The TV rights deal conveniently came up with a friend talking about the NBA dispute the other day and apparently according to him it was public knowledge that the foxtel contribution to the AFL rights was $45m a year. So i asked him for a link for that and it turns out it was $50m for 4 games.

When you factor in the pot being divided another 8 times for the $50m it proves conclusively that that content is of no value to the AFL.

2012 Victorian Premier League fixtures released
24.11.2011
The eagerly awaited 2012 Victorian Premier League (VPL) fixtures have just been released.

2012 Victorian Premier League fixtures

The opening round kicks off on Saturday 24 March 2012 and has yielded some intriguing encounters.

It’s the always popular battle of the Greens when defending champions Green Gully Cavaliers travel to Kingston Heath to take on Bentleigh Greens.

Green Gully general manager Raymond Mamo said that the club was definitely capable of making it three VPL titles in a row.

“From speaking to the players they are all very excited for the 2012 season.

We’ve maintained much of our squad from last year and we’re raring to go,” he said.

“We’re thankful that the club has a coach like Ian Dobson, who we regard as the best coach in the VPL.”

Reigning Mirabella Cup Champions Northcote City will host 2010 Grand Finalists Richmond, who will be eager to make their mark this season after a relatively disappointing 2011, failing to make the finals.

South Melbourne will be back in Lakeside Stadium when they play 2011 State League Champions Whittlesea Zebras.

2010 State League 1 Runners-Up Southern Stars will take on Dandenong Thunder in the first local derby of the season.

Southern Stars team manager Tony Yildar said that everyone at the club was very excited to be in the Victorian Premier League.

“It’s the first time in the club’s history that we’ve been in the VPL and we’re happy to be amongst the big boys in town,” he said.

“We really believe in our players and we hope to be competitive.

“We’re looking forward to playing Dandenong Thunder in Round One as in the last few years this has been a great local derby.”

Knights Stadium will be a buzz when Mirabella Cup Finalists Melbourne Knights take on the dangerous Hume City.

2011 Grand Finalists Oakleigh Cannons have a tough opening match away to Heidelberg United.

After the 2011 Grand Final went to extra time, the Round Four replay between Green Gully and Oakleigh Cannons is sure to be a blockbuster encounter, as will the Mirabella Cup replay between Melbourne Knights and Northcote City, also in Round Four.

Round 22 is also set to be a fitting finale with 2011 VPL Champions Green Gully taking on 2011 Mirabella Cup Champions Northcote City.

The date for the VPL Grand Final has also been set for Saturday 13 October.

Round One Fixtures

Fri 23 Mar 8:15PM Bentleigh Greens v Green Gully Cavaliers @ Kingston Heath Soccer Complex
Sat 24 Mar 3:00PM Dandenong Thunder v Southern Stars @ George Andrews Reserve
Sat 24 Mar 3:00PM South Melbourne v Whittlesea Zebras @ Lakeside Stadium
Sat 24 Mar 6:00PM Heidelberg United v Oakleigh Cannons @ Olympic Park
Sun 25 Mar 3:00PM Northcote City v Richmond @ John Cain Memorial Park
Sun 25 Mar 6:00PM Melbourne Knights v Hume City @ Knights Stadium

Final Round Fixtures

Sun 16 Sep 3:00 Dandenong Thunder v Richmond @ George Andrews Reserve
Sun 16 Sep 3:00 Northcote City v Green Gully Cavaliers @ John Cain Memorial Park
Sun 16 Sep 3:00 Hume City v Whittlesea Zebras @ John Ilhan Memorial Reserve
Sun 16 Sep 3:00 Bentleigh Greens v Oakleigh Cannons @ Kingston Heath Soccer Complex
Sun 16 Sep 3:00 Melbourne Knights v Southern Stars @ Knights Stadium
Sun 16 Sep 3:00 Heidelberg United v South Melbourne @ Olympic Park



http://www.footballfedvic.com.au/index.php?id=17&tx_ttnews%5Byear%5D=2011&tx_ttnews%5Bmonth%5D=11&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=114&cHash=68d13f99e3bd4869ad32776315c0efa9

South sign Brad Norton

http://www.smfc.com.au/news/1120/young-gun-signs-with-south/

South Melbourne FC is delighted to announce the signing of Bradley Norton for the 2012 Victorian Premier League season.

