Kennett is right, the AFL must temper its arrogance
By Michael DiFabrizio, 2 Dec 2010 Michael DiFabrizio is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, Andrew Demetriou, Hawthorn Hawks, Jeff Kennett, Qantas, Virgin Blue
231 Have your say
Related coverage
Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett is known for making outlandish statements, however he was completely justified yesterday in labelling the AFL “bloody arrogant” for the way it switched official airline partners from Qantas to Virgin Blue. The reason behind the switch, it’s believed, is that the AFL were demanding Qantas not sign agreements with other major sporting codes.
Kennett’s primary concern was how the change could affect player welfare, given (until Virgin expands to include business class) clubs won’t have the luxury of upgrading players from economy if they’re injured or simply need the extra space. And it seems to be a concern held by a number of clubs.
However, Kennett also didn’t shy away from the apparent reasoning behind the AFL’s decision.
“The reason that has (been) given to me and was publicised at the time was that Andrew Demetriou said if you don’t give us exclusivity over soccer and union, then we’re going to change the airline,” Kennett said on 3AW. “I think that is just so bloody arrogant, as to be very, very upsetting.”
Jeff’s right. The AFL have really come across as arrogant on this one.
Sure, the league has every right to be competitive and to seek out the most beneficial deal for the game. But it’s nothing short of provocative to other codes to ask Qantas – who hold naming rights to both the Socceroos and Wallabies, in deals that would have to be worth millions annually – to end sponsorships with rivals of the league.
What’s truly troubling with the AFL’s mindset here is that the league is currently expanding into New South Wales and Queensland, markets where this kind of behaviour is unlikely to go down well.
Firstly, because the sports that would be most affected by Qantas removing its sponsorship are so prominent in those states. (Aside from soccer and rugby union, Qantas are also involved in rugby league.)
Secondly, because history shows that even the hint of arrogance from the AFL tends to lead to hostility in the northern markets.
The league should have learned from the failure in Sydney of its ad campaign a couple of years back spruiking “The Game That Made Australia”. Not only did the ad fail to resonate with locals, the Daily Telegraph’s Tim Morrissey wrote at the time, “The AFL could not have come up with a better way to alienate Sydney if it tried.”
And thirdly, it’s an issue because it doesn’t fit well with the AFL’s public mantra that all the codes can work together or at the very least coexist.
It’s one thing for Andrew Demetriou to talk the talk (like in this recent Herald Sun piece, even if he does plug his own code one too many times) but it’s another thing entirely to walk the walk. The AFL don’t always back up their words with actions.
That’s not to say the AFL should be diplomatic with other codes at the expense of all else. Far from it.
There are times where the league needs to stand up and protect its own turf, and I’m happy to see it happen.
However, the request of exclusivity from Qantas was provocative to other codes and the assumption that the airline would want to partner solely with the AFL at the expense of two of our country’s most popular national teams was bigheaded, to say the least.
Given that, the response of Qantas spokesman Ken Ryan last month was unsurprising: “It’s been a good partnership, but the AFL had issues with our arrangements with the other codes. We have a proud history of supporting all sports in Australia, including all codes of football and that’s not going to change. We will not enter into exclusive arrangements with any sporting body.”
You can’t blame Qantas for holding that attitude.
Just like you can’t blame Jeff for his comments.
Michael DiFabrizio is completing his journalism degree. As an AFL writer, he has been an expert columnist at The Roar since 2009, and appeared in The Age and on ABC television and radio. Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
![]()
Passionate about your AFL? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily AFL email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- AFL, Andrew Demetriou, Hawthorn Hawks, Jeff Kennett, Qantas, Virgin Blue


December 2nd 2010 @ 8:22am
MagpieFlag said | December 2nd 2010 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Actually looking at this quote:
“It’s been a good partnership, but the AFL had issues with our arrangements with the other codes. We have a proud history of supporting all sports in Australia, including all codes of football and that’s not going to change. We will not enter into exclusive arrangements with any sporting body.”
Though the last line might imply it, it does not directly say the AFL asked for exclusivity but rather it “had issues with our arrangements with the other codes”
So if the AFL has asked for Qantas to scrap its sponsorship with the other codes (and genuinely thought they might comply) that would indeed be arrogance. If they have asked Qantas to stop referring to soccer exclusiviely as “football”, and worse “Australian Football” than that I have no problem with that.
I understand that people in this country who support soccer primarily, see the term “australian football” as a kinda birth right, but at least consider that from the alternate perspective it comes across as identity theft
Having said that, for QANTAS the fact that there is no common representative australian football team or star to build their marketing around, nor any international exposure, it is understandable that the socceroos (and even perhaops the wallabies” would be a more natural fit for them.
