Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xHoldens only diverting a portion of the $3m they already give to Collingwood to their womens team as well as communtiy programs and infrastructure. In retaliation to Eddie McGuires comments about drowning Caroline Wilson. Only covering their own arses from backlash. Harvey Norman already sponsor GWS and Priceline Pharmacy(Bulldogs) already sponsor Adelaide Thunderbirds in the netball but is netball taking over the world? Visy already sponsor Carlton. Visy also sponsor Melbourne Victory! A quick google search will throw up a number of links. You do realise that these sponsors are only jumping on board to sponsor a brand as opposed to sponsoring Womens AFL. Its no different to Etihad sponsoring Melbourne City as well as Manchester and New York. This is just more AFL sharades, no one really gives too hoots. Every AFL fan I know will admit (with an eye roll) this is just the AFL jumping on the bandwagon of political correctness/equality, throw in Indigenous Round, Multicultural Round, Womens Round, Pride Round. Its squeamish to even the most passionate AFL supporter. Its a novelty, its an 8 game season where the women can earn $5000 for training 9 hours a week. Your nothing but a troll Mr.Football. Its more a form of subsidization than genuine sponsorship. More of a "good on Holden for supporting the women's side of the game" move. Companies do it all the time and it has little to nothing to do with expected TV rating and/or exposure. Geez - looks and sounds a lot like sponsorship. Similar to how DHL sponsors surf living-saving. It's admirable but nothing to toot your horn over. I don't know, $1.5 million in the bank for the inaugural season of womens football, when the annual costs are only meant to be $500,000, sounds like a pretty good start to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
HortoMagiko
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Lol. Your Hal comparions are pitiful. Just because our admin doesnt know how to grow the sport better doesnt automatically make womens afl not a joke. All this is, is afl squeezing every last drop of blood out of its dwindling monopoly.. calling in all final favors, flexing connections with sponsors..........big gimmick that will never have the longevity or trajectory of footval, And tv ratings, how long do you reallly expect that to last, lets see what happens with the ratings over the season proper before you bar up. #2 seasons tops.... by the end of the 2nd, with the gimmick exhausted, it will have faded into irrelevance. There's a possibility that it might fade into irrelevance. In the meantime, last night's game got the following ratings: 420k for Fox; 676k for Seven;and 222k for 7Mate. Total ratings (Fox plus 5 city metro): 1,318k It probably helps explain why the AFL has a $2.5 billion TV deal - that should be enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least. To put that 1.3 million in ratings for one game in context, it's the equivalent of what the A-League would get in ratings from six to seven full rounds of games, 30 to 35 games. No its the equivalent of cr7s twitter following. "enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least." Wow after 100 years of dominance, thats super optimistic of you. Now youre starting to sound like your mate salty malty. Let us hope that the $2.5 billion TV deal is sufficient for both the mens and womens AFL to survive. Yeah "hope" ....or delusion, whatever helps you sleep. Afl is at the stage where its akin to filling a bucket with holes at the bottom. There is no tv deal big enough to stop the inevitable demise of the insular game. Money cant make young kids take up the sport. Keep playing your fiddle while rome burns paisan. With a little luck, a $2.5 billion TV deal might help it last a little longer. Reduced to hope and luck. Was gonna wish you luck but youre already banking on it. Flash your cash, but Just remeber Afl is like a cornered rat, and it has nowhere to go (internationally) so its cannibalizing itself. :) this laughable womens comp is the red herring while they look for a real solution to their problems, problem is, theyll waste alot of that money youre crapping on about, on it before they realise its a lemon. Lol.