Bradley Norton arrives after being released from A-League franchise Adelaide United. The 20 year old has Victorian Premier League experience, having played for the Melbourne Knights in 2009 and Northcote City in 2010. South fans may remember him as the player who scored the winning goal with a beautiful left-footed shot from outside the box in Northcote's 3-2 victory against South at John Cain Memorial Park on Sunday 6th June 2010.

South Melbourne FC welcomes Bradley Norton to Lakeside Stadium, and wishes him all the best this season.

There are a certain number of games worth showing per week. Once you reach that number (whatever it is) then there is no further gain to be made from content.

On point 1, your position was never that we had no way of knowing, that's the first time you've mentioned it, rather that the TV markets value was already covered and the remaining teams gained the competition value through their content via cross over support, a theory not supported by the examples.

Your explanations for the lack of support by the examples was 'saturation' which i asked you to clarify and which was what this reply should have been about. If you’re claiming it was TV market saturation you've adopted my theory and contradicted that content has value statement, and if it's viable team saturation it doesn't match the examples because those organisations are trying to move/merge viable but poorly rating teams.

1 - Your argument appears to be that only sides that can bring a new market to the game should join the A-League. My argument is that we have no way of knowing which teams will bring a new market to the game. If Melbourne can support 9 sides in the AFL, it's reasonable to assume that many areas of the country could support a side (or more sides).

2 - Your argument appears to have supported the notion of relocating North Melbourne to the Gold Coast in order to capitalise on the increased market there rather than leave them in Melbourne and expand to Gold Coast. If you are now saying that you believe the league is better off with BOTH sides, then your entire argument is a joke.

3 - Your point appears to have been that having an expanded competition dilutes the financial benefits of a competition. Otherwise why continually use North Melbourne as an example?

Anyway, always good to have a balanced, reasoned, civil discussion with a fellow football lover about the future of our game. I'd stand by my position that until the league hits optimum size there's value in increased content (although I'd concede that the question of what the optimum size is will be open for a long, long time yet).

Ben- for your last paragraph promotion and regulation isn't adding as many viable teams as possible, nor is it an expansion policy. In your $500k left over for the FFA, you left out that the players get 50% of revenue, so unless they change the a-league operating model $2.5m isn’t going to the players out of $3m, they’d get 1.5 which means everyone else gets less.

Addressed several times. The other organisations prefer the idea of relocating because they have reached saturation point.
Saturation of what? of the TV market- supports my point. Of viable teams- both organisations are trying to move viable, but lowly rating teams, so not supported by evidence. There is no other saturation i am aware of?

You have just described closing down several Melbourne based sides as killing off TV market teams - undesirable - yet you want them relocated.
Why do i? I haven't said that. TV market expansion doesn't mean 1 team for a city. It means bringing a watching audience. All these regional places everyone mentions in their fantasy expansion topics will not be getting a team for their content. If there is any expansion there will be one or two niche teams from those areas and the rest from Melbourne and Sydney.


If the side is relocated from North Melbourne to the Gold Coast, by your own definition does that not mean that we've lost the North Melbourne market in order to gain the Gold Coast - are we not better off servicing BOTH markets?
Isn't that my point? And when the TV market is too small for a team like north they don't add any value, supported by the AFL, NRL, Fury examples, your view is that they have content value, not supported by evidence.

Anyway this is done i think, nice discussing it with you. ;)

skeptic- Have never said racist comments ever on here or in real life, you're confusing my conversations with some posters about ethnic clubs struggling to gain support outside of their group, which in my view makes them poor a-league candidates, with racism based on your personal experiences.

Come on Skeptic - I asked you to be civil. Play the ball, not the man.

Do those whom remember this bloke stating the above comments believe the level he'll go to in his denials? Now the claim is he didn't say any of it, I did. A snake in the grass, bud, a snake in the grass.

Joffa, any way of finding the the original thread regarding a second division/A2 league comp. from a couple of years ago? A very long one if i remember, full of abuse and anti ethnic rubbish. Just so i can shove it up this pricks nose, please.