Again, my only concern is the players, the perth clubs, ant the apparent lack of consultation. Despite their poor consultative/communication practices the AFL tends to make the astute decisions at a commercial level on most occassions. On face value having exclusivity with virgin blue would appear a better arrangement on commercial / marketing grounds than a “second tier” arrangement with Qantas, I only hope they havent compromised the players and the Perth , Q’land clubs in the process…(actually Suns appear to have done very very well out of the shift)
December 2nd 2010 @ 8:38am
Koops said | December 2nd 2010 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Bit rich Kennett calling someone arrogant, but he does get things done and is a great “mouthpiece / spruiker ” for the game.
Its also possible that Virgin approached the AFL with the offer, and then the AFL asked Qantas to match it, does anyone really know the ins and outs, AFL Sydney based commish Sam Mostyn is a dierctor at Virgin.
The SFL semingly have a good deal, perhaps AD is a bit arrogant, but there are plenty of other sports that would love to have him, and he appears to have a great passion for footy, he can stay as long as he wants.
I reckon he will get something for the kangas as well.
December 2nd 2010 @ 8:26am
Jason said | December 2nd 2010 @ 8:26am | Report comment
Good article. What a clueless position to adopt from Demetriou; demanding an international carrier dump two major international sports from its sponsorship. Baffling in its stupidity.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:04am
The_Wookie said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:04am | Report comment
as the news reports, the AFL airline sponsorship is the biggest in Australian sport. Assuming the AFL asked for exclusivity – and theres no evidence to suggest the idea belonged to the AFL – its not unreasonable. Qantas position is understandable given its the national flag carrier and the supporter of national teams.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:14am
djfrobinson said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Since there are only 2 negotiating partners in the deal and one of them was prepared to give up the deal to protect their other interests I think it’s fairly conclusive who came up with the idea.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:16am
Jason said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:16am | Report comment
and theres no evidence to suggest the idea belonged to the AFL
So it’s equally plausible that Qantas suggested it and then when the AFL agreed, removed the offer? Right.
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:06am
The_Wookie said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:06am | Report comment
its quite possible that virgin offered it, the afl asked qantas to match it, and when the couldnt the afl said goodbye.
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:11am
Jason said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:11am | Report comment
So if the AFL asked Qantas to match a position taken by Virgin Blue (an absurd position since Virgin Blue doesn’t have any other major codes), how is that not ‘evidence to suggest the idea belonged to the AFL’ in their negotiations with Qantas?
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:19am
Redb said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:19am | Report comment
I agree if true.
December 2nd 2010 @ 8:52am
Ian said | December 2nd 2010 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Is this an example of the exclusivity that the AFL holds over Channel Nine in Melbourne, such that the rugby league is hoarded away (and not even on-sold) until after midnight?
ie, we’ll let you run your sucessful AFL Footy show and give you access to players etc, but do not show the rugby league which (whilst still hoarded outside NSW & QLD) outrates what the AFL can produce.
December 2nd 2010 @ 8:57am
The_Wookie said | December 2nd 2010 @ 8:57am | Report comment
The AFL have no arrangements with Channel 9. Hoarding the games is Channel 9s decision. players are free to contract with whoever they wish.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:03am
Koops said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:03am | Report comment
The AFL footy show outrates the RL footy show by a huge margin, the RL footy show ratings are laughable in Sydney.
The AFL show is shown around the same time as the NRL show in it’s “non markets”.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:07am
Ian said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:07am | Report comment
As is the AFL ratings into Sydney, but we’re starting to get off topic here.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:25am
Koops said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:25am | Report comment
No, you are off topic, we are talking about footy SHOW ratings, AFL footy show absolutely dominates the NRL show in ratings.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:53am
jimbo said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Where is your proof.
AFL ratings drtopped 19.5% in Sydney this year due to AFL arrrogance.
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:09am
The_Wookie said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Since when do tv ratings go hand in hand with “arrogance”. The NRL didnt beat the AFL in the 5 capital cities, having to turn to the regionals – where the AFL loses because the regionals in its states arent even counted, and it misses and entire state – in order to claim victory.
December 2nd 2010 @ 11:34am
Fez's are cool said | December 2nd 2010 @ 11:34am | Report comment
SImple – there are more people in regional NSW and Qld than in all of WA, SA, Tas and rural Vic combined.
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:10am
Ian said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Oddly enough the AFL Footy show was beamed into Sydney on Channel Nine’s alternative GO! earlier this year, but was still hoarded until after midnight into Melbourne.
During coverage of Wimbledon, the NRL Footy show disappeared completely off Melbourne Screens and joined the list of sports programs and games like the English Super League where Nine conveinently not show into AFL dominated states.
This has everything to do with Arrogance!
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:06am
BigAl said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Ian . . . you are blinded by paranoia and a basic unawareness of how business works !
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:57am
Ian said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Maybe, but this example of arrogance by a regional sport towards a major international airline could have only come out of the bods at the AFL.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:00am
Redb said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:00am | Report comment
QANTAS does go for the international football code travellers, AFL fan business was a bonus, Virgin have much to gain on the domestic front as AFL fans travel extensively and this will only increase with the Gold Coast Suns
A win for Virgin and a good deal in dollar terms for both them and the AFL.
