on.
Then to manage it all (and boy wouldn't McGuire hate this), ALL GATE RECEIPTS ARE POOLED, say 15% GOES TO THE AFL and the BALANCE OF 85% IS DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY TO ALL CLUBS. Then I couldn't care a stuff about favoured fixtures, block busters, who plays on ANZAC DAY etc.
Just to further rub the salt into McGuire's wounds, I would also have the current Liberal Government RETURN the 1956 Olympic Games Pecinct to the Victorian Public's control that was given to the Maggots (COLLINGWOOD) by John Brumby without the authority of the Victorian voting public.
Enrico I second your solution -
"Make it fair and eliminate fixed teams blockbusters. share it around so each club gets a turn at a bigger crowd".
The afl do not have money problems! Some of our clubs do. Having for example Coll vs Ess every year as the Anzac day game has had its' day. Like north who pioneered what was a good idea (FRI. NITE footy)but is now shared with all so it's time for the Anzac day 'blockbuster' to be shared around.
I think it is just plain wrong for two teams to automatically get this gig anually. I'd certainly rather watch Saint Kilda v's whoever at the 'G' or the two highest finishing Vic teams from the year before. Coll and Ess most definately don't need this monopoly infact it only helps them gain an even more tlited financial advantage. Have to be more inclusive and more aware of limiting entirely unnecessary and counter-productive advantages in the scheduling. Another possibility... If the previous years ' premiers have them go up against the fastest improving Vic team that didn't finish top 4 or even just missed out on finals 9eg) this years' Anzac day clash will be Hawks v's North. This or something else but not coll vs ess would be more interesting all round.
Glad we are able to play in NZ and expand the concept. Financially speaking i'm more glad as it will bring our club more dollars than games at the Dome. Coll for instance do not have to worry about security - they don't need yet another leg up with Anzac games. Mother's day would be just as lucrative.
and if the crowd is not bulging at the seems so what. The spectacle is on the field of play and the interest level is more to do with who gets the gig this year. It just seems strange to not share it around.
GO SAINTS!
The boy can play and we can build a defence around him that will have respect.
The problem here is that clubs like St Kilda are never given the opportunity to capitalise on the successful times.
In 2009 we had one game at the 'G...Round 22 v Melbourne (wooden spooner from the previous season).
In 2010 we had two games. One home game v Geelong in the middle of winter on a wet and cold Friday night. We drew a crowd of 58,208. The other was an away game v Collingwood on a Saturday afternoon where a crowd of 81,386 turned up.
In 2011 we had six MCG games. The AFL are slow to react...Two home games...1 v Richmond (who finished 2nd last the season before), 1 v Geelong again...on a cold winter's night. Crowds averaged 40,000 for the two games.
We were preliminary finalists in 2008 and were clearly coming up. We were the stand out side in 2009 despite not winning the flag. 2009 & 2010 were our salad days but we were treated like garbage from a fixturing point of view.
Imagine if, as was suggested earlier, that ANZAC day was played between the two highest placed Melbourne clubs from the previous season.
2010 - St Kilda v Geelong...Easy 90k at the 'G.
2011 - St Kilda v Collingwood...Easy 95k at the 'G.
Go back a season...
2009 - Hawthorn v Geelong...Easy 90k at the 'G
Essendon v Collingwood in those years...Easy 90k at the 'G.
2012...Geelong v Collingwood - Huge crowd...
2013...Hawthorn v Collingwood
2014...Hawthorn v Geelong
Tell me that this format would not work, produce as much interest and maximise revenue?
It's a simple matter of rewarding success quickly at allowing the clubs to cash in on that success.
Enrico_Misso wrote:Take the ANZAC weekend
Consider two games Ess v Coll and say North v Bulldogs
Coll vs Ess played as blockbuster on MCG on the day will get 90,000
Coll vs Ess played as a normal game on that weekend (i.e. not on ANZAC day) will get 65,000 at MCG or 50,000 at Docklands
Nth vs Bulldogs played as a blockbuster on MCG on ANZAC day would get 60,000
Nth vs Bulldogs played as a normal game on that weekend (i.e. not on ANZAC day) will get 40,000 at MCG or 35,000 at Docklands
The AFL have this crowd maximisation policy that says they MUST play the Coll/Ess game to get that 90k crowd.
But it is false logic.
Doing it the way they do with those 2 games gives a tot crowd of 90+35 (if the Nth/Dogs game is at Docklands) = 125k
BUT
Swapping them around gives a tot crowd of 65 (coll/Ess) + 60 (Nth/Dogs at MCG) = 125k
Same total crowd.
