This was posted 7 years 10 months 20 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

FREE Entry to 2017 AFL Womens Matches across Australia

1600
FREE Entry to 2017 AFL Womens Matches across Australia
Go to Deal
inherentchoice on 02/02/2017 - 12:52 afl.com.au (1325 clicks)
Last edited 02/02/2017 - 12:59

All matches for the 2017 NAB AFL Women's competition are FREE ENTRY with the exception of some Double Header matches. Entry is subject to capacity.

Competition is held over 7 weekends in February and March at venues in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra and Darwin. Here are links with details of all the games at each venue…

NSW - Blacktown International Sportspark Sydney
VIC - Ikon Park
VIC - Whitten Oval
VIC - Casey Fields
VIC - Olympic Park Oval
QLD - South Pine Sports Complex
SA - Thebarton Oval
SA - Norwood Oval
WA - Fremantle Oval
ACT - Manuka Oval
NT - TIO Stadium

Selected matches are also being broadcast on free-to-air TV. Check out the broadcast guide here.

Sports & Outdoors Australian Football

Related Stores

Australian Football League
Australian Football League

closed Comments

  • Mahogany Granger on 02/02/2017 - 12:57
    +41

    Wouldn't mind a free double header.

    Mahogany Granger on 02/02/2017 - 12:57 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
    • greenlantern on 02/02/2017 - 13:12

      o_O

    • Roja on 02/02/2017 - 19:47
      +1

      I've seen this happen in soccer sometimes

  • railspider on 02/02/2017 - 13:02
    +11

    How are the AFL planning to make $$$ from this league?

    • Peck on 02/02/2017 - 13:06
      +8

      I agree. Women and Men are equal etc etc. But the truth is most people would rather watch men play AFL. I don't know if they want equal pay or not, but if they do, it will drain the AFL coffers.

      • adam456 on 02/02/2017 - 14:43
        +4

        Drain the coffers? Are you nuts, the AFL makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue separate from their broadcasting deals.

        I think people forget the scale of the AFL and just how many resources they have to keep clubs like Gold Coast and GWS a float, let alone running a 7 round, 7 team women's competition.

      • sabracad on 02/02/2017 - 21:57
        +7

        There are many fields where men and women are equal, however sport is not one. With respect to remuneration within the AFL they should be paid on the same basis as the men's teams, x% of the overall revenue they generate. Anything above this would be sexist - just like the tennis is.

    • beeawwb on 02/02/2017 - 13:07
      +24

      Broadcast rights, I'd wager. At this stage I think they're just prioritising exposure rather than profit.

      • FindMeADeal on 02/02/2017 - 13:12
        +2

        Like all new businesses, it will take time to build income and reach a breakpoint to start earning profit. I reckon 5-6 years down the line is not too far fetched.

        • railspider on 02/02/2017 - 13:16
          +3

          If they keep the WAFL schedule in Feb/Mar before the Men's season begins, I think they'll do all right. People are always keen for more footy.

        • Baghern on 02/02/2017 - 14:04
          +3

          You're assuming it will break even.

          AS usual the feminist argument about equality ignores the biggest component… females watching female sports…

        • T1OOO on 02/02/2017 - 15:30
          -1

          @Baghern:

          I think that the AFL are playing a very dangerous and ultimately fatal game with the women’s competition as well as the expansion clubs. The League learnt its lessons form bad expansions, and has changed it now to a successful model. It wont be long till they expand to 14 and 16 teams and will be attracting a lot more money. Ultimately they will become bigger than both AFL and Rugby as its truly a national game, not either VIC/SA and Sdy/QLD like with the other 2 codes that are split.

        • stonkered on 02/02/2017 - 18:46
          +1

          @railspider:

          It's not the WAFL, it's AFLW, waffle being wa's league.

    • Strahany on 02/02/2017 - 13:19
      +17

      They won't.