However, Demetriou has in this case failed to consult properly with the AFLPA. Also if it was me I would not have requested (as claimed) exclusivity from QANTAS I would have simply dropped their business and promoted the hell out of Virgin Blue.
As for QANTAS it is sickening how they ‘claim’ the national rugby and soccer teams with their branding.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:46am
Fussball ist unser leben said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Redb, I think you’ll find that there are “no dollars” exchanging hands in this deal – it’s all based on “contra-deals”.
According to the VirginBlue website:
Virgin Blue is a low fare airline, focused on keeping air travel affordable for people travelling throughout Australia.
… it’s imperative we keep our costs down. This means that Virgin Blue pursues a limited number of sponsorship opportunities. In reality, we don’t have a sponsorship budget at all. …
Virgin Blue does not provide any cash support. All sponsorship opportunities involve contra i.e. Virgin Blue flights in return for exposure.
Source: http://www.virginblue.com.au/AboutUs/Sponsorship/
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:48am
Redb said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Nonetheless, air travel is a huge financial burden on sporting competitions in Australia.
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:21am
allblackfan said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:21am | Report comment
And no Aust team(s) faces bigger air travel burdens than the Super rugby teams who have to fly to South Africa and New Zealand. I don’t pretend to know the details of the Super rugby travel arrangements but I’d assume the Aust teams would travel Qantas to RSA and NZ; this would ensure greater capacity on these routes for Qantas and more value for money that they spend on landing rights, fiel, marketing exposure in overseas markets, etc
December 2nd 2010 @ 11:37am
Fez's are cool said | December 2nd 2010 @ 11:37am | Report comment
Obviously followed by the A League and NRL flying to NZ.
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:04am
The_Wookie said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:04am | Report comment
there’d be cash involved with Gold Coast for sure. Since club travel is covered by the AFL deal.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:57am
Jiggles said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:57am | Report comment
“As for QANTAS it is sickening how they ‘claim’ the national rugby and soccer teams with their branding”
How so?
They are two national teams that represent what Australia is on the national stage.
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:41am
Redb said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Just annoys me Jiggles, when i hear them pronounce the ‘QANTAS’ Wallabies or ‘QANTAS’ Socceroos – they are the Wallabies and the Socceroos. They are my teams not QANTAS.
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:59am
Jiggles said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Unfortunately that’s modern Sport.
December 2nd 2010 @ 2:41pm
rugbyfuture said | December 2nd 2010 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
i agree, but they need some money from somewhere
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:11am
Ian said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:11am | Report comment
The AFL is a protected species in Victoria and this exclusivity provides an ideal breeding ground for its arrogance as demonstrated towards QANTAS.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:22am
Koops said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:22am | Report comment
It is our native code, it gets great deals because it can, because people love it, your preferred sport, whatever it is, cannot, because no-one likes it in any great numbers, take your constant mis information elsewhere.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:46am
Ben said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
It is as “native” as the whites that first decided to tweak the English school games they brought with them.
December 2nd 2010 @ 11:32am
MyLeftFoot said | December 2nd 2010 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Koops
you will soon discover that a large group of correspondents on this site do not like being reminded of:
1. the immense scale of the AFL; and
2. the fact that it is our one and only indigenous game.
December 2nd 2010 @ 11:40am
Fez's are cool said | December 2nd 2010 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Funny that how the majority don’t like the sport that is supposedly the biggest thing in the universe.
Victoria is just having issues with realising there is a world beyond its obsession with AFL.
December 2nd 2010 @ 11:54am
amazonfan said | December 2nd 2010 @ 11:54am | Report comment
So, I guess you only follow sports which the rest of the world like. We Victorians are more independent than that. We don’t care whether or not Aussie Rules is the biggest or smallest sport in the world; we follow it because we love it. But, really, do you honestly think that the quality of a sport is determined by how popular it is?
December 2nd 2010 @ 12:14pm
Jessica said | December 2nd 2010 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
amazonfan said: “So, I guess you only follow sports which the rest of the world like. We Victorians are more independent than that.”
Yes amazonfan. Sports such as cricket, tennis and horse racing have absolutely no attraction or interest in Melbourne.
The first Tuesday in November and Boxing Day are things we must be imagining.
December 2nd 2010 @ 12:24pm
djfrobinson said | December 2nd 2010 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
Finally an admission from one AFL fan that AFL should really be VFL and stay in its box.
December 2nd 2010 @ 12:32pm
amazonfan said | December 2nd 2010 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
Jessica, that wasn’t my point. Please at least read the context in which posts are made.
My post was in response to FaC who suggested that the only sports which matter are those which are followed by the rest of the world.
December 2nd 2010 @ 12:36pm
amazonfan said | December 2nd 2010 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
djfrobinson-”Finally an admission from one AFL fan that AFL should really be VFL and stay in its box.”
