Gold Coast feasibility

[Hearts to hearts]

Just out of interest, Crikey ran this article (posted by someone else on the North board). Whatever you think of Crikey, it raises questions that you'd think at least one mainstream journalist, and several club presidents, should be asking before the AFL spends too much more of everyone's money.

***

From http://www.crikey.com.au/

27. You're out: The AFL makes North Melbourne pay

Adam Schwab writes:

Like any bully keen to maintain their status, the AFL has acted quickly to punish North Melbourne for its disobedience in snubbing a Gold Coast move and opting to fight on. The AFL announced yesterday that North Melbourne would not be playing Brisbane in the NAB Cup at Carrara and their Community Camp would be shifted from the Gold Coast to Bairnsdale.

Everything at the AFL happens very quickly, and often with little explanation.

In fact, while willingly offering a $100 million-carrot to North Melbourne to move to the Gold Coast, the AFL has provided virtually no legitimate explanation to the public as to why a team on Gold Coast is actually a good thing. The closest came from Andrew Demetriou last week when he noted that:

"There's absolutely no doubt [that the Gold Coast] is the fastest-growing market in Australia, plus in western Sydney. [And that the AFL has] spent probably the best part of two years work on this, it's not something we've just jumped into."

Crikey contacted the AFL questioning whether a detailed financial analysis for the Gold Coast expansion had been prepared. AFL media chief, Patrick Keane, claimed that the AFL had spent several years working on various financial models, but refused to provide any additional information, noting that "the AFL doesn’t detail every part of its operation".

What is known publicly is that some time ago, the AFL commissioned a "Gold Coast Advisory Group" to investigate the feasibility of a Gold Coast team. Given the size of the AFL, and the importance of such a decision, one might expect that the study may have been conducted by the likes of McKinsey or Bain. Alas, it appears due diligence is not a concept which the AFL is overly familiar with.

Instead of appointing an expert independent body to investigate such a move, the AFL stacked the advisory board with people sympathetic to the Gold Coast cause.

The "Gold Coast Advisory Group" was headed by local lawyer and business advocate John Witheriff. Witheriff, is the managing partner of Minter Ellison’s Gold Coast office and holds various appointments on the Gold Coast, including Director of Commerce Queensland and Chairman of the Advisory Board to the Indy 300. Given his pro-Gold Coast and business links, it is inconceivable that Witheriff would find against a Gold Coast side.

Another member of the advisory group, former Brisbane Bears Chairman, Graeme Downie, is a director of Surfers Paradise Central Management, which, according to its website, is the "official management and marketing authority for Surfers Paradise".

The third member, Ross Oakley, had such a poor grasp of the passion of football fans that he received death threats and required armed guards during his tumultuous period as AFL CEO.

As expected, the Advisory Group recommended in late September that a team would prosper on the Gold Coast, ideally, if it were relocated from Melbourne.

If it exists, no financial evidence of the feasibility of a Gold Coast side has been made public. All that has been told to the public is that the Gold Coast is the fastest growing region in the country.

The problem with the "fast growing" claim is that it ignores the salient fact that the Gold Coast has a very low population base. In the last five years, the Gold Coast population has increased by 80,000. By contrast, between 2001 and 2006 Melbourne’s population increased by around 210,000. If population growth is the primary criteria for a new club, perhaps the AFL should consider moving the Lions back to Melbourne’s fast-growing Docklands.

A detailed analysis of the Gold Coast plan might be possible if the AFL releases its financial modelling, which of course it hasn’t. Cynics might suggest that the AFL is keeping the information private because any such modelling is scant and doesn’t necessarily prove a compelling case for the Gold Coast.

Meanwhile, the AFL has seemingly based its decision on the advice of a clearly biased and self-interested group which has not publicly released the reasons for its findings.

[Papa G]

The problem with the "fast growing" claim is that it ignores the salient fact that the Gold Coast has a very low population base. In the last five years, the Gold Coast population has increased by 80,000. By contrast, between 2001 and 2006 Melbourne’s population increased by around 210,000. If population growth is the primary criteria for a new club, perhaps the AFL should consider moving the Lions back to Melbourne’s fast-growing Docklands.



80,000 divided by 1 equals 80,000

210,000 divided by 9 equals 23,334

[shintemaster]

80,000 divided by 1 equals 80,000

210,000 divided by 9 equals 23,334

Percentage of Desert Nomads that regularly enjoy skiing?

[Subprime]

Percentage of Desert Nomads that regularly enjoy skiing?

http://goasia.about.com/od/uae/a/skidubai.htm

[lethalselbow]

80,000 divided by 1 equals 80,000

210,000 divided by 9 equals 23,334

Spot on.

The article manipulates figures by pointing out things like that.

[Sherrinator]

80,000 divided by 1 equals 80,000

210,000 divided by 9 equals 23,334

That my friends is the after photo of what was a wide-eyed journalism student.

When was it that journalistic integrity went out the window?