If each team in the league were to provide $3m in value, and it takes $2.5m to cover the salary cap, then each additional team adds $500k to the FFA's coffers.

As for my "unique little system" - viable teams gain access to the national competition either directly, or through a system of performance based promotions - that league has a tv deal with a value derived based on being the nations premier football competition, rather than being one which services the most desirable markets... Not really 'unique', it exists in 95% of the football leagues around the world.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, probably another diversion i’m assuming?

At the end it was $1-2m *total* over 3 years from the FFA [not $1-2m a season and not $4m a season] after that they would be viable. However as i said lets say it was $4m, that means the FFA has been advised that the fury's content was worth less than that a year to the TV deal, otherwise they would have kept them.

Now take the $4m 50% of which goes to the players wages ,the other to the clubs/ffa, add 50% of $4m to the players wages up to 16 teams like you suggested and do the players end up with more or less money?

i.e. does adding relatively small amounts of money to the pot and dividing it many times get the players more money? No is the answer and that's why your unique little system isn't done anywhere else in the world.

Flip the question around. If 8 of the Melbourne teams in the AFL were to cease to exist overnight, leaving 10 teams playing 5 games per round, but still covering all the key markets, would the TV deal retain the same value?

Or do those extra sides add value?

I don't ignore your answer regarding the value of the AFL and NRL deals - I disagree with you. There's a big difference.

Having all the teams in one place obviously wasn't an expansion strategy, but nor has it damaged the value of negotiations. The AFL got a massive deal last time (the Buckley negotiated one), without expanding into new markets, they got it based on the value of the product, which includes the volume of the product.

Re: "the fib" - Fury were $1-2m short of the required fee/year. That was the point at which the FFA felt it was worth their while to 'pick up the slack'. ie/ the money they felt could be picked up later from an improved tv deal.

this was previously discussed too, you just preferred to ignore the answer.

That the TV deal was huge doesn’t support that content teams were the ones that added value, in fact we know foxtel paid a pittance for the leftover ‘content’ games each weekend.

Neither was having all the teams in one market an expansion strategy, it was part of a cultural divide and every action by those organisations since then has been to relocate or merge the content teams rather than keep them and add new teams, which suggests they are not of value to the afl and nrl.

I love how Skeptic tries to act matey to cover up his abusive posts.


There you go again making statements up. Whatever 119glory has said doesnt excuse your racist and abusive posts and you're the only person on this site to consistently do it.

I like talking to myself.

Careful, or you'll be accused of warning your own multi. ;) I hear you, btw.

Skeptic, mate - please try to keep it civil.



In other words, you refuse to give a straight answer to the question as worded. Surely it would be very easy, after all these comments, for you to simply say "Yes" or "No".

As for your examples - I've demonstrated the flaws in them all.

I pointed out that Fury was not a viable franchise, so it died. You countered that if content = increased value, the FFA would have kept Fury on life-support, but this argument doesn't take into account the difference between the cost of keeping Fury alive (approx $4m/season over the investment they had in place), and the likely returns for a new tv deal (currently anticipated by Buckley as being enough to more or less cover the salary cap, ie $2.5m). In other words, not enough to cover the deficiencies of an non-viable franchise.

I pointed out the AFL had reached saturation point before it looked to move teams out of its core markets.

I pointed out that the NRL had reached saturation point in its core market before looking elsewhere.

You haven't provided suitable responses to either of these points.

You've talked of other franchise competitions expanded by territory - to which I've pointed out that all leagues other than in Australia have several options at every expansion, and can thus pick the 'perfect' option.

My theory is supported by the FACT that both the AFL and the NRL got a huge tv deal despite half of their teams being based in one city - which 'suggests' strongly to me that so long as the major markets are covered (and they already are), the market doesn't care that much where new sides are.

The quotes are mine, not yours? :lol: :lol: :lol:

kapow, dear girl, you're a lying, piece of bigoted garbage too cowardly to stand by your past words.