Considering that Aussie Rules is the number 1 sport in four of six states, and in the other two, it is expanding, why exactly should it really be VFL and stay in its box?
December 2nd 2010 @ 1:10pm
TCunbeliever said | December 2nd 2010 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Jessica.
Everyone has ther preferences.. Personally I absolutely abhor the Spring Raching Carnival and the F1 GP which everyone else seems to love.
Cricket is a big sport all across Australia – in that it attracts interest in every single state, it’s possibly the closest thing we have to a national sport.
December 2nd 2010 @ 11:42am
amazonfan said | December 2nd 2010 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Indeed.
Ben, how is Aussie Rules not a native game? There is dispute regarding the origins, however even if its birth is debatable, what is not debatable is that its upbringing has taken place entirely within Australia. There have been numerous foreign-born players, but unlike international sports like soccer, league and cricket, it is very much Australia’s game.
December 2nd 2010 @ 1:22pm
Ken said | December 2nd 2010 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
I think most can agree that it was unique in it’s details if not in concept – it’s a Victorian interpretation of ball games from England which had been in existence for centuries.
I think you’ll find the ‘…it is very much Australia’s game’ is the bit that people object to most. See, there’s a lot of us in Australia (about half the population actually) that don’t have any connection to AFL – it’s not our game, not our culture. It’s an import here, and a somewhat big-mouthed rich import at that, telling us how important it is and that it’s better than us, which always engenders respect right?
December 2nd 2010 @ 1:31pm
Ben said | December 2nd 2010 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
“The game that made Australia” campaign worked a treat in Sydney!
December 2nd 2010 @ 1:38pm
The_Wookie said | December 2nd 2010 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Victorian rules were codified here a good 4 years before the rules were codfiied for association football. While they are both loosely based on the rules written in cambridge in 1848, and at rugby school in 1845. The game as developed in Australia is vastly different to anything played elsewhere.
There is no question that the game as we know it is Australian. in victoria the number of people who actually go to the football is something like 4%, and its half that or less in other states. Now if its that kind of ratio in the smaller populated states…just how fewer people go to see the NRL on a per capita basis. its nothing like half the population. 96% of the population dont go to or even follow AFL/NRL and couldnt care less.
We can call it Australias game if we like, it was codified here, developed here, and is the only country in the world you can play it in professionally. So yes, its Australian.
December 2nd 2010 @ 2:47pm
amazonfan said | December 2nd 2010 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
Ken;
“it’s a Victorian interpretation of ball games from England which had been in existence for centuries.”
That’s debatable. Some suggest that it was inspired by Indigenous games. Its birth is in dispute, however that’s not really the point.
“See, there’s a lot of us in Australia (about half the population actually) that don’t have any connection to AFL – it’s not our game, not our culture.”
I don’t think anybody is denying that. However, that does not change the fact that it’s a significant part of the Australian sporting landscape and is a native game.
I don’t care about the Melbourne Cup. I don’t care about PharLap, or Makybe Diva, and I have no emotional connection to what I consider to just be a silly horse race. But that does not mean that I am denying that the Melbourne Cup is a significant sporting event.
The fact is that Aussie Rules, born and raised here, and where the only professional competiton is in Australia, is Australia’s game as opposed to international sports. I’m not saying you have to like Aussie Rules (and BTW AFL isn’t an accurate term as there are several other Aussie Rules competitions in Australia), but you can’t deny its uniqueness to Australia.
“t’s an import here, and a somewhat big-mouthed rich import at that, telling us how important it is and that it’s better than us, which always engenders respect right?”
If by import, you mean an import into NSW, then yes, I will be the first to admitt that the AFL can be arrogant. However it’s not an import into Australia.
December 3rd 2010 @ 7:17am
Fez's are cool said | December 3rd 2010 @ 7:17am | Report comment
Great post Ken.
April 21st 2011 @ 4:22pm
Tito el Colombiano said | April 21st 2011 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
VERY VERY GOOD Post – AFL is Victoria’s game that has spread to WA, SA & TAS
RL is QLD & NSW’s game – and I think you will find if you step outside of the VIC media bubble and check for yourself – AFL is not winning people up here as much as the VIC media will have you think – in fact no where near it.
December 2nd 2010 @ 2:57pm
rugbyfuture said | December 2nd 2010 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
If thats the case, you’re getting your facts wrong amazonfan.
League has been brought up and survived on australias back for the last 20-30 years, if it didn’t exist (and its governing body wasn’t based) in australia it basically wouldn’t exist at all, league isn’t a true international sport (though more international than aussie rules) more an australian sport, rugby is an international sport.
Even then, Rugby in australia is older than Wales, Ireland, New Zealand and south africa. And was the foundation for the spread of sports such as league and and basis point for some of the rules of afl. So its just as australian as AFL is, considering that the formation of the governing bodies or first clubs was around the same time, in fact, rugby was played in australia before any other sport.
December 2nd 2010 @ 3:14pm
amazonfan said | December 2nd 2010 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
League is still played outside Australia. It even has a World Cup. If that isn’t international, I don’t know what is.