[SweetLeftFoot]

80,000 divided by 1 equals 80,000



Where are these 80,000 coming from? If they are coming from footy states, they most likelyb already have teams.

[lethalselbow]

Where are these 80,000 coming from? If they are coming from footy states, they most likelyb already have teams.

So you're saying that the Kangaroos plan of playing games in GC was shot from the start? No chance of swaying locals?

Another pathetic business plan by the Kangaroos. Shot apart by their own fan.

[Rooboy 96]

So you're saying that the Kangaroos plan of playing games in GC was shot from the start? No chance of swaying locals?

Another pathetic business plan by the Kangaroos. Shot apart by their own fan.

yes... that is what we are saying... we may have visited for a few more years if we were getting $750,000 a game and showed a tad more love... but really how much love can $400,000 buy... :D:D:D

[lethalselbow]

yes... that is what we are saying... we may have visited for a few more years if we were getting $750,000 a game and showed a tad more love... but really how much love can $400,000 buy... :D:D:D

:thumbsu:

Take the money and run. :D

[Hearts to hearts]

80,000 divided by 1 equals 80,000

210,000 divided by 9 equals 23,334

Which is about the depth sounded by a committee made up of guys whose day jobs are promoting the Gold Coast.

You are missing the point - no-one impartial has reviewed the feasibility of a fulltime Gold Coast club.

This has nothing to do with North Melbourne any more. It's just about whether there is a genuine business case for spending hundreds of millions of AFL dollars, and why no-one (other than Jeff Kennett) is asking for one.

[Father Jack]

80,000 divided by 1 equals 80,000

210,000 divided by 9 equals 23,334

That is assuming that the Roos are competing at the same level as Collingwood and Essendon. Which they are not.

[Ricardo]

If it exists, no financial evidence of the feasibility of a Gold Coast side has been made public. All that has been told to the public is that the Gold Coast is the fastest growing region in the country.


So the AFL, the largest and most profitable football code in this country is going to put a team on the GC purely because its 'the fastest growing region in the country'.

Do people honestly believe the AFL would pour millions into the region if it weren't expecting to gain something from it ?? Or that the AFL have a hidden agenda other then to create a successful, profitable club, that will bring in more money when the next tv rights deal is upon us.

[Hearts to hearts]

So the AFL, the largest and most profitable football code in this country is going to put a team on the GC purely because its 'the fastest growing region in the country'.

Do people honestly believe the AFL would pour millions into the region if it weren't expecting to gain something from it ?? Or that the AFL have a hidden agenda other then to create a successful, profitable club, that will bring in more money when the next tv rights deal is upon us.

I believe the AFL expects to gain something from it, absolutely. I just don't think they've done enough research on it. A group of Gold Coast promoters are sure the region is ready for the AFL and/or governments to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into the region. Der.

The AFL were planning to play half a dozen games a year over several years, while promoting the code and building grass roots interest, to test demand and further grow it. That made sense. But now, after one year of the Titans, they've decided not to bother with that testing and groundwork but to throw lots of money at it now, and hope for the best. There is no guarantee a club will be either profitable or successful - for the forseeable future it is an AFL-sponsored pilot project, and that's all. A TV rights deal will only pay for this project if people in Qld are watching, which has also not been tested enough yet.

[Ricardo]

I believe the AFL expects to gain something from it, absolutely. I just don't think they've done enough research on it. A group of Gold Coast promoters are sure the region is ready for the AFL and/or governments to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into the region. Der.

The AFL were planning to play half a dozen games a year over several years, while promoting the code and building grass roots interest, to test demand and further grow it. That made sense. But now, after one year of the Titans, they've decided not to bother with that testing and groundwork but to throw lots of money at it now, and hope for the best. There is no guarantee a club will be either profitable or successful - for the forseeable future it is an AFL-sponsored pilot project, and that's all. A TV rights deal will only pay for this project if people in Qld are watching, which has also not been tested enough yet.

You do raise some good points, i would presume the AFL would've done exactly that if the Titans had not come in the mix, they have and will cement themselves as the premier club of the GC, but if the AFL do not push for a GC team in the next few years (to be entered into the AFL by 2010-2012) then they will be too far behind IMO to ever catch up to the Titans.

What the AFL can do in the meantime is attack (for want of a better word) the grassroots level, it is a vital part of growing support for the club, not now, not in 10 years but 20 years and beyond.

Attack is such an aggressive word and we'll see (and have seen) the other codes, especially the NRL (which i follow btw) use this to the detrement of the AFL.

You can see it now, the 'southern invaders' as Roy Masters put it on Offsiders, this is what they'll have to deal with and i believe getting in early is the key, it will turn into an us vs them scenario, that has already happened with the North Melbourne push into SEQ, a start 'em from scratch side is easier to convert fans on the GC then a relocated team (obviously).