      Look at the WNBA - it's annexed from a multi billion dollar industry, in the NBA, where some singular teams are worth more than the entire AFL. It's been around since 1997, yet the first time a team ever had a profitable season was in 2010, with only 3-6 being profitable most years thereafter. Now, many AFL teams are in the red, however these are due to making purchases such as new training facilities or terrible stadium deals, whereas these WNBA losses were simply due to lack of revenue.

      If the WNBA can't stay profitable in a much bigger market, with a much bigger competition of which to leech off, and in a sport that has better pathways for female participation, then I think it doesn't take a genius to predict how the Women's AFL league will go.

      It's just a matter of how long the AFL can be bothered keeping this completion alive at such a cost, which will probably be largely dependent on attendance and viewership numbers beyond the initial "gimmick period".

      • sien on 03/02/2017 - 13:21
        +1

        Another example is the US women's soccer league which is now in it's third incarnation. Two leagues having run out of money. This is in a huge country with the best women's soccer players in the world and with huge participation for younger women in soccer.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Women's_Soccer_League

        In Australia competing with the women's AFL League you have the Netball, which is big, the WNBL and the women's soccer all of which are established competitions even if except for the netball they don't have much money.

        You'd have to bet that even in Melbourne more young women play basketball and soccer than AFL.

    • inherentchoice on 02/02/2017 - 13:25
      +8

      Probably:

      • Attract new fans (women, girls, families) and broaden the overall appeal and image of the sport. It will be less of a 'boys club' or male-dominated pastime.
      • Stimulate/generate interest in AFL leading into the regular mens season.
      • This competition doesn't overlap with the main mens competition and so it doesn't compete with, or diminish the focus on, the mens competition, but it still expands the AFL's market share of the sporting calendar.
      • Selling broadcast rights… they have already secured deals for all matches to be televised this year, some on free-to-air. An exhibition match last year showed promising interest:

      The television ratings for last year’s All Stars exhibition game left no doubt as to what fans thought.

      The match between the Western Bulldogs and Melbourne delivered an average audience of 746,000 viewers (metropolitan and regional) nationally. The contest, broadcast live by the Seven Network, peaked at 1.05 million viewers and won its timeslot across all key demographics in Melbourne, where it averaged 387,000 viewers

      Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/first-womens-match…

      I think in the long term it will not only be self sustaining, but will be a success in its own right.

      Big Bash and Australian Open tennis have finished. And now tomorrow night Carlton take on Collingwood in Friday night football, live on Channel 7 across the country!

      • DeWalt on 02/02/2017 - 14:00
        +1

        There's an excellent article on women's sports here,
        http://time.com/4322947/men-women-sports-evolution/

        Here are two excellent quotes,
        "Women's professional soccer is taking off around the world, but it's men who make up most of the viewership, not women."

        and

        "One 2014 survey of 37 countries, for example, found that in every one, men were likelier to play some kind of sport than women. In a few countries, the difference was not statistically significant, but when the question was narrowed to specify competitive sports like basketball and exclude non-competitive ones like running, the men blew the doors off the numbers, besting women by nearly four-fold. A 2013 study conducted by Deaner and a colleague not involved in the current work found that males were twice as likely as females to be involved or interested in sports across 50 different countries or cultures."

        • Baghern on 02/02/2017 - 14:07
          +1

          Yep…

          I remember the argument for Netball… as it has a high attendence crowd.

          My question was how many of those attending paid $50-$100 to attend, how many of those attending bought supporters gear beyond a $20 noodle

        • infinite on 03/02/2017 - 09:43
          +1

          @Baghern: The major Netball team closest to us who competes in the ANZ championship series only charges $15 to get in and kids who are local club members get in for free. There's basically little commercial value to the product then past that point. The only reason why they even exist is because they've been getting more than a $4.5mil in government grants every year to pay the players and keep the clubs a float.

        • Baghern on 03/02/2017 - 13:06

          @infinite:

          $4.5m that's alright, I'm ok with that.

          I'm in favour of supporting and pushing female sports forward.