It may be true that ‘if it didn’t exist (and its governing body wasn’t based) in australia it basically wouldn’t exist at all’, but the fact is that it does exist internationally, unlike Aussie Rules.
“Even then, Rugby in australia is older than Wales, Ireland, New Zealand and south africa.”
Is it older than in England?
One can debate what the term ‘Australian’ means, but I don’t agree that a sport which is played internationally, has a World Cup even, and was born in England, is as Australian as a sport which was born here, and has only ever been played here professionally. That does not mean that Aussie Rules is superior (although I think it is :p), for as I mentioned in my post above, I recognise the significance of the Melbourne Cup even though I couldn’t care less about it.
“in fact, rugby was played in australia before any other sport”
Not true. Aussie Rules was first played in 1858 (in which the Melbourne Demons became, what is now, the oldest Australian football club of any code), while League was developed in 1895, and first played in Australia in 1908.
December 2nd 2010 @ 3:15pm
The_Wookie said | December 2nd 2010 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
not meaning to nitpick….but the first recorded cricket match was in 1803…36 years before the first record rugby match in 1839. Rugbys rules at the time are rather different to what they became later. Further Rugby was played as a means of defining a persons “englishness” not their Australian nature. As per wikipedia “With its origins, image and administration anchored in England, supporters of rugby saw the code as a symbol and reminder of their Englishness”,
A sydney competition established in 1865 with six clubs (12 years before the VFA) was actually run from Twickenham in the UK for crying out loud.
December 2nd 2010 @ 3:25pm
amazonfan said | December 2nd 2010 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
Correction:
““in fact, rugby was played in australia before any other sport”
As we were talking about League, I mistook this to be “League was played in australia before any other sport.”
Rugby is indeed older than Aussie Rules, and it does appear that it was played here (on an informal basis) earlier than Aussie Rules. Formally, however, Aussie Rules is the oldest football code in Australia.
December 2nd 2010 @ 3:31pm
rugbyfuture said | December 2nd 2010 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
formally only by three years though, though i do agree, it was still played infromally earlier. laying a foundation for australia’s sporting prowess. also one could say that an international game, where one competes as a country to another country, is more definitive of nationhood than a game solely based in a country. hence why the olympics and fifa world cup are so popular.
Amazonfan, you’ll learn in time, i’ve been around for a year now, i never call league rugby.
The wookie
I was refferring to football codes, pardon my mistake in the contest of things
as to your regard to englishness, one could say the same thing about our flag, which was developed in 1901 and formalised in 1953, however, it doesnt make it any less australian (thoguh i would like to see it changed)
December 2nd 2010 @ 3:48pm
amazonfan said | December 2nd 2010 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
rugbyfuture; “Amazonfan, you’ll learn in time, i’ve been around for a cpouple of years now, i never call league rugby.”
What can I say, I’m a typical Mexican! :p (However I am making an effort. I used to always call call Rugby, now I try not to.)
December 2nd 2010 @ 4:20pm
Jessica said | December 2nd 2010 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
The Wookie cracks me up! “A sydney competition established in 1865 with six clubs (12 years before the VFA) was actually run from Twickenham in the UK for crying out loud”.
For crying out loud The Wookie English rugby didn’t move to Twickenham until they built it around WW1. I don’t even think the Englsuh rugby union was founded until the 1870s. Yet you’ve got them running a Sydney club rugby competition in 1865 from England! Where do you get that gem of info from?
December 2nd 2010 @ 8:06pm
The_Wookie said | December 2nd 2010 @ 8:06pm | Report comment
sorry got my date from, it was 1874 when the competition was started. And it was still run from Twickenham. And the information comes direct from the ARU.” By 1874 there were enough clubs to form a Sydney Metropolitan competition and in that year the Southern Rugby Union was established, initially being administered from Twickenham in England. Administration was handed over to New South Wales in 1881 and in 1892″
http://www.rugby.com.au/aru_hq/history_of_the_aru/history_of_the_aru,183.html. I naturally assumed the ARU would know what it was talking about. Maybe Twickenham is just a general term for anywhere the rugby football union was based at the time.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:01pm
Jessica said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:01pm | Report comment
Thanks The_Wookie. A bit weird from the ARU given two seconds on google confirmed the Twickenham site wasn’t bought by the RFU until 1906. http://www.twickenham-museum.org.uk/detail.asp?ContentID=225 Can’t find when the RFU actually moved its offices to Twickenham by sure wasn’t 1874!
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:05pm
Jessica said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
The RFU moved into offices at Twickenham in 1932 http://www.rugbygroundguide.com/team/england.htm Seems we can learn something by hanging around the Roar!