Although there may not be the support needed now for the GC's long term surivival, the AFL has the money and the resources to target the grassroots level, and more importantly for the NOW, the adult population.
The tv rights come into it here, the AFL ratings in Queensland are much better then in NSW for one, but they are still fairly poor, but with every home game on FTA and possibly all GC matches on FTA this will only help build the clubs profile, and more importantly, the code itself.

There are a lot of positives and negatives for the GC push, i'm personally on the fence for this one, slightly in favour of a GC team, as long as it doesn't mean a 17 team comp, which means an 18th license or a merger.

[SweetLeftFoot]

So you're saying that the Kangaroos plan of playing games in GC was shot from the start? No chance of swaying locals?

Another pathetic business plan by the Kangaroos. Shot apart by their own fan.

No, I reckon our plan of playing three or four games a year up there would work. The GC market isn't deep enough to sustain a full time side, as Demetriou is about to find out.

[Haddo]

Thought just occurred to me if the Gold Coast is such a huge and growing market and the afl fears the nrl will capture the population before they get a toe in , why is the Titans new home stadium capacity only 27,000 ? :confused:

[relapse]

80,000 divided by 1 equals 80,000

210,000 divided by 9 equals 23,334

Well said I am sick of reading "intelligent" pieces written by North supporters that base arguments such as "well Victoria is growing at a larger rate" yet fail to understand the concept that any Victoria growth has to be divided between the 10 victorian teams and when you factor in that statistically most of that growth will go to Collingwood and Essendon etc it then means only a very small percentage will be left for the other teams whereas growth in a one market city will have a far greater effect on the supporter base of the club.

[relapse]

Where are these 80,000 coming from? If they are coming from footy states, they most likelyb already have teams.
No, I reckon our plan of playing three or four games a year up there would work. The GC market isn't deep enough to sustain a full time side, as Demetriou is about to find out.
SweetLeftFoot is offline Report Post Reply With Quote

Many brisbane supporters started off being people from football states. Non die hard supporters will jump on board and support the Gold Coast team. If your argument had merit many supporters in SA and WA watched the AFL and had aclub that they supported prior to entry in the AFL so if that was the case noone would barrack for the Eagles and Crows etc

There will be some diehards that will stick with their clubs, but others that love footy and had a loose attachment with a club will likely jump on board and whos to say that those supporters of other sides wouldnt buy a membership so that they could go and see AFL footy every fortnight.

and about your comment about it not being feasible so let me get this straight the AFL have spent millions on reports and experts yet a North supporter who argues everything against the Gold Coast seems to be claiming that he has a better knowledge than all the experts and consultants that the AFL have used :D I am sure that is a more feasible in the long term (15-20 years) than a 10th team in Melbourne with a very reduced market.

[Funkalicous]

Thought just occurred to me if the Gold Coast is such a huge and growing market and the afl fears the nrl will capture the population before they get a toe in , why is the Titans new home stadium capacity only 27,000 ? :confused:

They're being smart IMO. Just like with Geelong in the AFL, the Titans can play more attractive games at a bigger Stadium (Suncorp Stadium) up the highway (into Brisbane). It's safer for both the AFL and NRL to have a realistic scope with relatively small cities.

[Hicham]

Thought just occurred to me if the Gold Coast is such a huge and growing market and the afl fears the nrl will capture the population before they get a toe in , why is the Titans new home stadium capacity only 27,000 ? :confused:

Just remember that although it is growing, the Coast still only has a population of around 550,000.

You've then got places like Newcastle (520K), Central Coast (350K), Canberra (350K), Wollongong (250K), Geelong (200K) all with similar 20-30,000 seat stadiums. These places (with the odd exception) just aren't big enough yet to justify large stadiums. Especially when most are within reasonable distance of such a stadium, in the GC's case Suncorp Stadium, where they got 47K and 48K this year from memory.

Its the smartest and most sensible way to go about it for now and its likely the AFL will do the same with the Gabba.

Skilled Park at Robina is designed to accomodate future expansion aswell.

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee56/Scorpio30_1974/IMG_0059.jpg
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa61/coasterphotos15/RSNLegion01.jpg

If a stadium deal can be done in the first place, Carrara should be redeveloped with the same idea in mind. 25K stadium with an option for quick and easy expansion if required.

[Schwabie]

Well said I am sick of reading "intelligent" pieces written by North supporters that base arguments such as "well Victoria is growing at a larger rate" yet fail to understand the concept that any Victoria growth has to be divided between the 10 victorian teams and when you factor in that statistically most of that growth will go to Collingwood and Essendon etc it then means only a very small percentage will be left for the other teams whereas growth in a one market city will have a far greater effect on the supporter base of the club.

First, I am not a North supporter at all - rather, someone who believes that an organisation the size of the AFL should conduct some sort of legitiate investigation before spending $100 million.

Second, the 80,000 v 210,000 comment was not seriously intended to suggest that another Victorian team was feasible. Rather, to point out the folly that while the Gold Coast is "growing" - that growth is all relative.