          But its a long term goal. The expectations of some people are pretty ludicrous though

      • [Deactivated] on 02/02/2017 - 14:34
        +1

        I wish them well as it will encourage more women into sport but the chances of TV broadcasts being a success (anywhere other than Melb) after the novelty wears off are probably minimal. They will quickly become a filler like some of the other AFL state games. Still, better than nothing.

        I watched a bit of the women's BBL this season. Pedestrian, but you have to start somewhere and again it gives women sporting options so we hope it does well for them. Wonder what the viewer numbers were for the WBBL were this year in the non-ratings holiday period? Surprisingly they "outrated" the A league last year on averages iirc.

        • infinite on 03/02/2017 - 09:48
          -1

          They didn't out-rate the A-League at all. They actually rated worse when comparing the actual ratings. What they did was a female writer cherry-picked the viewer numbers of a late delayed replay of an A-League game on a third foxtel sports channel and then compared it directly to estimated numbers watching a free-to-air broadcast in prime time of the WBBL, then made all manor of laughable claims about the WBBL's popularity based on those fudged figures. All it did in the end was make her and sport as a product look worse.

        • [Deactivated] on 03/02/2017 - 14:47
          -1

          @infinite: nice rant. Unfortunately for you the ABC did a check which suggests your comment is a long way from reality.

          http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-03/fact-check-does-womens…

          Take your time and read the whole article - particularly the chapter under Is it fair to compare free-to-air games with pay TV games? which canvassed the opinion of two reputable media analysts.

          Pretty sure WBBL numbers went through the roof this season so it's possible they will repeat the dose.

          There are always qualifiers and there may be other perspectives on the numbers but when it boils down the WBBL is on average a more popular TV product at this stage.

    • get-innocuous on 02/02/2017 - 13:31
      +15

      It's not designed to make a profit. The AFL is a not for profit, and proceeds go to growth of the game. This is growth, this is good for football, it's good for AFL participation rates, it's good for women who play AFL as kids and who currently think there's no future path for them, it's good for making parents feel like AFL is a great sport for all their kids and not having them play soccer or netball. It leads to a bigger talent base, it leads to bigger crowds, and younger people going to the footy and watching on TV (those all important TV advertiser demographics)

      The AFL wants to be the dominant sporting code in Australia, and to do that you have to sell that "AFL is for everyone" to the public. Something like 45% of AFL crowds are already women - a massive outlier for any other football code in the world. Currently the NRL has a bad image for being blokey/violent/poor player behaviour and the A-League is getting terrible TV ratings and declining attendences (largely,I think due to some serious arrogance issues within FFA) the AFL is looking to capitalise. The equality thing is great too, but it's a sideshow for the AFL.

      It will probably never make money - but that isn't the point.

    • Cyphar on 02/02/2017 - 15:38
      +1

      They can't right now. They need to generate interest. Offering free entry means people that wouldn't otherwise come, attend. In doing so, advertisers will take more of an interest in it and the money will come with that. Right now, this is all being funded by the AFL and the teams directly which is why their salaries are so low right now.

    • Fasty on 04/02/2017 - 00:24

      I just came here for the crow eating.
      The stadium is full to overflowing
      http://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3urd48VUAAgEFd.jpg
      http://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3upxV2UcAAU7S2.jpg
      Who's first?

    • BadGiraffe on 28/02/2017 - 16:15

      Ads? Sponsors?

  • Frozensage on 02/02/2017 - 13:41
    -6

    Tennis Australia should start offering free tix to all the women games. Complete waste of money.

    • madseason on 03/02/2017 - 09:17

      Can you explain how this is a complete waste of money? I'm baffled by this. The womens tennis is just as good as the mens.

      • infinite on 03/02/2017 - 09:32
        +1

        Even as a troll comment, that's a pretty ludicrous claim, stevil.

        • madseason on 03/02/2017 - 14:47

          It wasn't a troll post at all. I'd say regarding parity in current sporting events, tennis would be up there.