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:21pm
rugbyfuture said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:21pm | Report comment
1910 was when they moved to twickenham
i would suggest it was run from pall mall or the oval before then. though im unsure
December 2nd 2010 @ 2:37pm
Ian said | December 2nd 2010 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
My original post (which was deemed inappropriate by someone) above was intended to stimulate discussion on why the sports organisation has become so sure of itself, that it seems to sincerely believe that restrictive clauses are a normal part of business for itself. The AFL in Victoria is sadly in a bubble of its own making. Being the only child, and overly protected against normal competition, it then behaves like a “little emperor” when playing with the big boys.
December 2nd 2010 @ 2:44pm
The_Wookie said | December 2nd 2010 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
really need to get over this fascination people have with it only being in victoria. Some of the biggest AFL clubs are in Adelaide and Perth where the AFL is the dominant league, and Australian football is the dominant sport by miles. Not to mention successful clubs in Brisbane and Sydney. hey wait…You were looking for reasons why the AFL is so sure of itself right?
WHAT big boys? In Australian sport there arent any. The NRL comes close, but the FFA and the ARU are, like it or not, not a patch on the AFLs administration, revenues, tv rights and crowd attendances. For all of their international teams and squads, soccer lurches from one crisis to the next, the nrl is permanently reactionary to whatever the AFL does, and the ARU is beholden to developments in other countries.
December 2nd 2010 @ 2:49pm
Koops said | December 2nd 2010 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
No idea, suits their agenda i suppose, heard on the radio yesterday that West coast has 28,000 people on a waiting list, who all pay for the priveledge, absolutely incredible, Fremantle will go the same way.
December 2nd 2010 @ 2:54pm
amazonfan said | December 2nd 2010 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Not to mention that Adelaide has (or had) more members than any other club. South/Western Australians, not to mention the forgotten Tasmanians, would be quite offended if they read posts suggesting that Aussie Rules is only a Victorian sport.
December 2nd 2010 @ 2:45pm
Koops said | December 2nd 2010 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
It appears lots of your posts are deemed inappropiate, wonder why.
December 3rd 2010 @ 12:19am
Karlos said | December 3rd 2010 @ 12:19am | Report comment
Ian, that is so precise. well done.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:19am
Jiggles said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Ignoring the irony of calling someone or something arrogant, I can’t really see what the AFL was trying to achieve with this one.
If I was the CEO Alan Joyce of Qantas and Andrew Demetriou came to me saying:
“Listen Alan Mate, if you want to sponsor the AFL you have to drop all other codes”
I wouldn’t even hesitate in saying “See ya Andy!”
Why would QANTAS drop sponsorship of 2 globally recognised sports and 2 globally recognised teams, for the AFL? Just doesn’t make sense! QANTAS has the Australian Market sowed up, so what could AFL offer then in terms of overseas expansion? Very little I would suggest.
The losers on this one are AFL and the players’ welfare.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:25am
Redb said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:25am | Report comment
The more I think about it, this may have been just a cover story from Demetriou to justify dumping QANTAS for Virgin.
The losers are the players welfare although not necessarily if seat gaps are widened,etc. Indirectly potentially the AFL will lose, however the Virgin deal is a pretty good one.
From Virgin’s perspective they have a lot to gain on the domestic front.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:54am
Jiggles said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Why would Demetriou cover up by saying they wouldn’t go exclusive so we dumped them, which is just embarrassing on behalf of the AFL. Why wouldn’t he try and spin it by saying Virgin is newer, hungrier, can offer us much better services then Qantas at a more competitive price point etc?
For someone who is meant to be a top businessman that is just a rookie error.
Virgin will be stoked with the deal I agree on that bit.
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:02am
Redb said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:02am | Report comment
That’s the point , it appears poorly handled by Demetriou in terms of explaining the deal. Maybe some of the media reports are untrue, been taken out of context? Wouldnt be the first time.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:28am
Fauntleroy said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Its not the exclusivity that gets me. The AFL have every right to do that, even though it does a have negative undertone to it.
What amazes me is the Gold Coast Suns situation.
Here is an independent central body, actively engaging in a corporate partnership which is detrimental to some clubs, and particularly favourable to one, in the form of sponsorship. That a central adminstrator can actively do the bidding and flex their economic muscle to the benefit of one club, and this manipulative skewing of competitive arrangements be overwhelmingly tolerated by the AFL constituency, speaks much about the unity of this competition. Despite some rumblings, this issue will disappear from the conversation in no time.
So that’s not necessarily a bad thing, but surely AFL supporters, who’s tolerance for competitive disparity must surely be the world’s benchmark, will eventually start asking themselves “what truly is this competition all about.”
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:34am
The_Wookie said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Its in the leagues interest, that having agreed – with the consent of its member clubs – to establish a team that it becomes viable as soon as possible. More major sponsors = less money required from the AFL = less risk = no threat to existing clubs.
The fact remains that the Virgin deal is still the largest airline sponsorship in Australian sport (which benefits the entire league, doomsayers not withstanding) – and has the added bonus of being the joint major sponsor of the leagues newest team. How is this anything other than a win for the AFL as a LEAGUE.
