The true purpose of the AFL Commission is to ensure that the maximum number of football supporters are able watch their beloved team play for the lowest possible price. Everything else as they say, is mere detail.
Sadly, it is those details which have so pre-occupied the AFL Commission and its various executives over the past two decades.
When the then VFL Commission was established in 1984 it was done to prevent factional bickering among the then 12 Victorian teams. At that point, it is believed as many as half of the clubs were insolvent. Since then, the health of the competition has improved dramatically. The various AFL executives will no doubt take credit for the improvements. Ross Oakley, Wayne Jackson and Andrew Demetriou are proud men, not afraid to acknowledge their own achievements.
Of course, much of the financial improvement of the VFL and AFL has been due to luck, rather than good management. Since the early 1990s, the value of sporting broadcast agreements has inflated dramatically, largely due to the likes of Rupert Murdoch realising that to turn a profit in subscription television premium sporting content is required. As a direct result, the value of broadcast rights for sports including premier league soccer, gridiron and US baseball have skyrocketed in the past 20 years. AFL, as the premier sporting real estate in Australia has been dragged along for the ride. The increase in the value of the broadcast rights would have occurred had Donald Duck been running the competition.
It is in its treatment of club members (who it is often forgotten are the ultimate shareholders of the AFL) that the Commission and its executive have badly erred. Despite the AFL being richer than ever (it will soon be establishing a $100 million “future fund”), several Victorian clubs are financially not much better off than in 1985, well before the days of $780 million broadcast deals.
Much of the ground rationalisation program of the late 1990s (and the introduction of new, non-Victorian sides) was ostensibly undertaken to ensure the existing clubs’ survival. The problem is, many of those existing clubs are still in financial strife but members are in a far worse position than 20 years ago. Costs to attend games has skyrocketed (a premium reserved seat at a suburban ground of Waverley Park in the early 1990s cost around $100 a year, a premium reserved seat at Etihad Stadium costs close to $400 annually, while membership costs have doubled). Supporters are also required to spend upwards of $600 annually for a Foxtel subscription if they want to watch their team play interstate.
Further, paid-up club members are also being actively prevented from attending matches, showcased by the AFL’s unwillingness to transfer matches from the 50,000 capacity Etihad Stadium to the 100,000 capacity MCG. In Round 14, the AFL’s two currently undefeated clubs, St Kilda and Geelong, have been scheduled to play at the Docklands ground. Both clubs wanted the match moved to the MCG to accommodate 50,000 extra fans.
Last week, the AFL claimed to have attempted to switch the match to the MCG but was prevented from doing so by management of the docklands-based stadium which had allegedly threatened to sue the league. Its inability to shift the match appears to contradict public comments made by the Wayne Jackson-led AFL executive in 1998, when the League was convincing clubs to relocate from Waverley to Docklands. At that time, clubs and supporters were told that under an alleged “best fit” policy, any matches expected to draw in excess of 50,000 would be switched to the MCG.
In a decade since those promises were made, not one match has been switched to accommodate a larger crowd.
AFL Media Manager, Patrick Keane, claimed that the primary reason the match was not able to be switched to the MCG was because “St Kilda is contracted to a minimum number of games at Etihad Stadium.” Curiously, those contractual arrangements didn’t prevent St Kilda from playing four matches per year in Tasmania in 2006 and 2007. Nor did those contractual arrangements preclude the AFL from scheduling St Kilda to play a home game on the Gold Coast last week. Further, it was the AFL itself which entered into those very contractual arrangements with Etihad management. The AFL could have included a clause in its agreement that the AFL has discretion to relocate any matches which it has reasonable grounds to believe will draw in excess of 55,000 spectators so long as a replacement match was scheduled at the Docklands.
In a Press Release, the AFL claimed that “we’ve been working for probably the better part of four weeks on the logistics of moving this particular game, dealing with both venues, and for a number of reasons it won’t be moved.” Interestingly, in the 1990s, the AFL would regularly switch matches from suburban grounds to Waverley Park, with as little as one week notice accommodate larger crowds.
The AFL has provided several excuses for its failure to relocate matches from the Docklands to the MCG, but none of those excuses appear to make any sense. Further, the AFL was unable to provide Crikey with any details of its contractual agreement with Etihad, simply noting that the match was able to be moved, but costs associated were prohibitive. While the AFL Executive is furiously blaming the Ian Collins-led Etihad for its predicament, it was the AFL which entered into the Stadium deals with Etihad.
Sadly for ordinary AFL supporters, when it comes to their interests, it appears that the AFL prefers to turn the other cheek.
The true purpose of the AFL Commission is to ensure that the maximum number of football supporters are able watch their beloved team play for the lowest possible price. Everything else as they say, is mere detail.
