Women's League

[LordLucifer]

In 2017, the AFL will subsidise each AWFL team to the tune of $1mill so you have assume that the running costs per annum are around that figure.

In 2018, where is the club going to find that extra $1mill to cover the running costs of the women's team ??

We already have a significant debt that we are working hard to eradicate (what's it now down to .... $5-6mill ??) so finding an extra million dollars to run a new venture is not going to be a walk in the park.

The $mill won't come from one large sponsorship, the season is so short that there won't be enough TV coverage to justify that sort of money. It won't come directly from dedicated women's team memberships either, they'd need just over 6500 @ $150 each to get there.

Adding $20 on to each and every full club membership (ie. all 50,000 members) would cover it but would members be prepared to pay for that (ie. no interest in the team or competition or unable to attend matches etc) ??

Also, in 2018, there will be more clubs meaning a slightly longer season and therefore additional costs of operation.

The initial euphoria of being granted a licence may make people overlook some crucial business points associated with this new venture.

[cookie2]

Just on SEN someone panning the AFL for ignoring the plight of the Lions whilst all the euphoria of the new women's league is in the spotlight. He claimed that the Lions are "being left to wither on the vine".

[LP]

.......

The initial euphoria of being granted a licence may make people overlook some crucial business points associated with this new venture.

There will be plenty of sponsorship, sponsorship of women is easier to tap into than getting sponsorship of men.

Marketing companies know that women control about 80% of household spending. That means they will get sponsorship from revenue streams that are not traditionally associated with mens sport. Think Tip Top, Meadow Lea, Kleenex, Coles, Aldi or Woolworths. Sounds sexist because it is, and humanity cannot do anything about the fact there are two sexes.

You won't see any mens teams sponsored by Cuddly Fabric Softener, but you will see women's teams getting access to that sort of money.

Even in markets traditionally dominated by males, look at the bulk of new car ads, they are now more likely to be a mum taking the kids to soccer than a lumberjack cutting down a defenseless tree.

[cimm1979]

In 2017, the AFL will subsidise each AWFL team to the tune of $1mill so you have assume that the running costs per annum are around that figure.

In 2018, where is the club going to find that extra $1mill to cover the running costs of the women's team ??

We already have a significant debt that we are working hard to eradicate (what's it now down to .... $5-6mill ??) so finding an extra million dollars to run a new venture is not going to be a walk in the park.

The $mill won't come from one large sponsorship, the season is so short that there won't be enough TV coverage to justify that sort of money. It won't come directly from dedicated women's team memberships either, they'd need just over 6500 @ $150 each to get there.

Adding $20 on to each and every full club membership (ie. all 50,000 members) would cover it but would members be prepared to pay for that (ie. no interest in the team or competition or unable to attend matches etc) ??

Also, in 2018, there will be more clubs meaning a slightly longer season and therefore additional costs of operation.

The initial euphoria of being granted a licence may make people overlook some crucial business points associated with this new venture.

You have no idea what the business case is.

You don't like the sport, that's fine. But don't justify your disdain for the sport by trying to make a business case against it when you have no idea of the facts.

Although I shouldn't be surprised.

[cimm1979]

Just on SEN someone panning the AFL for ignoring the plight of the Lions whilst all the euphoria of the new women's league is in the spotlight. He claimed that the Lions are "being left to wither on the vine".

Jon Ralph.

Richmond supporter, guess which team didn't get a team in the comp?

He wouldn't have mentioned it if the Tigers had a licence.

[LordLucifer]

There will be plenty of sponsorship, sponsorship of women is easier to tap into than getting sponsorship of men.

Marketing companies know that women control about 80% of household spending. That means they will get sponsorship from revenue streams that are not traditionally associated with mens sport. Think Tip Top, Meadow Lea, Kleenex, Coles, Aldi or Woolworths. Sounds sexist because it is, and humanity cannot do anything about the fact there are two sexes.

You won't see any mens teams sponsored by Cuddly Fabric Softener, but you will see women's teams getting access to that sort of money.

Even in markets traditionally dominated by males, look at the bulk of new car ads, they are now more likely to be a mum taking the kids to soccer than a lumberjack cutting down a defenseless tree.

It's a six-week season, who is going to tip a bucket of cash into that ??

[LordLucifer]

You have no idea what the business case is.

You don't like the sport, that's fine. But don't justify your disdain for the sport by trying to make a business case against it when you have no idea of the facts.

Although I shouldn't be surprised.

Given that you've offered nothing more than a petty backhander, clearly you have no idea also.

If you are content that this new venture will not be a money drain on the club when our finances are still rather shakey, then good for you.

[LP]

It's a six-week season, who is going to tip a bucket of cash into that ??

At the moment.

A major golf tournament only goes for four days, Wimbledon only goes for two weeks, surfing just two, who'd put there money into those?

Sorry Sheik, but your arguments are sounding slightly old world like Alan Jones, Ray Hadley or John Singleton! It's 13 year old girls and social media that determine what is on TV or Youtube, which music gets streamed and what colour is the hottest fashion.

[laj]

Waiting for the first female installment of Sheik's "Backed, Cracked and Sacked"...lol.

[cimm1979]

Given that you've offered nothing more than a petty backhander, clearly you have no idea also.

If you are content that this new venture will not be a money drain on the club when our finances are still rather shakey, then good for you.

I'm not claiming I do.

You don't like the idea of womens footy, we get it. Because you get called out for your disdainful comments on the sport you turn to a matter of which you are equally ignorant, the business case, to try and maintain some legitimacy.