This is why we have a commission. Notice how few clubs are actually saying anything other than the usual loudmouths.
December 2nd 2010 @ 11:34am
MyLeftFoot said | December 2nd 2010 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Wookie
the equation is simple enough: what is good for the AFL never sits comfortably with a large group of correspondents on this site.
December 2nd 2010 @ 12:26pm
Redb said | December 2nd 2010 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
Correct. This article which many AFL fans agree with is simply being used now for fodder for the anti AFl brigade to run their agenda.
Look at the posts, barely any of them deal with just the issue, most blow it out of proportion.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:56am
Redb said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:56am | Report comment
It’s not that simple.
What is good for the Gold Coast in a direct and indirect way is also good for all AFL clubs who benefit from the competition’s dividends. A struggling Gold Coast is not good for all AFL clubs either.
There is a degree of duplicity but the bigger picture is quite simple.
How Demetriou got there is being questioned though and why he did not consult properly with the AFLPA. The AFLPA might have suggested including a clause on extra leg room/expanded section on certain flights as a requirement in the deal for example.
The AFL is a not for profit organisation it is a master and servant of the clubs.
December 2nd 2010 @ 5:40pm
TCunbeliever said | December 2nd 2010 @ 5:40pm | Report comment
Absolutely spot on.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:39am
duncan74 said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Does Virgin sponsor any other codes? If not, I would hardly say it was exclusive. I would say Virgin Airlines is rapt – Picture footballers getting off the plane, waiting at the terminal stretching to get the kinks out!
Regards Demetriou, I find interesting that he would present such a proposition to QANTAS.
December 2nd 2010 @ 12:12pm
Simmo said | December 2nd 2010 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Because he’s a muppet. Qantas has too much to lose and clearly wants a piece of every football code. The demographics of the different codes cover off Qantas’ customer base well – Socceroos and Wallabies for the international market, NRL for the domestic Northern market, AFL for the domestic southern market. Limiting your associatons to just one code is a waste of time.
December 2nd 2010 @ 1:29pm
Ken said | December 2nd 2010 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
‘Picture footballers getting off the plane, waiting at the terminal stretching to get the kinks out!’
Yep, it’s been done of course with the Gold Coast JETSTAR Titans – coincidence?
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:54am
Fauntleroy said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Got no problem with that buddy.
We’re all here to give our personal perspectives. For me, when that final whistle is sounded at the end of the Grand Final, and my team isn’t in it, I would want to be comfortably certain that that every channel, every avenue and every independent and reasonable parity was put in place so that my team had as good a fighting chance of getting there as the two teams on the park.
I want to know that those two teams got there 100% on their own merit and via the machinations of the will, capability and volition contained within the confines of that club. Not because they had assistance from a central body, not because they were scheduled to play at home more than other teams, not because they only played the difficult teams once and the easier teams twice, not because their coffers were filled by a central administrator so that they could go and poach one of my team’s best players all in the name of marketing, not because they have more money in the kitty than my club because they were helped out with a sponsorship arrangement and my club wasn’t. Because I would be, for my club. Whether my competitor on the park is one year old or a hundred years old, for the four quarters of play, I would want to know that every ingredient of the winning team was put there by all the constituents of that club within its own confinement, and not stakeholders outside of it. Otherwise, why compete?
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:10am
Redb said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Find me one professional sporting competition in the world that is entirely even in money terms, is properly balanced with clubs from all representative geographic areas and draws players from its own region.
Expansion clubs are at an immediate disadvantage to 100 year old established clubs.
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:24am
macavity said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:24am | Report comment
And yet the Titans were competitive straight away, without being given any unfair advantages.
What does that tell us?
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:49am
Redb said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Cowboys had to be propped up by News Ltd. Should they still be in the competition, beating other teams, taking points from other NRL teams?
In the normal course of business – live and let die, Storm would be gone. They cheated but also those 2 premierships (07, 09) are not real becuase if News Ltd wasnt propping them up they would be out of existence and other teams would have won.
No comp is a totally level playing field.
December 2nd 2010 @ 1:07pm
ilikelollies said | December 2nd 2010 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Theres a difference between giving teams money to cover a loss and such things the AFL does as fixing draws, drafts, caps etc…..a massive difference. Only a fool would try to argue otherwise.
December 2nd 2010 @ 1:38pm
Redb said | December 2nd 2010 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
so why are you arguing no sporting comp is a level playing field?
December 2nd 2010 @ 11:45am
Fez's are cool said | December 2nd 2010 @ 11:45am | Report comment
That Redb has issues making any form of criticism of the AFL
December 2nd 2010 @ 11:49am
bilbo said | December 2nd 2010 @ 11:49am | Report comment
As an NRL fan, I find it interesting that AFL people dont make more of a big deal about the special concessions to the new clubs. The “leg-up” that GWS and GC are to receive is significant, and would not fly in the NRL – fans and administrators of existing clubs wouldnt let the NRL hear the end of it.