All the AFL policy is doing is maximising blockbuster crowds at the expense of other attendances.
Coll/Ess receive a massive financial boost.
But North/Dogs are deprived of the extra revenue they would receive with a 25,000 bigger crowd.
Not to mention the value of the extra exposure will do for their membership and sponsorship.
There are only two alternatives 1) Maintain the current flawed system but spread the revenue to the clubs they are locking out of the deal
or
2) Make it fair and eliminate fixed teams blockbusters. share it around so each club gets a turn at a bigger crowd.
It's a fair suggestion however the only other thing to consider with such a proposal is the outgoings for operating two games. The ratio of outgoings verses incomings would need to stack up to the margin that the AFL and clubs set themselves. What would happen if you run two games on the day and and the total costs didn't stack up to running one game on the day...even if the Dons and Pies were near the bottom of the ladder and drew a smaller crowd. I think the costs for run games on ANZAC day are considerably higher too because of public holiday loadings so I suspect the Pies and Dons provide a safe(ish) prospect of achieving the desired margins. I suspect the Saints Wellington game is being heavily subsidised by the AFL while it is in trial mode as the AFL would be looking at it as an R&D project for the first few years.
Life Long Saint wrote:The problem here is that clubs like St Kilda are never given the opportunity to capitalise on the successful times.
In 2009 we had one game at the 'G...Round 22 v Melbourne (wooden spooner from the previous season).
In 2010 we had two games. One home game v Geelong in the middle of winter on a wet and cold Friday night. We drew a crowd of 58,208. The other was an away game v Collingwood on a Saturday afternoon where a crowd of 81,386 turned up.
In 2011 we had six MCG games. The AFL are slow to react...Two home games...1 v Richmond (who finished 2nd last the season before), 1 v Geelong again...on a cold winter's night. Crowds averaged 40,000 for the two games.
We were preliminary finalists in 2008 and were clearly coming up. We were the stand out side in 2009 despite not winning the flag. 2009 & 2010 were our salad days but we were treated like garbage from a fixturing point of view.
Imagine if, as was suggested earlier, that ANZAC day was played between the two highest placed Melbourne clubs from the previous season.
2010 - St Kilda v Geelong...Easy 90k at the 'G.
2011 - St Kilda v Collingwood...Easy 95k at the 'G.
Go back a season...
2009 - Hawthorn v Geelong...Easy 90k at the 'G
Essendon v Collingwood in those years...Easy 90k at the 'G.
2012...Geelong v Collingwood - Huge crowd...
2013...Hawthorn v Collingwood
2014...Hawthorn v Geelong
Tell me that this format would not work, produce as much interest and maximise revenue?
It's a simple matter of rewarding success quickly at allowing the clubs to cash in on that success.
We wouldnt get 90k at the G versus geelong. Anzac day probably get 10-15 k max that dont follow either club but thats a guess because usually its sold out with just Essendon and pies supporters. Also i doubt we get an easy 95k at the G versus the pies. What is the record crowd for Anzac day? Yes what you propose sounds fine until the day North and WB or Melbourne or the Saints play each other. Yep they will get a good 50-60k crowd but it just wont be the build up. We can have our fantasy about what we could get under a good draw but we still never ever got 40K members even after one or two years in the GF. You are right about cold nights though. we dont go to the G on those nights. Pity the bigger clubs seems to do though.
Enrico_Misso wrote:Take the ANZAC weekend
Consider two games Ess v Coll and say North v Bulldogs
Coll vs Ess played as blockbuster on MCG on the day will get 90,000
Coll vs Ess played as a normal game on that weekend (i.e. not on ANZAC day) will get 65,000 at MCG or 50,000 at Docklands
Nth vs Bulldogs played as a blockbuster on MCG on ANZAC day would get 60,000
Nth vs Bulldogs played as a normal game on that weekend (i.e. not on ANZAC day) will get 40,000 at MCG or 35,000 at Docklands
The AFL have this crowd maximisation policy that says they MUST play the Coll/Ess game to get that 90k crowd.
But it is false logic.
Doing it the way they do with those 2 games gives a tot crowd of 90+35 (if the Nth/Dogs game is at Docklands) = 125k
BUT
Swapping them around gives a tot crowd of 65 (coll/Ess) + 60 (Nth/Dogs at MCG) = 125k
Forget the maths of the crowd numbers, it's just about opportunity.
