GSG wrote:The Hawks got bigger because they got an extremely lucrative compensation when they were forced from Waverley. Unlike the Saints, as with the Etihad deal, got practically nothing compared to the Hawks. To give credit to the Hawks, they used the money wisely.
I don’t think the poorer clubs want charities, just an even deal. Lousy game times/no blockbusters equals no sponsors, as they want maximum exposure. ANZAC game = good revenue – share it around. Equal deals with Etihad – not just a good deal for Essendon. And why should the poorer Melbourne clubs always have to travel more than Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton and Richmond? Yep we know it – it’s all about money!
There are many ways to help the poorer clubs, but as the Supremo AD just announced yesterday ….. the bigger club will always get the prime time tv spots, that’s the deal with the tv network. This is not necessarily Eddie’s work, just the AFL wanting more and more money.
Sadly, AFL has become a theatre sport.
I’ve already dropped my social club membership and this year will be the last time I have reserved seating. I’ll always be a member, just to support the club, but I can’t see myself going to too many games.
Pretty sure we got about the same compensation but how does more money give you more membership anyway? They dont flood the mrket with excess advertising.
And why wouldnt you go to games because we arent a big club? it makes no sense. That sounds more like you are pissed off with our club.