Sadly, it is those details which have so pre-occupied the AFL Commission and its various executives over the past two decades.
When the then VFL Commission was established in 1984 it was done to prevent factional bickering among the then 12 Victorian teams. At that point, it is believed as many as half of the clubs were insolvent. Since then, the health of the competition has improved dramatically. The various AFL executives will no doubt take credit for the improvements. Ross Oakley, Wayne Jackson and Andrew Demetriou are proud men, not afraid to acknowledge their own achievements.
Of course, much of the financial improvement of the VFL and AFL has been due to luck, rather than good management. Since the early 1990s, the value of sporting broadcast agreements has inflated dramatically, largely due to the likes of Rupert Murdoch realising that to turn a profit in subscription television premium sporting content is required. As a direct result, the value of broadcast rights for sports including premier league soccer, gridiron and US baseball have skyrocketed in the past 20 years. AFL, as the premier sporting real estate in Australia has been dragged along for the ride. The increase in the value of the broadcast rights would have occurred had Donald Duck been running the competition.
It is in its treatment of club members (who it is often forgotten are the ultimate shareholders of the AFL) that the Commission and its executive have badly erred. Despite the AFL being richer than ever (it will soon be establishing a $100 million “future fund”), several Victorian clubs are financially not much better off than in 1985, well before the days of $780 million broadcast deals.
Much of the ground rationalisation program of the late 1990s (and the introduction of new, non-Victorian sides) was ostensibly undertaken to ensure the existing clubs’ survival. The problem is, many of those existing clubs are still in financial strife but members are in a far worse position than 20 years ago. Costs to attend games has skyrocketed (a premium reserved seat at a suburban ground of Waverley Park in the early 1990s cost around $100 a year, a premium reserved seat at Etihad Stadium costs close to $400 annually, while membership costs have doubled). Supporters are also required to spend upwards of $600 annually for a Foxtel subscription if they want to watch their team play interstate.
Further, paid-up club members are also being actively prevented from attending matches, showcased by the AFL’s unwillingness to transfer matches from the 50,000 capacity Etihad Stadium to the 100,000 capacity MCG. In Round 14, the AFL’s two currently undefeated clubs, St Kilda and Geelong, have been scheduled to play at the Docklands ground. Both clubs wanted the match moved to the MCG to accommodate 50,000 extra fans.
Last week, the AFL claimed to have attempted to switch the match to the MCG but was prevented from doing so by management of the docklands-based stadium which had allegedly threatened to sue the league. Its inability to shift the match appears to contradict public comments made by the Wayne Jackson-led AFL executive in 1998, when the League was convincing clubs to relocate from Waverley to Docklands. At that time, clubs and supporters were told that under an alleged “best fit” policy, any matches expected to draw in excess of 50,000 would be switched to the MCG.
In a decade since those promises were made, not one match has been switched to accommodate a larger crowd.
AFL Media Manager, Patrick Keane, claimed that the primary reason the match was not able to be switched to the MCG was because “St Kilda is contracted to a minimum number of games at Etihad Stadium.” Curiously, those contractual arrangements didn’t prevent St.Kilda from playing four matches per year in Tasmania in 2006 and 2007. Nor did those contractual arrangements preclude the AFL from scheduling St.Kilda to play a home game on the Gold Coast last week. Further, it was the AFL itself which entered into those very contractual arrangements with Etihad management. The AFL could have included a clause in its agreement that the AFL has discretion to relocate any matches which it has reasonable grounds to believe will draw in excess of 55,000 spectators so long as a replacement match was scheduled at the Docklands.
In a Press Release, the AFL claimed that “we’ve been working for probably the better part of four weeks on the logistics of moving this particular game, dealing with both venues, and for a number of reasons it won’t be moved.” Interestingly, in the 1990s, the AFL would regularly switch matches from suburban grounds to Waverley Park, with as little as one week notice accommodate larger crowds.
The AFL has provided several excuses for its failure to relocate matches from the Docklands to the MCG, but none of those excuses appear to make any sense. Further, the AFL was unable to provide Crikey with any details of its contractual agreement with Etihad, simply noting that the match was able to be moved, but costs associated were prohibitive. While the AFL Executive is furiously blaming the Ian Collins-led Etihad for its predicament, it was the AFL which entered into the Stadium deals with Etihad.
Sadly for ordinary AFL supporters, when it comes to their interests, it appears that the AFL prefers to turn the other cheek.
That was such a good story I read it twice without even realising!!
With swine flu being on the increase in Victoria, you would think that large gatherings like footy matches would be discouraged. Wonder if the AFL would let the match go ahead without physical attendance, and allow it to be broadcast live?
there is room for an afl consumer forum. and next time the footy show runs a phone membership drive ring jam the phones with your complaints
get -up and voice it
Carn the Saints!