Is Wellington diverse? Dont know, however this is a club that has no historical or existing link to a specific migrant group - Rusty Einstein
The negative stereotypes are perpetuated by people who either have no idea or are serving a vested interest; neither viewpoint should get anywhere near running Australian football - Ange Postecoglou
|
|
|
|
Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Lol. Your Hal comparions are pitiful. Just because our admin doesnt know how to grow the sport better doesnt automatically make womens afl not a joke. All this is, is afl squeezing every last drop of blood out of its dwindling monopoly.. calling in all final favors, flexing connections with sponsors..........big gimmick that will never have the longevity or trajectory of footval, And tv ratings, how long do you reallly expect that to last, lets see what happens with the ratings over the season proper before you bar up. #2 seasons tops.... by the end of the 2nd, with the gimmick exhausted, it will have faded into irrelevance. There's a possibility that it might fade into irrelevance. In the meantime, last night's game got the following ratings: 420k for Fox; 676k for Seven;and 222k for 7Mate. Total ratings (Fox plus 5 city metro): 1,318k It probably helps explain why the AFL has a $2.5 billion TV deal - that should be enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least. To put that 1.3 million in ratings for one game in context, it's the equivalent of what the A-League would get in ratings from six to seven full rounds of games, 30 to 35 games. No its the equivalent of cr7s twitter following. "enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least." Wow after 100 years of dominance, thats super optimistic of you. Now youre starting to sound like your mate salty malty. Let us hope that the $2.5 billion TV deal is sufficient for both the mens and womens AFL to survive. Yeah "hope" ....or delusion, whatever helps you sleep. Afl is at the stage where its akin to filling a bucket with holes at the bottom. There is no tv deal big enough to stop the inevitable demise of the insular game. Money cant make young kids take up the sport. Keep playing your fiddle while rome burns paisan. With a little luck, a $2.5 billion TV deal might help it last a little longer. Reduced to hope and luck. Was gonna wish you luck but youre already banking on it. I won't be banking anything, but the AFL will certainly bank a fair bit.
|
|
|
|
HortoMagiko
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Lol. Your Hal comparions are pitiful. Just because our admin doesnt know how to grow the sport better doesnt automatically make womens afl not a joke. All this is, is afl squeezing every last drop of blood out of its dwindling monopoly.. calling in all final favors, flexing connections with sponsors..........big gimmick that will never have the longevity or trajectory of footval, And tv ratings, how long do you reallly expect that to last, lets see what happens with the ratings over the season proper before you bar up. #2 seasons tops.... by the end of the 2nd, with the gimmick exhausted, it will have faded into irrelevance. There's a possibility that it might fade into irrelevance. In the meantime, last night's game got the following ratings: 420k for Fox; 676k for Seven;and 222k for 7Mate. Total ratings (Fox plus 5 city metro): 1,318k It probably helps explain why the AFL has a $2.5 billion TV deal - that should be enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least. To put that 1.3 million in ratings for one game in context, it's the equivalent of what the A-League would get in ratings from six to seven full rounds of games, 30 to 35 games. No its the equivalent of cr7s twitter following. "enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least." Wow after 100 years of dominance, thats super optimistic of you. Now youre starting to sound like your mate salty malty. Let us hope that the $2.5 billion TV deal is sufficient for both the mens and womens AFL to survive. Yeah "hope" ....or delusion, whatever helps you sleep. Afl is at the stage where its akin to filling a bucket with holes at the bottom. There is no tv deal big enough to stop the inevitable demise of the insular game. Money cant make young kids take up the sport. Keep playing your fiddle while rome burns paisan. With a little luck, a $2.5 billion TV deal might help it last a little longer. Reduced to hope and luck. Was gonna wish you luck but youre already banking on it. I won't be banking anything, but the AFL will certainly bank a fair bit. If by bank you mean "blow on stupid gimmicks" then yes, you're right.