But the AFL’s traditional heartland hasnt said much at all – why I wonder?
December 2nd 2010 @ 11:55am
Art Sapphire said | December 2nd 2010 @ 11:55am | Report comment
bilbo – there is a difference between fans of AFL clubs and fans of the AFL.
The latter tend to frequent The Roar.
I know quite a few Victorian club fans who are not content with what’s happening.
December 2nd 2010 @ 12:50pm
Redb said | December 2nd 2010 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
C’mon Art, have you joined up yet?, if your a club man get behind Essendon.
December 2nd 2010 @ 1:20pm
Art Sapphire said | December 2nd 2010 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
redb – I watch Essendon 3 to 4 times a year. That’s enough for me.
Won’t become a member again until I’m guaranteed a GF ticket or if they are about to fold (which I can’t see happening)
December 2nd 2010 @ 1:31pm
TCunbeliever said | December 2nd 2010 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
Personally, and just like Redb, I am a fan of the Essendon Football Club. I strongly disagree with some of the policies the AFL has in relation to stadia, fixtures, rules, ‘alternate’ jumpers, and I could go on.. But one thing I am supportive of is their ambitious plan to have 2 QLD and 2 NSW teams in 2012, as well as their willingness to compromise with FFA and FIFA so that we get to see the best sport in the world in Australia in 2012, and as a bonus, we might be hosting the Association Football World Cup too.
This QANTAS thing has pros and cons.. The planes and quality of service they offer are great for the needs of the players, yet they clearly don’t promote the sport of Australian Football as a priority, and in fact have mistakenly referred to a completely foreign sport as Australian Football. That’s reason for a change, IMHO.
As for the ‘bonuses’ for the Suns and Giants, I am more than happy with them. In a couple of years (when they have the same number of players as the 16 other teams) their salary cap equal with the competition, and should they manage to win a premiership or two in the next decade it’s going to be great for their fans and the people in the area, and that’s great for the League. In 20 years if they have 2-3 + flags each, and 25,000+ members then no fan of any AFL club can begrudge them that.
December 2nd 2010 @ 12:24pm
betamax said | December 2nd 2010 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
Indeed they were macavity. They bought well and brought through some top juniors. No big names, just solid players like Presto, Bailey and Rogers, and a no-frills coach in Cartwright. Respect. The Suns on the other hand were given a leg up with the current greatest player in Ablett jr, a media stunt in K Hunt, and first pick in the draft(whatever that means). No respect.
Incidentally RedB, if Virgin go and increase leg room on their planes to accommodate afl players, or anyone for that matter, I will eat an airbus.
December 2nd 2010 @ 12:08pm
ilikelollies said | December 2nd 2010 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Not one sporting comp in the world has as much administrative fingerprints on it as the AFL comp does.
Imo it renders the whole comp a farce
December 2nd 2010 @ 1:13pm
Redb said | December 2nd 2010 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
ilikelollies,
So your a former AFL fan then?
My club Essendon it is not a farce (despite what Carlton fans will tell you
)
It is a flesh and blood club with a massive sporting tradition, tens of thousands of members and hundreds and thousands of fans. The AFL gives the new clubs a leg up to get them competitive. It will last for a few years then fade out.
We already have over 20,000 members, a new coach in James Hird and great hope for he future, but I’m an AFL fan. I bet your not.
December 2nd 2010 @ 2:59pm
Lazza said | December 2nd 2010 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
Essendon will be doing nothing for the next few years because all the best young players have to go to the new expansion clubs. You can get a new coach but there is no way to improve a team if you can’t have access to the best new talent.
When the expansion clubs have had their fill, you come last on the ladder and finally get access to the best draft picks again Hirdie will be gone and so will his coaching reputation.
December 2nd 2010 @ 5:51pm
TCunbeliever said | December 2nd 2010 @ 5:51pm | Report comment
It’s never that simple.
You can’t guarantee that any top 10 draft picks are going to make it at AFL level.. And you can’t guarantee that players taken in the 70′s won’t turn out to be the best player of his generation. And just having the best players on the field won’t guarantee success, they’ve got to be coached well, led well and have the necessary attitude to win.
December 3rd 2010 @ 7:21am
Redb said | December 3rd 2010 @ 7:21am | Report comment
I doubt you hold any particular knowledge about Essendon. You dont know the list, dont appreciate James Hird and the people he has put together. You dont follow AFL closely enough these days.
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:13am
The_Wookie said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:13am | Report comment
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/virgin-deal-with-the-suns-angers-other-afl-clubs-20101130-18fcv.html
“In what is Australia’s largest sports sponsorship deal in monetary terms for airlines, Virgin Blue will fly players, team staff and officials of the 17 teams for matches across Australia.”
Try again.
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:22am
Fauntleroy said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Umm…I think you missed my point dude.
But no matter, if come the last week of September, you can rest comfortably with all those things I mentioned, then there’s no discussion, and my point is mute. Best of luck to your team in 2011.