No doubt Kalgoorlie has been gorwing rapidly in recent years - does that mean the AFL should investigate a Nullabour team?

Melbourne remains the fastest growing city in the country - such that removing a team from it does sound somewhat strange.

Finally, it is interesting that the biggest supporters of the Gold Coast side (on this forum anyway) are non-Victorian supporters, seemingly keen to see the blood of Victorian sides split, regardless of the financial basis.

[Rob]

First, I am not a North supporter at all - rather, someone who believes that an organisation the size of the AFL should conduct some sort of legitiate investigation before spending $100 million.

Second, the 80,000 v 210,000 comment was not seriously intended to suggest that another Victorian team was feasible. Rather, to point out the folly that while the Gold Coast is "growing" - that growth is all relative.

No doubt Kalgoorlie has been gorwing rapidly in recent years - does that mean the AFL should investigate a Nullabour team?

Melbourne remains the fastest growing city in the country - such that removing a team from it does sound somewhat strange.


Honestly, did you put any thought at all into your post?

[Tas]

Honestly, did you put any thought at all into your post?

He raised some valid points. This is not about North vs Gold Coast, that saga is over with.

It is not too much to ask to get an "independent" assessment of the Gold Coast and to have the results of that assessment made public so clubs can see what they are getting themselves into.

You can't create a bogus assessment panel and expect people to take it seriously. Employ a firm who will put their professional name and reputation on a document that outlines the feasibility of the project and what impact it will have on Brisbane and other clubs, and how viable the new entity will be.

Then at least if there is a cloud of doubt over the sustainability of a new side a conditional licence can be granted so it does not become a financial black hole to the existing clubs.

[robaba]

He raised some valid points. This is not about North vs Gold Coast, that saga is over with.

It is not too much to ask to get an "independent" assessment of the Gold Coast and to have the results of that assessment made public so clubs can see what they are getting themselves into.

You can't create a bogus assessment panel and expect people to take it seriously. Employ a firm who will put their professional name and reputation on a document that outlines the feasibility of the project and what impact it will have on Brisbane and other clubs, and how viable the new entity will be.

Then at least if there is a cloud of doubt over the sustainability of a new side a conditional licence can be granted so it does not become a financial black hole to the existing clubs.

You mean asking the AFL to be run properly? You could get red carded for that or worse an injunction on BF to stop such comments.
About time the clubs sacked these clowns and got some skilled people running the show before our great game is killed.
Things look rosy now with the big fat media deal,,, ask the liberals what happens when you take things for granted.

[Rob]

He raised some valid points. This is not about North vs Gold Coast, that saga is over with.


He raised some ridiculous points. Kalgoorlie is a dumb, dumb comparison, and saying 'growth is all relative'.....fair dinkum, what the hell does that even mean? It was just crap.


It is not too much to ask to get an "independent" assessment of the Gold Coast and to have the results of that assessment made public so clubs can see what they are getting themselves into.


From all reports, the AFL have done that, with the exception of it being made public. But it depends on what you call 'independent'. I can't see the problem with an AFL study into it. It's not like they're conflicted here, and the AFL are the ones with the most expertise in the area.
Hell, any independent assessment of the league as a whole would say that there are at least 2 or 3 Victorian clubs too many, but that doesn't mean the league should instantly cut teams.


You can't create a bogus assessment panel and expect people to take it seriously. Employ a firm who will put their professional name and reputation on a document that outlines the feasibility of the project and what impact it will have on Brisbane and other clubs, and how viable the new entity will be.

Then at least if there is a cloud of doubt over the sustainability of a new side a conditional licence can be granted so it does not become a financial black hole to the existing clubs.

Fair enough, but as long as it's taken with a grain of salt. Predictions of things like membership, crowds and corporate support can be very unreliable because they're so hard to predict. Just because you say you might raise $10 million in corporate backing means precisely dick if you don't.

But a conditional licence? No way. You either admit them as a full member of the league or not at all. Stuffing them around with threats of expulsion hanging over them would be counterproductive.

[Father Jack]

You mean asking the AFL to be run properly? You could get red carded for that or worse an injunction on BF to stop such comments.
About time the clubs sacked these clowns and got some skilled people running the show before our great game is killed.
Things look rosy now with the big fat media deal,,, ask the liberals what happens when you take things for granted.

The reason things look rosy with the media deal is because the game has some appeal across the country ... ie not only in the traditional states. See if you can join the dots on that one.

[mediumsizered]

No, I reckon our plan of playing three or four games a year up there would work. The GC market isn't deep enough to sustain a full time side, as Demetriou is about to find out.

That may be the case in the short term, but business/organisational thinking looks at both short & long term prospects. If you want to maximum your return from an investment, you don't wait for everyone else to test the water and be successful before you decide to dip your toe in the water.