Is Wellington diverse? Dont know, however this is a club that has no historical or existing link to a specific migrant group - Rusty Einstein
The negative stereotypes are perpetuated by people who either have no idea or are serving a vested interest; neither viewpoint should get anywhere near running Australian football - Ange Postecoglou
|
|
|
|
Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Lol. Your Hal comparions are pitiful. Just because our admin doesnt know how to grow the sport better doesnt automatically make womens afl not a joke. All this is, is afl squeezing every last drop of blood out of its dwindling monopoly.. calling in all final favors, flexing connections with sponsors..........big gimmick that will never have the longevity or trajectory of footval, And tv ratings, how long do you reallly expect that to last, lets see what happens with the ratings over the season proper before you bar up. #2 seasons tops.... by the end of the 2nd, with the gimmick exhausted, it will have faded into irrelevance. There's a possibility that it might fade into irrelevance. In the meantime, last night's game got the following ratings: 420k for Fox; 676k for Seven;and 222k for 7Mate. Total ratings (Fox plus 5 city metro): 1,318k It probably helps explain why the AFL has a $2.5 billion TV deal - that should be enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least. To put that 1.3 million in ratings for one game in context, it's the equivalent of what the A-League would get in ratings from six to seven full rounds of games, 30 to 35 games. No its the equivalent of cr7s twitter following. "enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least." Wow after 100 years of dominance, thats super optimistic of you. Now youre starting to sound like your mate salty malty. Let us hope that the $2.5 billion TV deal is sufficient for both the mens and womens AFL to survive. Yeah "hope" ....or delusion, whatever helps you sleep. Afl is at the stage where its akin to filling a bucket with holes at the bottom. There is no tv deal big enough to stop the inevitable demise of the insular game. Money cant make young kids take up the sport. Keep playing your fiddle while rome burns paisan. With a little luck, a $2.5 billion TV deal might help it last a little longer. Reduced to hope and luck. Was gonna wish you luck but youre already banking on it. I won't be banking anything, but the AFL will certainly bank a fair bit. If by bank you mean "blow on stupid gimmicks" then yes, you're right. Well, we know that the AFL will be banking $2.5 billion in TV rights over the next six years, and that will represent around 25%to 30% of the total revenue the AFL and the 18 clubs will bring in over that six year period. It might be enough.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Lol. Your Hal comparions are pitiful. Just because our admin doesnt know how to grow the sport better doesnt automatically make womens afl not a joke. All this is, is afl squeezing every last drop of blood out of its dwindling monopoly.. calling in all final favors, flexing connections with sponsors..........big gimmick that will never have the longevity or trajectory of footval, And tv ratings, how long do you reallly expect that to last, lets see what happens with the ratings over the season proper before you bar up. #2 seasons tops.... by the end of the 2nd, with the gimmick exhausted, it will have faded into irrelevance. There's a possibility that it might fade into irrelevance. In the meantime, last night's game got the following ratings: 420k for Fox; 676k for Seven;and 222k for 7Mate. Total ratings (Fox plus 5 city metro): 1,318k It probably helps explain why the AFL has a $2.5 billion TV deal - that should be enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least. To put that 1.3 million in ratings for one game in context, it's the equivalent of what the A-League would get in ratings from six to seven full rounds of games, 30 to 35 games. No its the equivalent of cr7s twitter following. "enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least." Wow after 100 years of dominance, thats super optimistic of you. Now youre starting to sound like your mate salty malty. Let us hope that the $2.5 billion TV deal is sufficient for both the mens and womens AFL to survive. Yeah "hope" ....or delusion, whatever helps you sleep. Afl is at the stage where its akin to filling a bucket with holes at the bottom. There is no tv deal big enough to stop the inevitable demise of the insular game. Money cant make young kids take up the sport. Keep playing your fiddle while rome burns paisan. With a little luck, a $2.5 billion TV deal might help it last a little longer. Reduced to hope and luck. Was gonna wish you luck but youre already banking on it. I won't be banking anything, but the AFL will certainly bank a fair bit. If by bank you mean "blow on stupid gimmicks" then yes, you're right. Well, we know that the AFL will be banking $2.5 billion in TV rights over the next six years, and that will represent around 25%to 30% of the total revenue the AFL and the 18 clubs will bring in over that six year period. It might be enough. And still over half the clubs are losing money. Just Wow.