        • infinite on 03/02/2017 - 16:04

          @stevil: There's not a chance in hell you aren't trolling with comments like that. Have you ever watched a tennis game? The difference in quality/skill/ability between men and women is night and day.

  • CyberMurning on 02/02/2017 - 13:41
    -1

    so what just rock there on the match day and hope stadium is not full?
    i genuinely want to go not because of the game just want to feel the vibe and taking selfies inside stadium

    • inherentchoice on 02/02/2017 - 13:44
      +2

      Many of the venues can accommodate over 10,000 spectators. Or just come earlier?

      This is the Blacktown Oval… http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/photos/blacktown_oval.jpg

      • jdr on 02/02/2017 - 23:13
        +1

        All the Queensland games are at the Brendale oval. Capacity 3000! It's also quite a hike to get there. I don't think the AFL has done the live attendance any favours here, too big a risk to go that far with such a low ground capacity.

        Looks like it's TV for these games (although probably that ground won't be really TV broadcast compatible.

        • inherentchoice on 02/02/2017 - 23:19

          Fair point. You'll need pay tv to watch the QLD games. I was contemplating going myself to check it out, I live north of Brizzy so it's actually easier for me to get to than the Gabba. I might see how the first game goes before deciding whether to go.

  • ahly92 on 02/02/2017 - 13:44
    +2

    Expecting long ques in the mens toilet

    • CyberMurning on 02/02/2017 - 13:46

      haha yeah same as the night clubs doing free girls entry, inside will be like 1 girl and 10 boys ratio

  • virtualds on 02/02/2017 - 13:50

    O-O

    • get-innocuous on 02/02/2017 - 14:28
      +4

      45% of AFL attendees are women.

      • Baghern on 02/02/2017 - 14:30
        -8

        yep but that's more a Victorian cultural following than sport itself…

        Now how many of them are willing to follow WOMANS AFL games… pay for it, pay for supporters gear, watch it on TV etc etc

        tennis is the closest we get to a true female following in sports… yet the Australian Open Grand Finals for women rarely sells out

        I personally support all women's sports, but am against over subsidising it. But more for long term health reasons.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/02/2017 - 14:40

          …yet the Australian Open Grand Finals for women rarely sells out.

          Is that true? If so I'm gobsmacked.

        • get-innocuous on 02/02/2017 - 14:40

          I mean I don't disagree that this league is unlikely to attract sustained attendances or have a chance of ever making any money. But "women don't like sport" is a nonsense generalisation when near enough half the people who sit around me at the footy, and my mates who I talk about the footy with are women.

        • Baghern on 02/02/2017 - 14:48
          -3

          Cool, you have female friends that follow sports… now how about the rest of the country…

          When it comes to the crunch will your females friends but their money on females sport

        • Baghern on 02/02/2017 - 14:50

          @Possumbly:

          Its only a slightly less expensive than the men… still very expensive for a 60-90min match.

          Its sold as a package, mens double, mixed doubles and womens single finals

          Mens package is womens double and men's single finals

        • adam456 on 02/02/2017 - 14:52
          +3

          What? Do you think the AFL is going to give your club more money if they didn't have to subsidise the women's league? Wishful thinking.

          AFL doesn't just throw around money for the sake of giving more to AusKick or junior leagues. Every decision they make is a business decision, they're not a charity. They have clearly done a cost benefit analysis and worked out the best way to make money, give women a league and then not detract from the regular AFL season.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/02/2017 - 15:00

          @Baghern: cost and value aside though, has the AO women's final ever not been packed out in the last decade? I'd be shocked if that was the case no matter who was playing. A huge sporting event in one of the great sports cities during a holiday period with vacant seats? Surely not?

        • adam456 on 02/02/2017 - 15:03
          -1

          @Possumbly: I think he has done the classic anecdotal evidence argument, without having any facts, is basing it all off his own assumptions along with the maybe 10 minutes of a match he watched and thought to himself "doesnt look like there is many people in the crowd".