50 years ago, much of the Gold Coast was swamp & bush land. Some people saw beyond the swamps & scrub & made fortunes from their foresight, others couldn't see the bigger picture & missed out. The AFL has become such a successful organisation because it has been prepared to invest for the long term. In the long term, an AFL club on the Gold Coast will be successful, but the ground work has to be done sooner, rather than later. It would be a great pity to see the NRL & A-League reaping rewards from believing in the Gold Coast while the AFL sits on its hands because of lack of foresight on the part of the football community..

FWIW, the administration of the Gold Coast Titans have admitted that they were surprised at how quickly the people of the Gold Coast embraced their team. They were expecting it to be much harder than it turned out. The Gold Coast is growing up & has the foundations to be the home of a successful AFL club.

[Tas]

He raised some ridiculous points. Kalgoorlie is a dumb, dumb comparison, and saying 'growth is all relative'.....fair dinkum, what the hell does that even mean? It was just crap.

I said "some", not all. :p


From all reports, the AFL have done that, with the exception of it being made public. But it depends on what you call 'independent'. I can't see the problem with an AFL study into it. It's not like they're conflicted here, and the AFL are the ones with the most expertise in the area.

No, there is a difference between a hand picked advisory group and an independent assessment. All the members of the advisory group are pro-expansion and/or have a vested interest in seeing a team based on the Gold Coast. It would be like asking NMFC BigFooty supporters to be the AFL advisory group on the viability of the North Melbourne area for our club. We will find a way to make it look good, focus on the handful of positives, gloss over the glaring negatives and paint a fantastic picture on the back of hundreds of millions of AFL funding.


Hell, any independent assessment of the league as a whole would say that there are at least 2 or 3 Victorian clubs too many, but that doesn't mean the league should instantly cut teams.

We had an independent assessment of Melbourne by GEMBA based on the current circumstances and what they can foresee for the near future. That is the difference between hiring a bunch of patsies to tell you what you want to hear and getting an accurate picture of the business environment.

The GEMBA report said it would be difficult for us to grow if we maintain the status quo but there are opportunities if we develop new revenue streams, improve significantly on how we run the business, focus on what we are good at and develop a new catchment area to supplement the inner suburb supporter region.

The club is looking to leapfrog over Essendon and the Bulldogs, who have boxed us in, and develop a North-North West region from Werribee to Ballarat to Bendigo and the other Northern growth area. It is a rapidly expanding region of Melbourne. There are a few clubs in the region. Geelong and Bulldogs are concentrating on the Western districts and Essendon has been developing some of the Northern districts.

There is scope to build on our supporter base, when you factor we had a pretty stable 24kish membership base with next to zero development over the last 20-30 years doing ANYTHING would be a vast improvement to doing nothing.

That being said, the report does state that it will be difficult in a competitive environment, we are under no delusions about that. There is probably just as much doubt over the Gold Coast without massive AFL support yet people just gloss over that.


Fair enough, but as long as it's taken with a grain of salt. Predictions of things like membership, crowds and corporate support can be very unreliable because they're so hard to predict. Just because you say you might raise $10 million in corporate backing means precisely dick if you don't.

Definitely. I believe JB said he had verbal agreements with those that offered the support. We had nothing from the AFL other than a powerpoint presentation and trusting them that they would do the job properly. This is the same commission that enticed us to switch from the MCG to TD and left us to rot there. It is primary the reason none of the major shareholders, who were involved in the administration at the time, believe anything the AFL say that isn't written on a contract.


But a conditional licence? No way. You either admit them as a full member of the league or not at all. Stuffing them around with threats of expulsion hanging over them would be counterproductive.

There are groups who have already approached the AFL about the 17th license, you just want to make sure the right group gets hold of it and is not basing their model around bleeding hundreds of millions from the AFL over countless decades.

A group will then accept a conditional license if they have the kind of support structure in place to generate the kind of revenue that you need in order for an AFL club to survive.

We don't want another scenario like that lunatic doctor who bought the Swans, or a group of incompetent people moving in IF it is well known the environment can't sustain a club, that would just be crippling to the AFL and will hinder expansion to other areas like Tasmania or NT where there is probably more support for football despite a lower population. With soccer heading to Tasmania there is the very real likelihood that Tasmania would become a priority in the near future.

[Schwabie]

He raised some ridiculous points. Kalgoorlie is a dumb, dumb comparison, and saying 'growth is all relative'.....fair dinkum, what the hell does that even mean? It was just crap.

I thought it was a pretty simple analogy - let me dumb it down a little for you.

The Kalgoorlie comparison was to show that percentage growth is irrelevant when that growth is coming off a low base. If say, Kalgoorlie's population increases from 10,000 to 50,000 due to the mining boom, that is a 500% increase. However, the actual number of the increase would only have been 40,000 which is relatively small. Perhaps it might be worth spending more time thinking, and less time shooting your mouth off.