|
|
|
|
HortoMagiko
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Lol. Your Hal comparions are pitiful. Just because our admin doesnt know how to grow the sport better doesnt automatically make womens afl not a joke. All this is, is afl squeezing every last drop of blood out of its dwindling monopoly.. calling in all final favors, flexing connections with sponsors..........big gimmick that will never have the longevity or trajectory of footval, And tv ratings, how long do you reallly expect that to last, lets see what happens with the ratings over the season proper before you bar up. #2 seasons tops.... by the end of the 2nd, with the gimmick exhausted, it will have faded into irrelevance. There's a possibility that it might fade into irrelevance. In the meantime, last night's game got the following ratings: 420k for Fox; 676k for Seven;and 222k for 7Mate. Total ratings (Fox plus 5 city metro): 1,318k It probably helps explain why the AFL has a $2.5 billion TV deal - that should be enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least. To put that 1.3 million in ratings for one game in context, it's the equivalent of what the A-League would get in ratings from six to seven full rounds of games, 30 to 35 games. No its the equivalent of cr7s twitter following. "enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least." Wow after 100 years of dominance, thats super optimistic of you. Now youre starting to sound like your mate salty malty. Let us hope that the $2.5 billion TV deal is sufficient for both the mens and womens AFL to survive. Yeah "hope" ....or delusion, whatever helps you sleep. Afl is at the stage where its akin to filling a bucket with holes at the bottom. There is no tv deal big enough to stop the inevitable demise of the insular game. Money cant make young kids take up the sport. Keep playing your fiddle while rome burns paisan. With a little luck, a $2.5 billion TV deal might help it last a little longer. Reduced to hope and luck. Was gonna wish you luck but youre already banking on it. I won't be banking anything, but the AFL will certainly bank a fair bit. If by bank you mean "blow on stupid gimmicks" then yes, you're right. Well, we know that the AFL will be banking $2.5 billion in TV rights over the next six years, and that will represent around 25%to 30% of the total revenue the AFL and the 18 clubs will bring in over that six year period. It might be enough. No they dont bank it perse. Its their budget nuff nuff. And they wll waste it on pathetic attempts to remain relevant for longer than 6 years, like womens afl and afl xtremely stupid soccah hybrid.
Is Wellington diverse? Dont know, however this is a club that has no historical or existing link to a specific migrant group - Rusty Einstein
The negative stereotypes are perpetuated by people who either have no idea or are serving a vested interest; neither viewpoint should get anywhere near running Australian football - Ange Postecoglou
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Lol. Your Hal comparions are pitiful. Just because our admin doesnt know how to grow the sport better doesnt automatically make womens afl not a joke. All this is, is afl squeezing every last drop of blood out of its dwindling monopoly.. calling in all final favors, flexing connections with sponsors..........big gimmick that will never have the longevity or trajectory of footval, And tv ratings, how long do you reallly expect that to last, lets see what happens with the ratings over the season proper before you bar up. #2 seasons tops.... by the end of the 2nd, with the gimmick exhausted, it will have faded into irrelevance. There's a possibility that it might fade into irrelevance. In the meantime, last night's game got the following ratings: 420k for Fox; 676k for Seven;and 222k for 7Mate. Total ratings (Fox plus 5 city metro): 1,318k It probably helps explain why the AFL has a $2.5 billion TV deal - that should be enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least. To put that 1.3 million in ratings for one game in context, it's the equivalent of what the A-League would get in ratings from six to seven full rounds of games, 30 to 35 games. No its the equivalent of cr7s twitter following. "enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least." Wow after 100 years of dominance, thats super optimistic of you. Now youre starting to sound like your mate salty malty. Let us hope that the $2.5 billion TV deal is sufficient for both the mens and womens AFL to survive. Yeah "hope" ....or delusion, whatever helps you sleep. Afl is at the stage where its akin to filling a bucket with holes at the bottom. There is no tv deal big enough to stop the inevitable demise of the insular game. Money cant make young kids take up the sport. Keep playing your fiddle while rome burns paisan. With a little luck, a $2.5 billion TV deal might help it last a little longer. Reduced to hope and luck. Was gonna wish you luck but youre already banking on it. I won't be banking anything, but the AFL will certainly bank a fair bit. If by bank you mean "blow on stupid gimmicks" then yes, you're right. Well, we know that the AFL will be banking $2.5 billion in TV rights over the next six years, and that will represent around 25%to 30% of the total revenue the AFL and the 18 clubs will bring in over that six year period. It might be enough. No they dont bank it perse. Its their budget nuff nuff. And they will waste it on pathetic attempts to remain relevant for longer than 6 years, like womens afl and afl xtremely stupid soccah hybrid. I say good on them. The AFL wasting money is music to my ears.