          Happy to be proven wrong if Baghern could provide a source regarding the Womens final match…… oh wait, he cant.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/02/2017 - 15:11

          @adam456: mine was a genuine enquiry, I didn't ask to put him on the spot. Haven't really paid attention so the possibility of any womens grand slam event final not being totally packed hadn't crossed my mind.

        • railspider on 02/02/2017 - 15:21
          -2

          @Possumbly: Probably doesn't help that tix to the Final are extremely expensive

          They should post on OzBargain, then they'd be guaranteed a sell-out

        • Baghern on 02/02/2017 - 15:24
          +2

          @adam456:

          If you watch the tennis they actually talk about it…

          Trying to find links now…

        • [Deactivated] on 02/02/2017 - 15:36

          @railspider: I think the claim might be a furphy myself but greedy promoters have discouraged fans in other sports in the past. Just read that the Serena Vs Venus final still had tickets available on match day although they were selling quickly once people found out.

          Some events at the London Olympics weren't sold out or still had tickets on the day simply because everyone assumed they would be. Communicating with your fans pays, complacency costs.

        • Baghern on 02/02/2017 - 15:42
          +1

          @Possumbly:

          From what I remember it was "whole rows" missing

          I was surprised by the 2015 not selling out, as it was a good matchup (though turned out flat)< Sharapova v Williams

          http://event.ausopen.com/bythenumbers-2016/#attendance

          Note the last two days, 2k difference, for Grandfinal days really shouldn't be any different, unless people love mixed females doubles…

          2015
          http://event.ausopen.com/bythenumbers-2015/
          …

        • Cyphar on 02/02/2017 - 15:52
          -2

          @Possumbly: No it's not. It was a complete sell out this year and last. Unsure of the others as I didn't go prior.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/02/2017 - 16:19
          -1

          @Baghern: you may be right but those numbers don't show detail to conclude anything about actual finals attendances. TA sells GA and stadium tickets separately, which is obvious from the numbers because Rod Laver can only hold 15,000. Anyway, time to move along.

      • rhangman on 02/02/2017 - 15:22
        +2

        And? Could likely head down to your local oval and see an objectively better game. Olympic womens teams in various sports practice (and often lose) against high school boys teams.

      • jv on 02/02/2017 - 15:42
        +4

        45% of AFL attendees are women.

        They don't record gender when selling tickets or record it at the gate entry…

        Based on the games I've been to, I'd say it's closer to 25%

        • mickeyjuiceman on 02/02/2017 - 17:05

          Do you do this "insisting on being wrong" thing professionally, or just here as a hobby?

        • jv on 02/02/2017 - 17:27
          +3

          @Mic Cullen:

          My comment is 100% correct.

        • freoleo on 02/02/2017 - 18:19
          -1

          Ticketmaster asks your gender when purchasing tickets, AFL club members also record gender when signing up.

          Where do you buy your tickets?

        • jv on 02/02/2017 - 18:30
          +5

          @freoleo:

          Ticketmaster asks your gender when purchasing tickets

          No it doesn't

          Where do you buy your tickets?

          At the ground.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/02/2017 - 19:31

          @jv: even if it did ask, the numbers would be junk. If I buy tickets online for a family of 4 that would suggest 4-0 male when in fact the correct number would be 1-3. Purchaser sex doesn't necessarily equate to attendee sex.

        • freoleo on 02/02/2017 - 19:42

          @jv: Ticketmaster asks whenever I buy tickets, maybe if you have an account it will just register under that gender?

          If you purchase at the ground then they can see your gender and may just enter it without asking…

        • jv on 02/02/2017 - 20:23
          +1

          @Possumbly:

          sex doesn't necessarily equate to attendee sex.

          not at any footy matches I've been too anyway…

        • jv on 02/02/2017 - 20:23
          +1

          @freoleo:

          If you purchase at the ground then they can see your gender and may just enter it without asking…

          How do they know the gender of all the people I buy tickets for ???