Koch hits the nail on the head when he says that non-"blockbuster" teams (if you like) don't get the same amount of opportunity to build their supporter base, to build their corporate sponsorship or to build their merchandise sales. In effect, the rich get richer off this sort of fixturing.
This is why the Saints are so happy to secure *potential marquee* type games such as the NZ game, the Monday game vs the Blues and the Indigenous Round game vs the Pies (albeit at Etihad). It's peanuts in comparison to fixtures like the ANZAC game but it still gets them a whiff of that sort of action.
Its BS from Koch. They get to play a showdown twice a year every year.
Crocodile tears to say they dont get blockbusters. They just get less
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
Life Long Saint wrote:The problem here is that clubs like St Kilda are never given the opportunity to capitalise on the successful times.
In 2009 we had one game at the 'G...Round 22 v Melbourne (wooden spooner from the previous season).
In 2010 we had two games. One home game v Geelong in the middle of winter on a wet and cold Friday night. We drew a crowd of 58,208. The other was an away game v Collingwood on a Saturday afternoon where a crowd of 81,386 turned up.
In 2011 we had six MCG games. The AFL are slow to react...Two home games...1 v Richmond (who finished 2nd last the season before), 1 v Geelong again...on a cold winter's night. Crowds averaged 40,000 for the two games.
We were preliminary finalists in 2008 and were clearly coming up. We were the stand out side in 2009 despite not winning the flag. 2009 & 2010 were our salad days but we were treated like garbage from a fixturing point of view.
Imagine if, as was suggested earlier, that ANZAC day was played between the two highest placed Melbourne clubs from the previous season.
2010 - St Kilda v Geelong...Easy 90k at the 'G.
2011 - St Kilda v Collingwood...Easy 95k at the 'G.
Go back a season...
2009 - Hawthorn v Geelong...Easy 90k at the 'G
Essendon v Collingwood in those years...Easy 90k at the 'G.
2012...Geelong v Collingwood - Huge crowd...
2013...Hawthorn v Collingwood
2014...Hawthorn v Geelong
Tell me that this format would not work, produce as much interest and maximise revenue?
It's a simple matter of rewarding success quickly at allowing the clubs to cash in on that success.
We wouldnt get 90k at the G versus geelong. Anzac day probably get 10-15 k max that dont follow either club but thats a guess because usually its sold out with just Essendon and pies supporters. Also i doubt we get an easy 95k at the G versus the pies. What is the record crowd for Anzac day? Yes what you propose sounds fine until the day North and WB or Melbourne or the Saints play each other. Yep they will get a good 50-60k crowd but it just wont be the build up. We can have our fantasy about what we could get under a good draw but we still never ever got 40K members even after one or two years in the GF. You are right about cold nights though. we dont go to the G on those nights. Pity the bigger clubs seems to do though.
You need to look at those crowds as what they would be for the only game in town on ANZAC day.
AFL Members & MCC Members would come along and increase the crowd numbers just like they do today.
The game would be a better spectacle as both teams are near the top of the ladder and, in most cases, it would be the Grand Final rematch.
Collingwood v Essendon would always attract a big crowd. It will always be a block buster especially if it's the only time they would meet for the season.
Life Long Saint wrote:The problem here is that clubs like St Kilda are never given the opportunity to capitalise on the successful times.
In 2009 we had one game at the 'G...Round 22 v Melbourne (wooden spooner from the previous season).
In 2010 we had two games. One home game v Geelong in the middle of winter on a wet and cold Friday night. We drew a crowd of 58,208. The other was an away game v Collingwood on a Saturday afternoon where a crowd of 81,386 turned up.
In 2011 we had six MCG games. The AFL are slow to react...Two home games...1 v Richmond (who finished 2nd last the season before), 1 v Geelong again...on a cold winter's night. Crowds averaged 40,000 for the two games.
We were preliminary finalists in 2008 and were clearly coming up. We were the stand out side in 2009 despite not winning the flag. 2009 & 2010 were our salad days but we were treated like garbage from a fixturing point of view.
Imagine if, as was suggested earlier, that ANZAC day was played between the two highest placed Melbourne clubs from the previous season.
2010 - St Kilda v Geelong...Easy 90k at the 'G.
2011 - St Kilda v Collingwood...Easy 95k at the 'G.
Go back a season...
2009 - Hawthorn v Geelong...Easy 90k at the 'G
Essendon v Collingwood in those years...Easy 90k at the 'G.
2012...Geelong v Collingwood - Huge crowd...