|
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x
I can promise everyone that the momentum for the league is huge, media interest is huge,
As big as the Chinese sponsorship deal that was the biggest in Australian sporting history? You know, the one that Port Adelaide actually have initially funded themselves.... Any shit I say Can I give you this ad hominem attack, PIG FUCK!?
|
|
|
|
Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe day after soccer fans railed on Ch9 and Eddie for insecurity over a trivial matter, the ignorance and jealousy in this thread is beyond belief The women's afl will do wonders for the game's national appeal and opinion. The W-League didn't attract corporate or spectator interest, even from nailed on soccer fans. The W-AFL will be a hit and ensure the games continued dominance in Australia. It's pretty obvious that will be the case. The sponsorship and media interest has well and truly kicked in, a full 6 months in advance of the commencement of the inaugural season. There will be a minimum of one game on FTA, but still talking about possibly two games - and it's already pretty clear that ratings will be greater than the A-League.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe day after soccer fans railed on Ch9 and Eddie for insecurity over a trivial matter, the ignorance and jealousy in this thread is beyond belief The women's afl will do wonders for the game's national appeal and opinion. The W-League didn't attract corporate or spectator interest, even from nailed on soccer fans. The W-AFL will be a hit and ensure the games continued dominance in Australia. It's pretty obvious that will be the case. The sponsorship and media interest has well and truly kicked in, a full 6 months in advance of the commencement of the inaugural season. There will be a minimum of one game on FTA, but still talking about possibly two games - and it's already pretty clear that ratings will be greater than the A-League. Who is talking about it?The AFL and the slected journos who tow the line so they don't lose their drip feed that keeps them in the job. People so quickly buy the message diseminated from AFL House without questioning its independence. It's like when South Africa was all the rage. All the papers talking about it.... but strangely none in South Africa.
|
|
|
|
|
bigpoppa
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Don't forget the port Adelaide/Chinese press conference
|
|
|
|
Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe day after soccer fans railed on Ch9 and Eddie for insecurity over a trivial matter, the ignorance and jealousy in this thread is beyond belief The women's afl will do wonders for the game's national appeal and opinion. The W-League didn't attract corporate or spectator interest, even from nailed on soccer fans. The W-AFL will be a hit and ensure the games continued dominance in Australia. It's pretty obvious that will be the case. The sponsorship and media interest has well and truly kicked in, a full 6 months in advance of the commencement of the inaugural season. There will be a minimum of one game on FTA, but still talking about possibly two games - and it's already pretty clear that ratings will be greater than the A-League. Who is talking about it?The AFL and the slected journos who tow the line so they don't lose their drip feed that keeps them in the job. People so quickly buy the message diseminated from AFL House without questioning its independence. It's like when South Africa was all the rage. All the papers talking about it.... but strangely none in South Africa. Are you saying you don't believe that the NWL will get off the ground? Pretty bizarre point of view if that's what you honestly think.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe day after soccer fans railed on Ch9 and Eddie for insecurity over a trivial matter, the ignorance and jealousy in this thread is beyond belief The women's afl will do wonders for the game's national appeal and opinion. The W-League didn't attract corporate or spectator interest, even from nailed on soccer fans. The W-AFL will be a hit and ensure the games continued dominance in Australia. The irony of course is the biggest bleaters are the ones who are first to pour a bucket of shit on the Matildas and women's football in general. They either care about it or they don't but somehow in this thread they manage to do both. What's that Shakespeare line 'thou doth protest too much'? Yes it is likely to be a success. Yes it will garner 100 times the coverage of any women's football in the print media and will have a FTA presence. (It will probably get more coverage than the a-league in some markets.) But we don't care about women's football, right lads?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThe day after soccer fans railed on Ch9 and Eddie for insecurity over a trivial matter, the ignorance and jealousy in this thread is beyond belief The women's afl will do wonders for the game's national appeal and opinion. The W-League didn't attract corporate or spectator interest, even from nailed on soccer fans. The W-AFL will be a hit and ensure the games continued dominance in Australia. It's pretty obvious that will be the case. The sponsorship and media interest has well and truly kicked in, a full 6 months in advance of the commencement of the inaugural season. There will be a minimum of one game on FTA, but still talking about possibly two games - and it's already pretty clear that ratings will be greater than the A-League. Who is talking about it?The AFL and the slected journos who tow the line so they don't lose their drip feed that keeps them in the job. People so quickly buy the message diseminated from AFL House without questioning its independence. It's like when South Africa was all the rage. All the papers talking about it.... but strangely none in South Africa. Are you saying you don't believe that the NWL will get off the ground? Pretty bizarre point of view if that's what you honestly think. It will be popular in Melbourne. Brisbane will flop viewer and attendence wise, as will GSW. Other AFL states may like it but not as much as Melbourne. I assume every tv match would involve a Melbourne team, if not two. As many as possible really. I saw a few minutes of it and it was rubbish. They were th best 36 women. What are the worst 36 like?