        • [Deactivated] on 02/02/2017 - 22:11
          +1

          @jv: quite simple really. Females get a pink stamp on their wrists. After each game the AFL measures the amount of pink ink used then using a secret formula based on age, skin type and moisturiser levels they determine the number of female patrons. Accuracy is excellent - something like plus or minus 50%, significantly better than umpires ejudicating on 'hands in the back'.

    • Cyphar on 02/02/2017 - 15:40
      +1

      My wife and her family (inc. 4 sisters) are rabid Port Adelaide fans. Absolutely crazy. I'm the only one in my family that follows the AFL.

      Your view on women & sports is outdated & sexist.

      • Baghern on 02/02/2017 - 15:44
        +2

        Your views on sports is narrow minded… so what other sports do you and the REST of the female population follow rabidly. How much money do you spend… are you willing to put that onto females sports…

        I watch female tennis, doesn't mean most men watch females tennis…

        • Cyphar on 02/02/2017 - 15:50

          FYI, I'm a male. I watch Netball on the ABC, love the women's UFC, I also coach a women's basketball team and my daughters play cricket on Saturdays & do Auskick on Sunday mornings and are rough as guts on the field.

          I'm a huge supporter of women & sports, both in engaging & watching. The only thing that stops it from succeeding are bigot-minded people like yourself with such views as yourself.

        • Baghern on 02/02/2017 - 15:55
          +1

          @Cyphar:

          I watch women's sports and encourage it… difference between you and me is that I acknowledge the fact that its held back by the fact that most people, women in particular are not interested in women's sports…

        • [Deactivated] on 02/02/2017 - 16:08
          -2

          @Baghern: you're generalising wildly. There are many different reasons why women appear to be less interested in sport watching, esp on TV. You can start at childhood customs and work your way up. When and IF women's sports receive equal promotion and provide excellence (which only comes with time and money), AND women have "equal" pay and recreation time I'm sure we'll see their interest grow. It may never rival that of males but the potential is there and that's all part of the AFL thinking.

        • Baghern on 02/02/2017 - 16:12

          @Possumbly:

          Yes I'm generalsing… and you've answered exactly why

          People like Cypher are deluded if he doesn't think history hasn't played a part and that we live in a world where females and men have equal interest in sports despite what the statistics tells us…

          There's a big reason why the NBA and WNBA has a huge paygap

        • Moderatorneil on 02/02/2017 - 16:35

          @everyone

          Discussion is fine but attacking others and being disrespectful is not. See my recent post and commenting guidelines.

  • Tomika on 02/02/2017 - 15:36

    I'm actually quite enjoy watching women netball. I wish the women AFL bring me same joy liked the netball.

    • Pippenn2K on 02/02/2017 - 18:07
      +1

      Netball is the premier women's sport IMO. It is their game and there is no male variant to out do them.

      you wont get to see women's AFL unless you go watch a live game cause there is no way it will be televised.

      • kingsleym98 on 02/02/2017 - 20:42
        +1

        Yes way actually, every game with a large majority on free to air by the looks
        http://www.afl.com.au/womens/matches/broadcastguide

      • inherentchoice on 03/02/2017 - 07:20

        Every game is televised live, whether on pay TV or free to air.

        Watch Channel 7 tonight at 7:30 pm (or 6:30 pm in QLD). Friday night football on prime time TV.

        • Pippenn2K on 03/02/2017 - 17:36

          I take it back, they have televised all games. Very surprising.

  • Diji1 on 02/02/2017 - 15:48

    Before it happened in the ufc I thought it was a joke but women's MMA is awesome.

    • Baghern on 02/02/2017 - 15:57
      +2

      That's because it was years back… I'm sure they hit hard but it looked scappy..

      Rousey has bought it back into the public eye, and it looks impressive. But as with most female sports its over reliant on male viewers and not females.

      • Diji1 on 02/02/2017 - 20:18

        You keep bringing this up again and again and above you even claim to live in a fantasy where women don't follow sport even though they're attending the events to confirm your belief. So what?

