Raging Against The Machine- The Season Opener and all that is wrong in the AFL world

[The Adelaide Connection]

It may be that Marcus Adam's fine china ankles have put me in a more cantankerous mood than usual, but I am interested to know what people think are the biggest injustices we should be fighting city hall over. For me it is the fixturing and first on my hit list is Round 1, game 1.

Nothing takes the air out of my "footy's back" bubble than the "traditional" Richmond v Carlton season opener. The game has a history of being ranker than gutter mustard and a complete unwatchable snoozefest. The 2018 edition just might prove to be the worst.

The AFL persist in scheduling the "blockbuster teams" in these prime time slots, despite the ratings showing that timeslots (not teams) now bring in the big numbers (and having two teams in form is just the icing on the cake). It is the neutrals, not competing teams fans, that really drive the numbers. Nine out of the top ten highest rating HandA fixtures from 2017 were Friday nights (Anzac Day #1) and I bet if they released the full figures it would be almost twenty-one Friday nights featuring in the top twenty-two.

The damage of being locked out of these fixtures (or not receiving an equal share) commercially (crowd numbers, ability to woo sponsors, exposure and growth of brand, etc.) is quite catastrophic. I can't find it but there was a PWC report produced that I believe quantified just how much damage to a teams bottom line being locked out of these fixtures does (and how the compensation clubs receive is monumentally inadequate).

The shifting goalpost rhetoric around how a club "earns" these fixtures will ensure the same clubs never receive their fair share. It switches from performance based, to crowd based, to supporter base based (mouthful), to being a big club that just pulls better tv numbers. FWIW the Dogs v GWS game was the #4 highest rating game (we actually had three in the top 10)- that's right, a little Victorian club versus a club without a supporter base somehow scored the fourth highest rating for the year.

I don't know how we fight the AFL on this except by inciting tidal waves of fury via social media and the like. If we didn't fire our banner guy I am sure he could have worked out something scathing and comical. I know PG has a fair crack, but he is fighting short-sighted, bonus chasing execs who have a whole bunch of other presidents (whose clubs get a good deal) patting them on the back.

*Takes deep breath*

So what are the issues you think are the most important to take up placards against?

[Bulldog Joe]

I have always considered the fixture the single greatest impediment to the growth of the smaller clubs.

Without the prime slots there is less exposure and therefore fewer supporters and inferior sponsorship outcomes.

Until they develop an even handed approach which shares these prime slots they is no equalisation and the smaller clubs will continue to be accused of being charity cases.

Under the current system the financial performance of the Western Bulldogs has been stellar.

[Sedat]

Add 2 teams and reduce the season to 19 games - problem solved. I'd much rather water down the overall talent pool at the highest level than continue with the horrible fixture inequalities that 18 teams into 22 rounds creates.

[Bulldog Joe]

Add 2 teams and reduce the season to 19 games - problem solved. I'd much rather water down the overall talent pool at the highest level than continue with the horrible fixture inequalities that 18 teams into 22 rounds creates.

It is not just about who you play. The financial inequality is created by when you play and granting prime slots like ANZAC Day to the same 2 teams is effectively an open cheque in terms of sponsorship and marketing.

[Sedat]

It is not just about who you play. The financial inequality is created by when you play and granting prime slots like ANZAC Day to the same 2 teams is effectively an open cheque in terms of sponsorship and marketing.

I get that but playing every team once and once only is a good start to reducing these inequities. They will still be there with ANZAC Day etc.. but at least there won't be travel inequities or fixturing inequities, such as one mid ranged team playing the top team twice and another mid ranged team playing the wooden spooner twice. That stuff compromises the actual integrity of the competition.

[bornadog]

I get that but playing every team once and once only is a good start to reducing these inequities. They will still be there with ANZAC Day etc.. but at least there won't be travel inequities or fixturing inequities, such as one mid ranged team playing the top team twice and another mid ranged team playing the wooden spooner twice. That stuff compromises the actual integrity of the competition.