From all reports, the AFL have done that, with the exception of it being made public. But it depends on what you call 'independent'. I can't see the problem with an AFL study into it. It's not like they're conflicted here, and the AFL are the ones with the most expertise in the area.
Hell, any independent assessment of the league as a whole would say that there are at least 2 or 3 Victorian clubs too many, but that doesn't mean the league should instantly cut teams.

From all reports? Which reports exactly? I have contacted the AFL directly and they refused to divulge anything. All we have is a report prepared by a couple of blokes who massively benefit from a Gold Coast team.

If only you could provide a shred of evidence to back up your ranting, perhaps you could be taken seriously.

[Rob]

I thought it was a pretty simple analogy - let me dumb it down a little for you.

The Kalgoorlie comparison was to show that percentage growth is irrelevant when that growth is coming off a low base. If say, Kalgoorlie's population increases from 10,000 to 50,000 due to the mining boom, that is a 500% increase. However, the actual number of the increase would only have been 40,000 which is relatively small. Perhaps it might be worth spending more time thinking, and less time shooting your mouth off.


And what city are we talking about is coming off a population of 10k? How is that analogy even close to being relevant?
It's like saying the population of Nanjing went up by 5% last year, so why not put a team there? It's just a load of irrelevant garbage. You're just coming up with pointless ideas that don't add anything to the debate.


From all reports? Which reports exactly?


Media reports. Read the media occasionally and you'd pick it up too.


I have contacted the AFL directly and they refused to divulge anything. All we have is a report prepared by a couple of blokes who massively benefit from a Gold Coast team.


Funnily enough, because any investigation that has been done hasn't been made public. Why would they release it to you when they haven't even made it public yet?


If only you could provide a shred of evidence to back up your ranting, perhaps you could be taken seriously.

You mean like this article?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22926058-5003410,00.html

"We have done work around the fact that there are some significant benefits there for the Lions."

or this:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22914241-5003410,00.html

""The AFL has told us they have carried out research and assessed potential impact and have agreed to pass on that information to us."

Just because you haven't got a copy of anything in your hand doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

[Mickdog]

http://goasia.about.com/od/uae/a/skidubai.htm

That was one of the best ownings I have ever seen.

[Schwabie]

And what city are we talking about is coming off a population of 10k? How is that analogy even close to being relevant?
It's like saying the population of Nanjing went up by 5% last year, so why not put a team there? It's just a load of irrelevant garbage. You're just coming up with pointless ideas that don't add anything to the debate.

Let me try dumbing it down even more for you.
1. My original point was addressing the issue of the Gold Coast's alleged 'fast growing' population.

2. My argument was, simply being fast growing isn't necessarily a sound basis for relocating a club.

3. I then drew the analogy that being fast growing doesn't mean much if the population was small to start off with.

4. For example, Kalgoorlie has a very low, yet fast growing population.

5. By analogy, simply because Kalgoorlie is FAST GROWING - that does not mean a side should be relocated there.

6. By the same token, the Gold Coast is growing very quickly in percentage terms, but (like Kalgoorlie in the analogy) is coming off a low base. Therefore, for the AFL to simply claim "move a club to the Gold Coast because it is the fastest growing region in the country" is not necessarily a sound financial decision.

If you can't understand that, I give up.


Media reports. Read the media occasionally and you'd pick it up too.
Link please?

Funnily enough, because any investigation that has been done hasn't been made public. Why would they release it to you when they haven't even made it public yet?

You mean like this article?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22926058-5003410,00.html

"We have done work around the fact that there are some significant benefits there for the Lions."

or this:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22914241-5003410,00.html

"The AFL has told us they have carried out research and assessed potential impact and have agreed to pass on that information to us."

Just because you haven't got a copy of anything in your hand doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Are you joking? That is the most pathetic arguments I have seen. Either you clearly don't understand the argument, or you tried to throw in a couple of links and hoped that no one actually looked at them.

The first article you linked was referring to the effect of a Gold Coast team on the Lions. My original article was referring to the effect on the entire league. The Lions are a mere one sixteenth of the league.

Further, the article noted that Demetriou referred to "history" showing that a second team doesnt have a detrimental effect - hardly a sound basis for making such an important decision. The article makes no mention of a formal feasibility study or financial due diligence.

The article then noted that Demetriou said:

"We have done work around the fact that there are some significant benefits there for the Lions."

Note Demetriou's intentional use of vague language - "we have done work" - what is "work"? He clearly didn't note "we have done a formal feasibility study" or "we have conducted detailed financial analysis".


The second article again referred only to the effect of a Gold Coast team on the Lions (not the AFL as a whole) PLUS it didn't refer to any specific, financial modeling or feasibility studies.

The AFL has not conducted any detailed financial analysis of a Gold Coast move. The decision appears to be based on the recommendation of the Gold Coast Advisory group - which is made up of people very sympathetic to the Gold Coast.

Show me an actual article which provides evidence to the contrary and I will happily stand corrected.

