It still sucks.
The reason the AFL is the number one sport is that it has an awesome product. By damaging or compromising your key product by developing something that your main supporters do not want there is the big risk you lose support quicker than you can replace it with new supporters. I’m not saying this is necessarily happening here yet, but the constant tinkering with the rules, playing games overseas, selling games interstate and bringing in new teams only serves to frastrate the traditional supporters of footy.
Businesses (and yes the AFL is unfortunately is a business) are often too quick to overlook their traditional customers and look for the next shiner more sexy option ie AFLX. However it takes a lot less money and effort to keep the rusted on support engaged than going off constantly looking for new targets. That’s why I believe the investment in AFLX would have been better spent ensuring support with the traditional footy areas is maintained.
The issue I see is that AFL is scarficing it’s traditional heartlands to try and pursuit new markets. Pumping money into things like AFLX and the GWS and Gold Coast teams at the expense of taking the eye off the ball in heartlands like Tassie and country Victoria is a high risk strategy. They may win over some fans in these new areas or with the gimmicky AFLX - but what is the cost?
Unfortunately the monopolistic behaviour of the AFL combined with a self serving board and exec means this isn’t the last of these stupid ideas we will see. Our only hope is that the AFL is too big to fail.
How much did AFLX cost?
Anything over a single dollar is too much.
But as if the AFL would ever be transparent enough to say how much it cost.
l foresee the day when larger screens are used to transmit signals to players, something like a mini scoreboard. Or there will come a day when all players are wired for sound, and signals will be sent to them.
Pies will then lose a GF because someone hacks their system.
I don’t disagree with much of what you said. However, I’m not sure the core product, the home and away season, is being compromised by AFLX. also. rightly or wrongly, the rule changes aren’t trying to evolve the game - they’re actually trying to roll back the evolution, make the game more about man-on-man contests, longer kicking etc. like it used to be.
I wouldn’t bundle AFLX and the '19 rule changes together - different aims trying to appeal to a different audience.
Not sure if this belongs in the politics thread or not.
But I think I agree with the AFLs stance on player pay across the womens and mens league.
They are the odd one out on recent “changes in Canberra” but I suspect they are actually right.
Like mens footy, women will earn more when more and more people tune into AFLW and it gets a bigger and bigger audience. Ie the game will and should support their livelihoods.
I do think its worth promoting womens footy só it does grow and would totally get behind an Essendon AFLW team. Would be awesome, and by buying a womens membership watching them on telly or going to games the women would earn more dough.
But I think its absolutely ridiculous to simply pay women more because men who are way better at their job(providing a great game of footy) earn a lot more from the game.
The AFL has it right on this one. I hope they stay the course.
Strange that if you go back 25 or 30 years ago that attendances and memberships are increased - This suggests the AFL must be doing something right - There will be a time when support softens but doubt it’s because of AFLX.
Hasn’t kept up with population growth.
However, I think you’ve made a good call on no-one saying, ‘well, I won’t go to the footy anymore because AFLX.’
Technically yes. In reality no.
The only people they want getting smashed at a JLT game are Essendon players
if they sell food, don’t they also have to provide water for free?
I think it is a liquor license requirement, if someone asks for free water at a license premise, it must given.
pretty sure they sell beers at all ovals.
Lucky it wasn’t 40 degrees…
Such a shame common sense is an after thought these days.
So the rule changes… what do people think?
One week of JLT games is not enough of a sample size to make a definitive judgement. Are clubs holding back strategy until the H&A season? Possibly. I’d say the 6-6-6 is less likely to have strategy to combat against it them the new kick-out rules. I’ll be very keen to see how many repeat centre bounce situations we have, not because of a dodgy bounce being recalled, but because of a mess of players diving on the ball carrier, no clean possession and another bounce/ball up in the centre.
Does the 6-6-6 still apply for a secondary bounce?
No, not yet anyway. Methinks plenty of teams will exploit this rule if a secondary bounce with players not in set positions suits their game plan.