2013...Hawthorn v Collingwood
2014...Hawthorn v Geelong
Tell me that this format would not work, produce as much interest and maximise revenue?
It's a simple matter of rewarding success quickly at allowing the clubs to cash in on that success.
We wouldnt get 90k at the G versus geelong. Anzac day probably get 10-15 k max that dont follow either club but thats a guess because usually its sold out with just Essendon and pies supporters. Also i doubt we get an easy 95k at the G versus the pies. What is the record crowd for Anzac day? Yes what you propose sounds fine until the day North and WB or Melbourne or the Saints play each other. Yep they will get a good 50-60k crowd but it just wont be the build up. We can have our fantasy about what we could get under a good draw but we still never ever got 40K members even after one or two years in the GF. You are right about cold nights though. we dont go to the G on those nights. Pity the bigger clubs seems to do though.
You need to look at those crowds as what they would be for the only game in town on ANZAC day.
AFL Members & MCC Members would come along and increase the crowd numbers just like they do today.
The game would be a better spectacle as both teams are near the top of the ladder and, in most cases, it would be the Grand Final rematch.
Collingwood v Essendon would always attract a big crowd. It will always be a block buster especially if it's the only time they would meet for the season.
Yep and thats why I said you would get 10-15k who dont follow the club. We can whinge all we like but until we can start looking like a run well club with increasing membership nothing is going to change.
GoSaintersGo wrote:The only answer to the equalisation question is to make everything EQUAL - the fixtures, the TV programming, a cap on sponsorships and dollar value and so on.
Then to manage it all (and boy wouldn't McGuire hate this), ALL GATE RECEIPTS ARE POOLED, say 15% GOES TO THE AFL and the BALANCE OF 85% IS DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY TO ALL CLUBS. Then I couldn't care a stuff about favoured fixtures, block busters, who plays on ANZAC DAY etc.
Just to further rub the salt into McGuire's wounds, I would also have the current Liberal Government RETURN the 1956 Olympic Games Pecinct to the Victorian Public's control that was given to the Maggots (COLLINGWOOD) by John Brumby without the authority of the Victorian voting public.
POOL ALL THE BLOODY MATCH GATE TAKINGS THEN IT WON"T MATTER IF CWOOD GET 90,000 EACH WEEK AT THE "G" AND WE GET NEXT TO NO ONE AT ETIHAD. I'TS CALLED EQUALISATION, OR IF YOU LIKE, SOCIALISATION - where the losers financially would be Collingwood, Essendon etc and the winners, StKilda, Bulldogs etc.
GoSaintersGo wrote:The only answer to the equalisation question is to make everything EQUAL - the fixtures, the TV programming, a cap on sponsorships and dollar value and so on.
Then to manage it all (and boy wouldn't McGuire hate this), ALL GATE RECEIPTS ARE POOLED, say 15% GOES TO THE AFL and the BALANCE OF 85% IS DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY TO ALL CLUBS. Then I couldn't care a stuff about favoured fixtures, block busters, who plays on ANZAC DAY etc.
Just to further rub the salt into McGuire's wounds, I would also have the current Liberal Government RETURN the 1956 Olympic Games Pecinct to the Victorian Public's control that was given to the Maggots (COLLINGWOOD) by John Brumby without the authority of the Victorian voting public.
POOL ALL THE BLOODY MATCH GATE TAKINGS THEN IT WON"T MATTER IF CWOOD GET 90,000 EACH WEEK AT THE "G" AND WE GET NEXT TO NO ONE AT ETIHAD. I'TS CALLED EQUALISATION, OR IF YOU LIKE, SOCIALISATION - where the losers financially would be Collingwood, Essendon etc and the winners, StKilda, Bulldogs etc.
You do realise less and less people pay to go to the footy these days. Most money is in membership and no way that should ever be pooled.
GoSaintersGo wrote:The only answer to the equalisation question is to make everything EQUAL - the fixtures, the TV programming, a cap on sponsorships and dollar value and so on.
Then to manage it all (and boy wouldn't McGuire hate this), ALL GATE RECEIPTS ARE POOLED, say 15% GOES TO THE AFL and the BALANCE OF 85% IS DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY TO ALL CLUBS. Then I couldn't care a stuff about favoured fixtures, block busters, who plays on ANZAC DAY etc.
Just to further rub the salt into McGuire's wounds, I would also have the current Liberal Government RETURN the 1956 Olympic Games Pecinct to the Victorian Public's control that was given to the Maggots (COLLINGWOOD) by John Brumby without the authority of the Victorian voting public.