[ChrisFooty]

That article makes some very good points. The AFL have kept very secret about any financial studies/market research/public opinion on the new gold coast team. The AFL stated at the start of the year they were projecting a new Gold Coast side by 2015, yet it seems this last month it has gone to 2010 (no explanation)

I would really love to see the AFL release some market research showing what actual Gold Coast locals think (surley this would not be too hard)

[Rob]

Let me try dumbing it down even more for you.
1. My original point was addressing the issue of the Gold Coast's alleged 'fast growing' population.

2. My argument was, simply being fast growing isn't necessarily a sound basis for relocating a club.

3. I then drew the analogy that being fast growing doesn't mean much if the population was small to start off with.

4. For example, Kalgoorlie has a very low, yet fast growing population.

5. By analogy, simply because Kalgoorlie is FAST GROWING - that does not mean a side should be relocated there.

6. By the same token, the Gold Coast is growing very quickly in percentage terms, but (like Kalgoorlie in the analogy) is coming off a low base. Therefore, for the AFL to simply claim "move a club to the Gold Coast because it is the fastest growing region in the country" is not necessarily a sound financial decision.

If you can't understand that, I give up.


I can't understand how you think the population of Kalgoorlie is even 10% of that of the Gold Coast, with a city of nearly 2 million up the road.
You were trying to compare Kalgoorlie to the Gold Coast. It was a stupid comparison, because people aren't saying the Gold Coast would be a suitable location just because of fast population growth. The Sunshine Coast, for example, is growing at a faster rate, yet no-one is suggesting a new team there.


Are you joking? That is the most pathetic arguments I have seen. Either you clearly don't understand the argument, or you tried to throw in a couple of links and hoped that no one actually looked at them.

The first article you linked was referring to the effect of a Gold Coast team on the Lions. My original article was referring to the effect on the entire league. The Lions are a mere one sixteenth of the league.


No it didn't, it shows the AFL has done groundwork. You wanted a shred of evidence to the contrary that they'd done nothing, I gave you that.


Further, the article noted that Demetriou referred to "history" showing that a second team doesnt have a detrimental effect - hardly a sound basis for making such an important decision. The article makes no mention of a formal feasibility study or financial due diligence.

The article then noted that Demetriou said:

"We have done work around the fact that there are some significant benefits there for the Lions."

Note Demetriou's intentional use of vague language - "we have done work" - what is "work"? He clearly didn't note "we have done a formal feasibility study" or "we have conducted detailed financial analysis".


If you don't believe him, fine. I'm not here to defend Vlad. But it's hardly reason to say it doesn't exist.


The second article again referred only to the effect of a Gold Coast team on the Lions (not the AFL as a whole) PLUS it didn't refer to any specific, financial modeling or feasibility studies.


So what? Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


The AFL has not conducted any detailed financial analysis of a Gold Coast move. The decision appears to be based on the recommendation of the Gold Coast Advisory group - which is made up of people very sympathetic to the Gold Coast.


Alright. You made the statement, how about you provide a link? What evidence do you have that the AFL have not conducted any detailed financial analysis? You seriously believe that they have conducted studies into the impact on the Lions without actually coming up with figures for the Gold Coast in the first place? How could they even do one without the other? :rolleyes:

[Schwabie]

I can't understand how you think the population of Kalgoorlie is even 10% of that of the Gold Coast, with a city of nearly 2 million up the road.
You were trying to compare Kalgoorlie to the Gold Coast. It was a stupid comparison, because people aren't saying the Gold Coast would be a suitable location just because of fast population growth. The Sunshine Coast, for example, is growing at a faster rate, yet no-one is suggesting a new team there. :rolleyes:

Finally, you seem to be getting it now. Only problem is, you are wrong.

The "fast growing" claim is the key reason underpinning a Gold Coast team. There really hasn't been any other serious reason actually given. (Again, am happy to stand corrected if you can show me evidence that some other reason is the major impetus behind the move).

In supporting a Gold Coast move, Simon Mann writing in the Age stated that

"the region’s full-time population is growing at almost three times the national average, rising from 360,000 to 535,000 over the same period, and tourism is booming (10.2 million visitor nights a year compared with 4 million in 1998)." (http://www.realfooty.com.au/articles/2007/12/07/1196813025630.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)

Demetriou himself stated that:

"The Gold Coast is the fastest-growing region in Australia and we see it as a key market for AFL football,” said AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou.

“Make no mistake about it … AFL is here to stay on the Gold Coast." http://www.afl.com.au/*****/AFLGoldCoast/tabid/10566/Default.aspx

The ABC's Sports Facotr contained this quote:
Mick O'Regan: Right, but you've got on the Gold Coast, as you would well be aware, one of the fastest-growing, if not the fastest-growing urban area in Australia. I think for the last 25 years or so almost every year per capita, the Gold Coast has the highest rate of growth. You would understand as a businessman that for the AFL to see that market developing and to want to place a representative team into that market, is obviously a crucial decision for the expansion of the league. Is there not a sense that the Kangaroos walking away from the $100-million that the AFL put on the table, are really missing a huge opportunity?