|
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHoldens only diverting a portion of the $3m they already give to Collingwood to their womens team as well as communtiy programs and infrastructure. In retaliation to Eddie McGuires comments about drowning Caroline Wilson. Only covering their own arses from backlash. Harvey Norman already sponsor GWS and Priceline Pharmacy(Bulldogs) already sponsor Adelaide Thunderbirds in the netball but is netball taking over the world? Visy already sponsor Carlton. Visy also sponsor Melbourne Victory! A quick google search will throw up a number of links. You do realise that these sponsors are only jumping on board to sponsor a brand as opposed to sponsoring Womens AFL. Its no different to Etihad sponsoring Melbourne City as well as Manchester and New York. This is just more AFL sharades, no one really gives too hoots. Every AFL fan I know will admit (with an eye roll) this is just the AFL jumping on the bandwagon of political correctness/equality, throw in Indigenous Round, Multicultural Round, Womens Round, Pride Round. Its squeamish to even the most passionate AFL supporter. Its a novelty, its an 8 game season where the women can earn $5000 for training 9 hours a week. Your nothing but a troll Mr.Football. Now watch him say PIG FUCK as a response What do you think? Pig fuck?
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThe day after soccer fans railed on Ch9 and Eddie for insecurity over a trivial matter, the ignorance and jealousy in this thread is beyond belief The women's afl will do wonders for the game's national appeal and opinion. The W-League didn't attract corporate or spectator interest, even from nailed on soccer fans. The W-AFL will be a hit and ensure the games continued dominance in Australia. It's pretty obvious that will be the case. The sponsorship and media interest has well and truly kicked in, a full 6 months in advance of the commencement of the inaugural season. There will be a minimum of one game on FTA, but still talking about possibly two games - and it's already pretty clear that ratings will be greater than the A-League. Who is talking about it?The AFL and the slected journos who tow the line so they don't lose their drip feed that keeps them in the job. People so quickly buy the message diseminated from AFL House without questioning its independence. It's like when South Africa was all the rage. All the papers talking about it.... but strangely none in South Africa. Are you saying you don't believe that the NWL will get off the ground? Pretty bizarre point of view if that's what you honestly think. That bizarre point of view is yours. Don't put words in my mouth - oops, I just ate my own poop...
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
bloody language filter
|
|
|
|
HortoMagiko
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xThe day after soccer fans railed on Ch9 and Eddie for insecurity over a trivial matter, the ignorance and jealousy in this thread is beyond belief The women's afl will do wonders for the game's national appeal and opinion. The W-League didn't attract corporate or spectator interest, even from nailed on soccer fans. The W-AFL will be a hit and ensure the games continued dominance in Australia. It's pretty obvious that will be the case. The sponsorship and media interest has well and truly kicked in, a full 6 months in advance of the commencement of the inaugural season. There will be a minimum of one game on FTA, but still talking about possibly two games - and it's already pretty clear that ratings will be greater than the A-League. Who is talking about it?The AFL and the slected journos who tow the line so they don't lose their drip feed that keeps them in the job. People so quickly buy the message diseminated from AFL House without questioning its independence. It's like when South Africa was all the rage. All the papers talking about it.... but strangely none in South Africa. Are you saying you don't believe that the NWL will get off the ground? Pretty bizarre point of view if that's what you honestly think. It will be popular in Melbourne. Brisbane will flop viewer and attendence wise, as will GSW. Other AFL states may like it but not as much as Melbourne. I assume every tv match would involve a Melbourne team, if not two. As many as possible really. I saw a few minutes of it and it was rubbish. They were th best 36 women. What are the worst 36 like? This. Youll be able to hear crickets, (other than the simulated crowd noise of course). Will bomb attendace-wise like nobodies business.
