AFL – long term structure.

Discuss AFL, Rugby League, Football, Cricket and any other Aussie Sport!
User avatar
Jeffles
Platinum
Posts: 9499
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 8:44 pm
Location: The Jet Set Lounge - Henson Park

Re: AFL – long term structure.

Post by Jeffles »

I think the article is spearated from reality. What Boba Fett said.

And another thing. These people keep forgetting North Melbourne and the Paaaa won premierships in living memory with soft finances. This mourning over the AFL is premature.

Nines
Silver
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:12 pm

Re: AFL – long term structure.

Post by Nines »

Boba Fett wrote:And the argument about the thinning out of the talent pool... I'm not so sure that's correct. ..
A lot of people use the logic of the thinning talet pool .Reduce the number of clubs thus concetrating the talent pool thus increasing the standard .

IMO this only holds true in a very general sesnse .Blowouts are due more to the distribution of players ,recruiting fads or club crisis ."Bad" football is generally due to coaching styles.

If you watch the WAFL it is a very watchable competition , because it is reasonably balanced and styles are attacking .

Amaru
Bronze
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:38 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: AFL – long term structure.

Post by Amaru »

I don't mind the idea, but the AFL would never go for it because it would mean less dollars for them.

TV rights is its biggest money maker these days. To demand more dollars in rights, it needs to increase viewer ratings. There are certain games a year the AFL locks in to maximise ratings. Excluding finals, these are West Coast v Freo, Crows v Power, any combination of Collingwood/Carlton/Essendon/Richmond, Collingwood v Geelong and Hawthorn v Geelong. By having two divisions, there will be years where say, for example, West Coast and Freo are in different divisions, so those teams won't meet that year. If Collingwood and Essendon are in different divisions, that means no ANZAC Day game which means an opportunity lost for the AFL for a ratings bonanza.

I also can't see how the logistics would work with teams and player contracts. In England alot of clubs have get out clauses with their marquee players so if the club is relegated, the player can walk. If Carlton was relegated would Chris Judd be happy to play in the lower league? Would he be free to go elsewhere? What about the potential loss of sponsorships and crowd attendances that being demoted to the lower league would most likely bring? Who gets the priority pick in the draft, the team demoted to AFL 2 or the team which is promoted to the AFL? Would the salary cap be equal for both sets of teams? There would be too many issues with no easy answer.

Rob
Gold
Posts: 2681
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Perth

Re: AFL – long term structure.

Post by Rob »

Amaru wrote:I don't mind the idea, but the AFL would never go for it because it would mean less dollars for them.
It's not measured in dollars, it's measured in interest. Dollars are just a means to an end, being greater interest, as dollars can pay for game development and promotion.

And a divisional system would almost certainly not result in overall interest increasing. It would also result in the demise of the salary cap and draft, and result in a far, far more lopsided competition than what we have now. If there's one thing this year should have taught us for those that didn't know already, it's that Australian football is a sport where only a small difference in the strength of teams will result in some incredibly lopsided scores. You can't just drop men back to prevent the damage like you can in soccer.

Boba Fett
Silver
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 4:20 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: AFL – long term structure.

Post by Boba Fett »

I suspect there is much more chance of introducing a conference system than a tiered structure. That way everyone gets to stay in the top league, but may allow for a fairer home and away system.

Personally I don't think even this system will be introduced as the 'unfair' home and away system actually ends up creating more interest. For example, from a home and away perspective you would want Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon and Richmond in the same group to maximise crowds and tv ratings. But then that would mean we could never have a Collingwood/Carlton GF, which would be a shame.

I think the current 'rigged' draw is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

User avatar
Jeffles
Platinum
Posts: 9499
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 8:44 pm
Location: The Jet Set Lounge - Henson Park

Re: AFL – long term structure.

Post by Jeffles »

This is something that bugs me and it has crept into the NRL as well.

There are two kinds of draw you can have, Neighbours and Home and Away.

We'll start with the latter. In Home and Away, you play each other team an even amount of times. Of late, the expansion of the competition means that the administrators don't want to have 30+ weeks of a regular season so Home and Away is truncated based on one's performance in the previous regular season. This is what the NRL did, so that each club's second round matches were against an even spread of clubs based on their performance the previous year. Home and Away Lite, if you will

In Neighbours, your draw is skewed so that your second round opponents are based on off-field reasons. E.g. more derbies against your neighbours, conferencing, etc. This is what the AFL and NRL have moved towards, though the AFL is worse by all reports. I guess it also exists in American sports where they want every team playing in the top league.

Although Neighbours is the better TV show, it's not the better structure for a sporting competition from the point of view of a sporting purist like myself. But this is a losing battle. Fans want to see more derbies etc. They might revert to Home and Away if there are enough teams to play each other once only. I.e. a 23 team competition. Not bloody likely but you never know with future population trends.

User avatar
the crow
Gold
Posts: 2487
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:26 pm
Location: In the CPD biatches

Re: AFL – long term structure.

Post by the crow »

Struth...I so want to hear that explanation on offsiders.

User avatar
Simmo79
Platinum
Posts: 4626
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: Canberra, at work, wasting your tax dollars...

Re: AFL – long term structure.

Post by Simmo79 »

email them. I think I got Andy Harper to use the expression "oxygen of publicity" on Fox Sports FC in relation to starting the A-League season after the NRL and AFL were done.

nobleoz
Gold
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:02 am
Location: Dee Why

Re: AFL – long term structure.

Post by nobleoz »

which means.......?

User avatar
yob
Platinum
Posts: 8406
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:26 am
Location: Czech Republic

Re: AFL – long term structure.

Post by yob »

Jeffles wrote:Although Neighbours is the better TV show
I still cried when Shane Parrish died and nobody will take that away from me.

User avatar
Simmo79
Platinum
Posts: 4626
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: Canberra, at work, wasting your tax dollars...

Re: AFL – long term structure.

Post by Simmo79 »

Hey did anyone look at the AFL's distribution to the clubs, the equalisation distributions etc? The main point I took from it is that the AFL's decided exactly how they going to spend every last penny of their income over the next 5 years... but they haven't even finalised the negotiations with the players. That is massively ballsy but signals to the players that their current demands can't and won't be met.

How the players react will be tough to predict. They can give up and agree to the current offer, let the current agreement die and work without one or go the nuclear option to get some or all of their extant demands agreed to.

The AFL absolutely should have held off on finalising the distributions until after they were done with the labour negotiations because there's no telling what will happen now.

put the popcorn in the microwave but don't press start until we hear from the AFLPA.

Rob
Gold
Posts: 2681
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Perth

Re: AFL – long term structure.

Post by Rob »

They haven't actually finalised the distributions, they've finalised the welfare. The base AFL distribution to clubs is usually in the vicinity of $7m or so, and in their latest document they're talking about a $3.25m base. So there's a lot more money that will go to clubs outside of these amounts. I've always presumed that it's decided shortly before the money is actually paid based on actual income and expenses.
And of course, the AFL is really just negotiating with the players how much the salary cap is going to be and the minimum amount each club will be required to pay. It's the clubs that incur the expense.

Post Reply