Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

[boydogs]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

I thought in that deal we effectively cap our losses/gains around 20,000 - 25,000 attendees, so anything over the figure brings us no money. Hence last year Gordo said if you took a heap of our great attendance at Etihad and joined the revenue together, we still may hundreds of thousands more at Cairns in a single game.

Hopefully there's a new deal in place.

You can't put an attendance number on it because of the variables in members/paid entry, level 1/2/3 etc. but 25,000 wouldn't be far off as a break-even point

[ratsmac]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Bankers

1. Daniel - he is back to his best skill wise. He has responded remarkably well since his dropping.
2. Tom Boyd - he played a pretty good game. He should've got a couple frees in front of goal which weren't paid which would of made his game even better. He has to start nailing his set shots though.
3. Adams - he had a few very important moments. I loved his long goal.

Banchor

1. Clay Smith - ordinary first half and great second half.

Anchors

1. Slow starts. Although we seem to pace ourselves well over 4 quarters and finish off games stronger than our opposition.
2. Suckling - a bit harsh but his shots on goal are un Suckling like. We need him to improve.
3. Injuries. They suck!

[Webby]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Are we still under the old Etihad agreement? If so, I don't think we get much at all.

The criticism of the old Etihad agreement was that, for Norf, Aints and us, it set a break-even point said to be 25k crowds. The reason for this is that Etihad's third party agreements rely strongly on bums on seats in order to sell beer & hot dogs etc.

It may have softened since, but nonetheless, that simply increases the below contrast:

In 2014, we played 10 home games at Etihad. In those games we averaged 23,517 attendees. In four of those games we achieved crowds of 18,054 or lower.

This was Gordon's argument: If you're going to host Gold Coast, draw 15k crowds and blow huge dough, you might as well take a deal to play at another venue in front of 8-10k for a profit. Pretty simple!?

Anyway, as I say, our Etihad home games in 2014 averaged 23.5k. In our three Etihad home games this year, we are averaging 40.3k
Still some work to do to keep that average up with WCE, Adelaide and GWS still to host, but with St Kilda, Melbourne, Norf & Essendon still to host, we should comfortably hit ~35k average crowds for the year.

So, with our old break even 25k, our average crowds of 23.5k in 2014 contrast starkly with my projected (& conservative) average of ~35k in 2017 and mean that the club are on much, much stronger footing.

Not to mention the sold out coteries, the eight new sponsors and the 43.8k members.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

My understanding of the deal is that it provided insurance to us by factoring in crowd assumptions at 25,000, not a break even figure. My memory is that the deal factored in a set figure (about 25,000) to cover the risks of lower crowds, but then meant that higher crowds wouldn't count for full financial reward. Being that we couldn't guarantee more than those figures, we took a deal that limited losses, but limited returns. So we would get 25,000 worth of crowd for returns whether 15,000 or 45,000 turn up. Which is why the deal was so bad from a money making perspective (good to mitigate risk). We were bringing in huge crowds, but only getting the mediated figure. Which is what Gordo was saying that for all our huge crowds combined, we still make more money in Cairns with a small crowd. He wasnt talking about break evens in this context, but rather huge crowds don't make us money.

Big crowds are great for atmosphere and creating a buzz around the club. But if my memory of the deal mechanics is correct, there's no financial dividend whatsoever for anything over about 25,000. That's the imperative of renegotiating our deal now we can comfortably assume to have much higher average attendances and get a stronger return.

[hujsh]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

How would Boyd's be a mark if the Richmond player touched it second?

Correct call was made. Sorry.

They clearly both touch it together which in any contested marking situation is paid.

Technically it is not a mark but lots of decisions are not paid as they technically should. If they were we'd still have a plague of hands in the back free kicks every game

[Danny the snakeman]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Looked up the rule. No one can touch it. Clearly hasnt been like that for 30 years

Alway been a rule, can't believe few people dont know that.