Is Wellington diverse? Dont know, however this is a club that has no historical or existing link to a specific migrant group - Rusty Einstein
The negative stereotypes are perpetuated by people who either have no idea or are serving a vested interest; neither viewpoint should get anywhere near running Australian football - Ange Postecoglou
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
- oops, I just ate my own poop...
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe day after soccer fans railed on Ch9 and Eddie for insecurity over a trivial matter, the ignorance and jealousy in this thread is beyond belief The women's afl will do wonders for the game's national appeal and opinion. The W-League didn't attract corporate or spectator interest, even from nailed on soccer fans. The W-AFL will be a hit and ensure the games continued dominance in Australia. The irony of course is the biggest bleaters are the ones who are first to pour a bucket of shit on the Matildas and women's football in general. They either care about it or they don't but somehow in this thread they manage to do both. What's that Shakespeare line 'thou doth protest too much'? Yes it is likely to be a success. Yes it will garner 100 times the coverage of any women's football in the print media and will have a FTA presence. (It will probably get more coverage than the a-league in some markets.) But we don't care about women's football, right lads? Someone says they aren't a fan of women's sports and your vagina gets salty.
|
|
|
|
|
crimsoncrusoe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K,
Visits: 0
|
It's pretty obvious that will be the case.
The sponsorship and media interest has well and truly kicked in, a full 6 months in advance of the commencement of the inaugural season.
There will be a minimum of one game on FTA, but still talking about possibly two games - and it's already pretty clear that ratings will be greater than the A-League.
Mr AFL ,I am sure diehard afl people in Victoria will watch any afl content.But are your suggesting in NSW and QLD ratings will be better than afl games for the mens game?If so why shouldnt the women get paid more than the men?
Btw what are the ratings in sydney and brisbane for afl again?So we know what has to be beaten.
|
|
|
|
HortoMagiko
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe day after soccer fans railed on Ch9 and Eddie for insecurity over a trivial matter, the ignorance and jealousy in this thread is beyond belief The women's afl will do wonders for the game's national appeal and opinion. The W-League didn't attract corporate or spectator interest, even from nailed on soccer fans. The W-AFL will be a hit and ensure the games continued dominance in Australia. The irony of course is the biggest bleaters are the ones who are first to pour a bucket of shit on the Matildas and women's football in general. They either care about it or they don't but somehow in this thread they manage to do both. What's that Shakespeare line 'thou doth protest too much'?Yes it is likely to be a success. Yes it will garner 100 times the coverage of any women's football in the print media and will have a FTA presence. (It will probably get more coverage than the a-league in some markets.) But we don't care about women's football, right lads? What like crapping on about 2.5billion ad nauseum? Sure i dont reslly bother with womens football, but to put them in the same sentence as womens afl laughable. Womens football belongs to a global network. Womens afl is an after thought, album filler if you will. AFL need to buy players from other codes. This is the crux of this article if youre able to see past the chest puffing. Womens afl wont have longevity. Its a gimmick product that may get tv viewers but youre dreaming if u think the stands will actually ever be remotely full. It reeks of plastic fantastic... like afl xmen mutant soccah
Is Wellington diverse? Dont know, however this is a club that has no historical or existing link to a specific migrant group - Rusty Einstein
The negative stereotypes are perpetuated by people who either have no idea or are serving a vested interest; neither viewpoint should get anywhere near running Australian football - Ange Postecoglou
|
|
|
|
|
crimsoncrusoe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K,
Visits: 0
|
The day after soccer fans railed on Ch9 and Eddie for insecurity over a trivial matter, the ignorance and jealousy in this thread is beyond belief
The women's afl will do wonders for the game's national appeal and opinion. The W-League didn't attract corporate or spectator interest, even from nailed on soccer fans. The W-AFL will be a hit and ensure the games continued dominance in Australia.
