Tweet
Re: 2019 AFL Finals Series
Here's the latest propaganda piece from the AFL reminding us of how smart they were to expand the competition:
A couple of quotes and some points:
“The two new teams are significantly commercially positive for the AFL,’’ Goyder says. “They give our media partners access to bigger population areas and there is no doubt in my mind that the broadcast rights outcome of a few years ago was enhanced materially by having teams on the Gold Coast and Western Sydney.
“That has been to the benefit of the whole industry.”
Where's your evidence of this numbnuts? Using terms "in my mind" points to the fact there probably isn't any anyone who actually could share it willing to share the actual evidence. Because it isn't there, or it is and it shows neutrality as a best case when it comes to viewer behaviour or overall patronage.
“The best single measure of what this is costing the competition would be to ask, how much more are the Giants and the Suns supported each year by the AFL than the most supported clubs in Melbourne, who have been here for 150 years?”
To answer that, it's not as much as you might think. The Giants last year received total AFL dividends of $22.7 million. This is is less than $4 million more than St Kilda received."
Actually, ~18% is a massive number. If we're talking above operational costs, it's *!*!*!*!ing huge. Just because four is a number under five and it kind of sounds small, against the actual expenditure on each club it's more than material. It's beneficial. Don't take us all for patsies, some of us get paid to spin shit just like you do you *!*!*!*!ing wankers, and most of us are smart enough to figure it out anyway.
But Dave Matthews, god bless his cotton socks, actually puts some truth or gravity into the situation by being carelessly pragmatic.
“Particularly in Sydney, to capture hearts and minds in such a cluttered market you really need to be winning,’’ Matthews says.
“It’s important in western Sydney that communities trust you and trust you are going to be there and put your roots down and establish a club forever.’’
No shit David. We get it, and this is why you get the concessions and the 18% over and above the funding other clubs get (without taking into account how heavily your club is exposed, the golden handshakes from a sponsorship perspective it gets). You need to keep winning whether it be through merit or through intervention, because nobody will give a single *!*!*!*! about your club when it starts to lose. In the most cluttered market (Sydney is cluttered, sure, but not to the extent Melbourne is in light of poor and decreasing patronage within the NRL, and Melbourne numbers continue to increase at the same time) without additional funding the worst clubs in Melbourne still survive because of their history and yours never will.
This article is actually demonstrating the opposite of its intent (unless good Ol' Chip has a sense of irony in his writing too subtle for my humble brain to pick up). What a time to be alive.
Here's the latest propaganda piece from the AFL reminding us of how smart they were to expand the competition:
A couple of quotes and some points:
“The two new teams are significantly commercially positive for the AFL,’’ Goyder says. “They give our media partners access to bigger population areas and there is no doubt in my mind that the broadcast rights outcome of a few years ago was enhanced materially by having teams on the Gold Coast and Western Sydney.
“That has been to the benefit of the whole industry.”
Where's your evidence of this numbnuts? Using terms "in my mind" points to the fact there probably isn't any anyone who actually could share it willing to share the actual evidence. Because it isn't there, or it is and it shows neutrality as a best case when it comes to viewer behaviour or overall patronage.
“The best single measure of what this is costing the competition would be to ask, how much more are the Giants and the Suns supported each year by the AFL than the most supported clubs in Melbourne, who have been here for 150 years?”
To answer that, it's not as much as you might think. The Giants last year received total AFL dividends of $22.7 million. This is is less than $4 million more than St Kilda received."
Actually, ~18% is a massive number. If we're talking above operational costs, it's *!*!*!*!ing huge. Just because four is a number under five and it kind of sounds small, against the actual expenditure on each club it's more than material. It's beneficial. Don't take us all for patsies, some of us get paid to spin shit just like you do you *!*!*!*!ing wankers, and most of us are smart enough to figure it out anyway.
But Dave Matthews, god bless his cotton socks, actually puts some truth or gravity into the situation by being carelessly pragmatic.
“Particularly in Sydney, to capture hearts and minds in such a cluttered market you really need to be winning,’’ Matthews says.
“It’s important in western Sydney that communities trust you and trust you are going to be there and put your roots down and establish a club forever.’’
No shit David. We get it, and this is why you get the concessions and the 18% over and above the funding other clubs get (without taking into account how heavily your club is exposed, the golden handshakes from a sponsorship perspective it gets). You need to keep winning whether it be through merit or through intervention, because nobody will give a single *!*!*!*! about your club when it starts to lose. In the most cluttered market (Sydney is cluttered, sure, but not to the extent Melbourne is in light of poor and decreasing patronage within the NRL, and Melbourne numbers continue to increase at the same time) without additional funding the worst clubs in Melbourne still survive because of their history and yours never will.
This article is actually demonstrating the opposite of its intent (unless good Ol' Chip has a sense of irony in his writing too subtle for my humble brain to pick up). What a time to be alive.
Comment