[Webby]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

My understanding of the deal is that it provided insurance to us by factoring in crowd assumptions at 25,000, not a break even figure. My memory is that the deal factored in a set figure (about 25,000) to cover the risks of lower crowds, but then meant that higher crowds wouldn't count for full financial reward. Being that we couldn't guarantee more than those figures, we took a deal that limited losses, but limited returns. So we would get 25,000 worth of crowd for returns whether 15,000 or 45,000 turn up. Which is why the deal was so bad from a money making perspective (good to mitigate risk). We were bringing in huge crowds, but only getting the mediated figure. Which is what Gordo was saying

Yes that's true, but kind of the same thing. If we get 14k turn up against GC at Etihad, it's not like they sting us then and there. Meanwhile, if we get 45k turn up against Collingwood, it's not like they send us windfall cash then and there. It's a weighted average of all attendances over a season rather than a boom or bust. The break even average was said to be ~25k for a season.

Obviously as of three games this year, we're sitting on a 40.5k attendance average. Two of those three games were against interstate teams, as well. For season 2014, we averaged 23.5k.

What I'm saying is that, regardless of the model now in place (which is at least as good as the 2014 one), we are smashing it this year.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Yes that's true, but kind of the same thing. If we get 14k turn up against GC at Etihad, it's not like they sting us then and there. Meanwhile, if we get 45k turn up against Collingwood, it's not like they send us windfall cash then and there. It's a weighted average of all attendances over a season rather than a boom or bust. The break even average was said to be ~25k for a season.

Obviously as of three games this year, we're sitting on a 40.5k attendance average. Two of those three games were against interstate teams, as well. For season 2014, we averaged 23.5k.

What I'm saying is that, regardless of the model now in place (which is at least as good as the 2014 one), we are smashing it this year.

Good on the fans for turning out. Big crowds do help our requests for good time slots & sponsorship. It's great to see so many turning out.

[soupman]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Good on the fans for turning out. Big crowds do help our requests for good time slots & sponsorship. It's great to see so many turning out.

It has been good.

The last two years I have been continually frustrated with how poor our crowds have been despite our form. I can understand he drop off in the BMac years, but when we were still struggling to break 30,000 when we had clearly established we were both a good side and a good side to watch I was getting pissed of.

Turns out a premiership fixes that.

[Bulldog4life]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

He is quite passive aggressive when talking about the Bulldogs on AFL 360, and it's obvious the fawning over Bevo the super coach annoys him. I guess the fact Bevo's never beaten Geelong plays into it.

I agree comrade. I remember an episode after the Grand Final when Scott and Buckley were asked if looking at the way Bevo interacts with his players, could they improve their way. The look of disdain on Scott's face was very noticeable.

[Bulldog4life]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Possibly also extends to the dominance of the Lions during Scott's tenure as a player. Funny all these years later and I still can't stand Alistair Lynch after his disrespectful 'choking' jibe at Scotty West. The sooner we can start a dominance over Geelong the better.

I'm also still a liitle bitter that it was Anthony Hudson calling our brilliant final moments in last year's GF. He's another that has annoyed the hell out of me over many years for giving us no credibility and very little positive air time.

Remember that clearly Doc and like you I think of it when I see Lynch

[I'm Not Bitter Anymore!]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Me too even though I am no longer bitter

[merantau]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

I'm not a fan of either of the Scotts. One is first cousin to the Drover's Dog, the other carries on as if someone is always snatching his favorite bone away. They both do a fair bit of arm waving, a la Heath Shaw, jaw dropping and have mastered the art of the incredulous eye roll. Very unlikable pair.

[always right]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Chris Scott tries to present himself as some statesman-like figure when interviewed. We see the true version in the coaches box with his histrionics. Brad Scott seems to be constantly in defensive mode. Both are high on my list of unlikable nobs.

[Bulldog4life]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Chris Scott tries to present himself as some statesman-like figure when interviewed. We see the true version in the coaches box with his histrionics. Brad Scott seems to be constantly in defensive mode. Both are high on my list of unlikable nobs.

Yes full of self importance.