What is really amazing is a mesogynistic code that had to wait until football embarrassed it into getting off their rear ends and taking action to finally five women an opportunity to play their sport.
What were they waiting for?
$2.5billion ?
Lol
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe day after soccer fans railed on Ch9 and Eddie for insecurity over a trivial matter, the ignorance and jealousy in this thread is beyond belief The women's afl will do wonders for the game's national appeal and opinion. The W-League didn't attract corporate or spectator interest, even from nailed on soccer fans. The W-AFL will be a hit and ensure the games continued dominance in Australia. The irony of course is the biggest bleaters are the ones who are first to pour a bucket of shit on the Matildas and women's football in general. They either care about it or they don't but somehow in this thread they manage to do both. What's that Shakespeare line 'thou doth protest too much'?Yes it is likely to be a success. Yes it will garner 100 times the coverage of any women's football in the print media and will have a FTA presence. (It will probably get more coverage than the a-league in some markets.) But we don't care about women's football, right lads? What like crapping on about 2.5billion ad nauseum? Sure i dont reslly bother with womens football, but to put them in the same sentence as womens afl laughable. Womens football belongs to a global network. Womens afl is an after thought, album filler if you will. AFL need to buy players from other codes. This is the crux of this article if youre able to see past the chest puffing. Womens afl wont have longevity. Its a gimmick product that may get tv viewers but youre dreaming if u think the stands will actually ever be remotely full. It reeks of plastic fantastic... like afl xmen mutant soccah It will be like AFL South Africa. The hype machine lasts about a year. Check out their website these days: http://www.aflsouthafrica.org/
|
|
|
|
HortoMagiko
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThe day after soccer fans railed on Ch9 and Eddie for insecurity over a trivial matter, the ignorance and jealousy in this thread is beyond belief The women's afl will do wonders for the game's national appeal and opinion. The W-League didn't attract corporate or spectator interest, even from nailed on soccer fans. The W-AFL will be a hit and ensure the games continued dominance in Australia. The irony of course is the biggest bleaters are the ones who are first to pour a bucket of shit on the Matildas and women's football in general. They either care about it or they don't but somehow in this thread they manage to do both. What's that Shakespeare line 'thou doth protest too much'?Yes it is likely to be a success. Yes it will garner 100 times the coverage of any women's football in the print media and will have a FTA presence. (It will probably get more coverage than the a-league in some markets.) But we don't care about women's football, right lads? What like crapping on about 2.5billion ad nauseum? Sure i dont reslly bother with womens football, but to put them in the same sentence as womens afl laughable. Womens football belongs to a global network. Womens afl is an after thought, album filler if you will. AFL need to buy players from other codes. This is the crux of this article if youre able to see past the chest puffing. Womens afl wont have longevity. Its a gimmick product that may get tv viewers but youre dreaming if u think the stands will actually ever be remotely full. It reeks of plastic fantastic... like afl xmen mutant soccah It will be like AFL South Africa. The hype machine lasts about a year. Check out their website these days: http://www.aflsouthafrica.org/ Bahahahaha. "Under construction". More like "destruction" :)
Is Wellington diverse? Dont know, however this is a club that has no historical or existing link to a specific migrant group - Rusty Einstein
The negative stereotypes are perpetuated by people who either have no idea or are serving a vested interest; neither viewpoint should get anywhere near running Australian football - Ange Postecoglou
|
|
|
|
Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Just re-visiting an Age article from earlier in the week, so FTA coverage will be at least two games per round.
|
|
|
|
|
calciopoli
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 136,
Visits: 0
|
AFL fans who post on football forums are an embarrassment to themselves and pitiable bores to others.
|
|
|
|
Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Latest news is that McKenzie Arnold will sign with Brisbane.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xLatest news is that McKenzie Arnold will sign with Brisbane. Union throws contracts at league players and the NRL still ruins the ARU. The AFL tried it with ISrael and - oops, I just ate my own poop... and they left with their tails between their legs.
|
|
|
|