And, you stupid fucking prick, 119 glory/wanderer, like the intellectually handicapped little twerp he is, was castigated by me for stating the aleague game events should be Anglicised as much as possible to make it clear to the public it's no longer ethnic. Kinda like you, eh miss? And you're trying to turn it back on me? =d>

Playing dumb again? It was answered, my comment was why would you present a 'question' that relies on content to suddenly have value in order to be answered in the way you want, when you've added no new evidence?

The incorrect assumption at the core of your theory is that adding content has value, it was up to you to show that to be true with basic logic and examples, it's no good asking another question that relies on content having value when clearly all the examples says it wont. That’s why i said if you're unable to provide any evidence then it's time to move on.

I need that photo of a shovel for you about now. The two quotes you've tried to attribute to me are actually your the views that you try to impose on other people not mine. Regardless the point you seem to be missing is that they are not racist comments so it is irrelevant. That’s unlike your little spat with 119glory which was highly racist, which is ironic considering how much you like to throw around the racist tag, you know throwing stones in glass houses and all that.

Many have previously vouched for your past comments containing the above and will again.

Be careful what you say, for as sure as you love pink skirts, it will come back and bite you on the arse.

Now i'll add 'pathetic bloody liar' to the list. Next, please.



Edited by skeptic: 31/10/2011 08:23:54 PM

In other words, you don't want to answer?

Ben, asking the same thing a different way doesn’t get a different answer. The examples show that a team which brings a significant watching audience has value but a team based on content value takes more than it gives. As you've provided nothing to counteract that accept it and move on.

Straight question -

Which option is more attractive to television:

(a) 12 viable franchises delivering 6 games per round over a 33 game season.
or
(b) 10 viable franchises delivering 5 games per round over a 27 game season.

I didn't say those quotes and they aren't actually racist, but your comments to 119glory about his race and the country folk were.

The same thing keeps repeating here with the attention seeking behaviour and cryptic rants, if you kept politics and the football separate, i think find less trouble with posters generally.

The examples show if a fixture brings a watching audience it's worth something, but a 'content' fixture takes more than it gives. You understood that and expressed it before you learnt of the examples, it's just your stubbornness that's not letting you 'make any sense of it' now, but that’s ok.

Mr. kapow, the resident xenophobe of 442 infamy, the "ethnics make anglos uncomfortable" kapow, the "remove every ethnic club in Australia, from junior to state league so anglos won't feel uncomfortable", kapow, is accusing me of specialising in xenophobic posts?

The guy's a clown, a brainless price of garbage clown, but a clown never the less. =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d>

Now go back to your mother's club meeting before the jam and whipped cream scones spoil and the tea goes cold, you silly bloody skirt.

The VFL had reached saturation point. There was no room to expand within that singular market and no benefit to be gained. It was a limited market and needed to expand. We both agree on that.

They expanded out into other markets and the value of the product increased. We both agree on that.

The value of the deal increased dramatically in 2006, with 9 teams in Melbourne and 7 around the rest of Australia. I assume we both agree on that.

My contention is that the size of the league, the volume of the product, and the interest generated by having so many teams/games/options, is a major factor in driving up the value of the deal. We disagree on this.

Your contention appears to be that offering a tv deal which has 6-8 live games per round, rather than 5, and a competition with less repetition of fixtures, wouldn't increase the value of the tv deal, which frankly doesn't make any sense to me.

Swoossssssh.... That was the point, the 2006 rights was not the starting point of TV market based expansion, it was *the result* of TV market based expansion with the merger or relocation of VFL teams throughout the 80's and 90's. At the starting point with all the content teams the VFL by itself was broke. Hopefully i don’t have to repeat that in 10 posts before it sinks in.

The previous tv deal, the one Buckley gets so much credit for negotiating, was for a 16 team competition that features 9 Melbourne sides. It was a huge deal which provided the AFL with massive operational freedom. There were no elements of that deal that required further expansion into new markets. That's the starting point I was talking about - not the initial expansion out of Victoria which was a long time ago.

Just looked it up on Google - the expansion you are talking about was in the early/mid 1980s, the tv negotiation I'm talking about was in approx 2006. I think it's fair to say that my selection is more relevant than yours.

Edited by Benjamin: 21/10/2011 09:51:44 PM