        • infinite on 03/02/2017 - 09:26
          +2

          Women attend combat sports globally and make up about 35-40% of the crowds. Their primary reasons are for fun, a night out and doing a social thing as part of a group with their boyfriends/family. But he's absolutely correct in that viewers at home are almost 95% male 15-45yrs old. Most combat sports are almost 100% reliant on selling PPV's, with a few being the exception in that they exist solely as a broadcasting product, where they make a bit of coin on the side by being able to keep attendance revenue's. So he is dead right in that women's MMA is still overly-reliant on male viewers and not females.

        • Baghern on 03/02/2017 - 13:09
          +1

          @infinite:

          I loved that Rhonda was whinging about her prizemoney being so low, when she and Mcgregor headlined a while back…

          But because the 'math' put her PPV pull as higher she got more money than Mcgregor

          Prizemoney I believe was based on ticket sales and sponsorship… sponsorship relies on people actually buying gear so that's heavil tilted to men

        • Baghern on 03/02/2017 - 13:12

          Its about money, money money money, females may attend… but where's all the money coming from. and in the end money for females sports.

          You and others are picking small segments to defend females position in sports.

          If females were such big factors in sports there'd be a lot more money in it, we wouldn't need to discuss this.

  • cypher67 on 02/02/2017 - 15:52
    +2

    Money is made in the broadcasting rights and watching a game on TV with 100 people in the stands is dull at best. This is a smart move all round, the ladies get to play in front of a decent crowd, the fans get a free match, the vendors get to sell some food and justify being open and the TV spectators get some noise through the TV. If/when they get some real demand, they can start charging. Good example was the mens BBL, when that started it was like $20 a ticket sit anywhere, now they get bigger crowds that internationals. Small steps, correct execution and you get a viable product.

  • infinite on 02/02/2017 - 16:48
    -4

    Who on earth would pay to get into a women's footy match in the first place?

    • jv on 02/02/2017 - 17:31
      +2

      Someone who wants to watch the game…

      I'd rather go watch the women's game that watch one of the pointless AFL pre-season games…
      Once the AFL season starts proper however, that's another story…

    • Cleremy on 02/02/2017 - 23:43

      Social Justice Warriors (SJWs)?

      • Moderatorneil on 03/02/2017 - 00:44

        Just a reminder to be respectful in conversation. If you are not interested in the deal, the move on. See my recent post.

        • infinite on 03/02/2017 - 09:09
          +1

          If that's really the case Neil, then why on earth would you be letting this complete and utter free-for-all of a shit show to be continuing: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/289742

          The entire thread exists for no other reason, than for SJW users here to attack people and other users over their political beliefs.

        • Moderatorneil on 03/02/2017 - 09:23

          Well off-topic but I've asked the same for users there and moderated numerous users and comments.

          Again, I've politely asked you and others to be respectful. Calling people SJW users is NOT, it is a derogatory term and unnecessary. Discussion without namecalling would be appreciated.

        • jacross on 03/02/2017 - 09:24

          @infinite: Well that's a forum post not a deal so they probably allow a little more leeway.

          I do often find it curious as to what does and does not count as 'uncivil' in the deal threads though.

        • Moderatorneil on 03/02/2017 - 09:35

          @jacross:

          Commenting Guidelines

          We don't read every comment as there has been 4.4 million made so we need people to report. There are no rules for civil or uncivil but we are proactively targeting disrespectful/angry/aggressive comments through communication with these users.

        • jacross on 07/02/2017 - 11:19
          +1

          @neil:

          The awkward moment when it turns out I WAS referring to reported posts…

        • Moderatorneil on 07/02/2017 - 11:22

          @jacross:

          If that's the case, then PM me or TWAM me the link to the comment as I don't know what comment you are referring to.

  • PinzVidz on 02/02/2017 - 18:15
    +1

    Go Bulldogs! Go Katie!

  • JetLi on 02/02/2017 - 21:11
    +3

    Go Pies! Go Moana!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join