POOL ALL THE BLOODY MATCH GATE TAKINGS THEN IT WON"T MATTER IF CWOOD GET 90,000 EACH WEEK AT THE "G" AND WE GET NEXT TO NO ONE AT ETIHAD. I'TS CALLED EQUALISATION, OR IF YOU LIKE, SOCIALISATION - where the losers financially would be Collingwood, Essendon etc and the winners, StKilda, Bulldogs etc.
You do realise less and less people pay to go to the footy these days. Most money is in membership and no way that should ever be pooled.
Yeah the system is perfect we should all shut up and be happy with the crusts we are thrown. That way if we don't rock the boat they might feel pity and give us some of the bones from their christmas dinner. Dumb clubs like ours should know their place or the AFL will be forced to pull the belt out on us. Nothing was ever gained from standing up to a s*** system.
That guy from the AFLPA should get the rack for suggesting the same thing as Koch. I hope our rulers take pity on us soon. Anyone that thinks the system should change is just getting their hopes up for nothing.
GOSAINTERSGO
I liked your suggestion
"POOL ALL THE BLOODY MATCH GATE TAKINGS THEN IT WON"T MATTER IF CWOOD GET 90,000 EACH WEEK AT THE "G" AND WE GET NEXT TO NO ONE AT ETIHAD. I'TS CALLED EQUALISATION, OR IF YOU LIKE, SOCIALISATION - where the losers financially would be Collingwood, Essendon etc and the winners, StKilda, Bulldogs etc."
It has a chance of happening and the afl may be ready to respect the needs of the handicapped clubs plying out of their brain-child - the Dome...
particularly in light of the massive cash injections being handed out to the northern clubs fighting the war against rugby on the fronteir. Even the afl know the likes of Coll, Hawk and Ess will make more through memberships and corporate donations so they could probably live with the equalisation at the gate. One thing l like about your suggestion is that it helps the poorer clubs (especially the Dome - neglected home teams) 2 ways. (1) they/us simply get a few dollars more coming in. and (b) the richies get less dollars in real terms from the gate. At the end of the day the 'big' monied teams will remain the bigger monied teams. They don't really lose but the competition overall will benefit. Given that Demetriou and co have already seen how this works in the U.S. they will be less reluctant to implement it here. The draft has worked well and I believe this equalisation initiative will as well.
Hope Patrick Smyth is actually right reg: the afl trying their hardest to buy back the Dome a.s.a.p.
If this all comes to pass 'soon' it should really help us along.
GO SAINTS!
The boy can play and we can build a defence around him that will have respect.
GoSaintersGo wrote:
POOL ALL THE BLOODY MATCH GATE TAKINGS THEN IT WON"T MATTER IF CWOOD GET 90,000 EACH WEEK AT THE "G" AND WE GET NEXT TO NO ONE AT ETIHAD. I'TS CALLED EQUALISATION, OR IF YOU LIKE, SOCIALISATION - where the losers financially would be Collingwood, Essendon etc and the winners, StKilda, Bulldogs etc.
You do realise less and less people pay to go to the footy these days. Most money is in membership and no way that should ever be pooled.
Yeah the system is perfect we should all shut up and be happy with the crusts we are thrown. That way if we don't rock the boat they might feel pity and give us some of the bones from their christmas dinner. Dumb clubs like ours should know their place or the AFL will be forced to pull the belt out on us. Nothing was ever gained from standing up to a s*** system.
That guy from the AFLPA should get the rack for suggesting the same thing as Koch. I hope our rulers take pity on us soon. Anyone that thinks the system should change is just getting their hopes up for nothing.
I have no idea why you said what you said after what i posted. Again it has nothing to do with what i said. I could never say you arent consistant. I was just pointing out that not as many time entry fees to the footy these days. Surely im allowed to say that. By the way we have little control about how the AFL do things but we have plenty of control about how our club does things. Maybe just maybe we get our house in order. That will certainly help but no lets always look for excuses. Just remember North made a million dollars last year. Its helps having a better run board.
Pooling the revenue is NOT the answer.
It will eventually lead to some clubs hosting huge crowds with huge sponsorship.
And other clubs with poor crowds and little sponsorship.
Propping them up with ever increasing subsidies is NOT a long term solution.
What you want is for each club to get EXPOSURE
- exposure in blockbusters
- exposure on Fri nights
- exposure on free-to-air Sat night games
Exposure = new members Exposure = sponsorship Exposure = financial (semi) independence.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