Personally I wouldn't like to see less than 22 games per year, however, there are inequities created by the AFL.

There should be a fixture drawn up on a rotating basis so clubs play each other twice over a number of years. There should also be a system worked on on who gets a Friday night match. To me it needs to be divided up equally. It will never happen.

[boydogs]

Personally I wouldn't like to see less than 22 games per year, however, there are inequities created by the AFL.

There should be a fixture drawn up on a rotating basis so clubs play each other twice over a number of years. There should also be a system worked on on who gets a Friday night match. To me it needs to be divided up equally. It will never happen.

Different clubs want different things, making everything equal won't make everyone happy

[bornadog]

Different clubs want different things, making everything equal won't make everyone happy

Of course they do, they only care about their club, and rightly so.

[The Adelaide Connection]

With the Brennan result (and on the back of the Redpath result late last year) I think the new MRP are going to be on my list pretty damn soon.

[boydogs]

Of course they do, they only care about their club, and rightly so.

I don't mean taking ANZAC day away from Collingwood and Essendon is going to annoy them, I mean clubs all have different priorities with their fixturing, which is why I think the AFL's system of getting clubs to submit their top 5 requests is a good one

[The Adelaide Connection]

Of course they do, they only care about their club, and rightly so.

That is an incredibly short-sighted way of looking at it though. Giving more exposure to the cereals on the bottom shelf with minimal facings will help strengthen those brands. Having clubs that have an even footing commercially will mean strogner clubs across the board and long term can only mean a more even competition. It might mean some short term pain, but it is worth the buy in.

The initial hit that might impact some execs bonuses probably will mean it never happens.

[bornadog]

That is an incredibly short-sighted way of looking at it though. Giving more exposure to the cereals on the bottom shelf with minimal facings will help strengthen those brands. Having clubs that have an even footing commercially will mean strogner clubs across the board and long term can only mean a more even competition. It might mean some short term pain, but it is worth the buy in.

The initial hit that might impact some execs bonuses probably will mena it never happens.

I agree with you, that is why my suggestion is to do away with requests and just have a system that every one sticks (see above post). Clubs just want to look after themselves.

[The Adelaide Connection]

I agree with you, that is why my suggestion is to do away with requests and just have a system that every one sticks (see above post). Clubs just want to look after themselves.

To clarify, I meant that the position of the clubs just looking out for themselves is short-sighted (I didn't mean I thought you were being short sighted). I think it is going to take some incredible leadership by a CEO of the AFL flanked by similarly strong and forward thinking club leaders to ever see them have the guts to make the long term thinking calls they need to make.

[bornadog]

I think it is going to take some incredible leadership by a CEO of the AFL flanked by similarly strong and forward thinking club leaders to ever see them have the guts to make the long term thinking calls they need to make.

They will never do it. I was talking to my mate about upcoming games and he is a Hawks supporter. We looked at their fixture and basically the first 5 rounds are all blockbusters at the MCG. We have done incredibly well to get to where we are, but somehow I feel it is not sustainable unless we have the likes of PG boxing in our corner. God help us when he retires.

The way you are thinking TAC, I have always argued the same way. Back in 2002 I was invited along to a business lunch with Smorgan, along with 20 others. I tried to argue the point about the TV time slots, the contrived fixtures, the blockbuster games, but David was more concerned about survival and not fighting HQ. Maybe that is what he had to do at the time, but I know I was pissed off.

[Sedat]

They will never do it. I was talking to my mate about upcoming games and he is a Hawks supporter. We looked at their fixture and basically the first 5 rounds are all blockbusters at the MCG.

Playing devil's advocate in this particular example, Hawthorn's home ground is the MCG. But I agree with the general tone of what's you're saying.

All the problems start because of the absurd situation where each team gets to play 5 teams twice - the AFL can manipulate this by doubling down on blockbusters and cross-town rivalries, and they can also (absurdly) weight the difficulty of some team's fixtures and thereby turn the season into a handicap race. It is actually absurd when you think about a so-called professional competition having such an obvious compromise attached to each and every season.