There you have it - several different people going on the record that the "fast growing" population is the major reason for the relocation.

No it didn't, it shows the AFL has done groundwork. You wanted a shred of evidence to the contrary that they'd done nothing, I gave you that.

Alright. You made the statement, how about you provide a link? What evidence do you have that the AFL have not conducted any detailed financial analysis? You seriously believe that they have conducted studies into the impact on the Lions without actually coming up with figures for the Gold Coast in the first place? How could they even do one without the other? :rolleyes:

Yes Rob, I so "seriously" believe that - hence the article and my follow up comments. Even those articles which you link to don't prove that detailed work has been done vis a vis the Lions - it seems far more ad hoc.

If the AFL had prepared a detailed independent study they would be producing them to back up their case. You still haven't provided any evidence of anyone from the AFL so much as REFERRING to an independent study or financial analysis - yet, you expect me to prove the negative.

As I said, if you can show me an independent study, feasibility, report - or even a reference to a independent study, feasibility, report I will happily concede. But all you have been able to muster is a vague reference to the impact on the Lions.

[Subprime]

Schwabie - Perhaps you could put up some reasons why you think the third largest urban area in Australia cannot support 2 AFL teams?

If you think that Australian Rules will derive no extra attention and status from this move, well as they say in Queensland, please explain.

Remember that Brisbane is a successful and profitable club that has done wonders for the growth of the game in that state. Southport are also profitable, have a strong administration in place and with access to the draft they will be competitive.

The proposal is to build a 20,000 seater in a place where 12,000 are already turning up to watch someone else's team (who really did not want to be there) in second-rate facility. Is that really such a big risk?

[Father Jack]

I think that any references to 'fast growth' should be taken in the context of a sizeable existing population, plus that growth continuing for a substantial amount of time.

[MickZu]

The GC market isn't deep enough to sustain a full time side, as Demetriou is about to find out.

Compared to an already known fact that North can't survive in Melbourne, I would take my chances with the GC regardless.

[Schwabie]

Schwabie - Perhaps you could put up some reasons why you think the third largest urban area in Australia cannot support 2 AFL teams?

Sydney is the LARGEST area in the country, yet very few people would suggest that they could support two teams. Could Queensbland support a second side? Maybe, it's hard to know without a detailed feasibility study. As opposed to a "study" conducted by two Gold Coast figures.

If you think that Australian Rules will derive no extra attention and status from this move, well as they say in Queensland, please explain.

I never said that - but in any case how much $$ does that so called "extra attention and status" generate? Will the AFL receive a satisfactory return on their investment? Is the AFL not better off propping up a long-term club with thousands of loyal supporters? I don't know the answers to these questions - but then again, neither does the AFL by the sounds of it...

Remember that Brisbane is a successful and profitable club that has done wonders for the growth of the game in that state. Southport are also profitable, have a strong administration in place and with access to the draft they will be competitive.

Brisbane is successful on the field largely on the basis of ridiculous salary cap allowances. Off-field, Brisbane have one of the lowest memberships in the league and are not even close to West Coast, Adelaide, Collingwood or Essendon in financial terms.

Further, we all know how successful the Brisbane "Bears" were...lost something like $30 million from memory.

[Shinboner Schem]

80,000 divided by 1 equals 80,000

210,000 divided by 9 equals 23,334

You can't argue with numbers - but it is more complicated than that!

Brisbane has had a team for 20 years, yet with a population of 1.8m only have 22k members! (that includes Fitzroy members in Melbourne)
As opposed to the 9 Melbourne clubs that have 277,477 members all up.

So that means a conversion rate of:
Melbourne: 277,477 / 3,740,000 = 0.0742
Brisbane: 21,976 / 1,800,000 = 0.0122

The Gold Coast has a population of half a million. If we apply Brisbane's conversion rate to the same region (i.e. 500,000 x 0.0122), then a club can expect to attract only 6,100 members.


If we apply the same conversion rates to the new residents we get:
Melbourne: 210,000 x 0.0742 = 15,582
Gold Coast: 80,000 x 0.0122 = 976

[Subprime]

Sydney is the LARGEST area in the country, yet very few people would suggest that they could support two teams. Could Queensbland support a second side? Maybe, it's hard to know without a detailed feasibility study. As opposed to a "study" conducted by two Gold Coast figures.



I never said that - but in any case how much $$ does that so called "extra attention and status" generate? Will the AFL receive a satisfactory return on their investment? Is the AFL not better off propping up a long-term club with thousands of loyal supporters? I don't know the answers to these questions - but then again, neither does the AFL by the sounds of it...



Brisbane is successful on the field largely on the basis of ridiculous salary cap allowances. Off-field, Brisbane have one of the lowest memberships in the league and are not even close to West Coast, Adelaide, Collingwood or Essendon in financial terms.

Further, we all know how successful the Brisbane "Bears" were...lost something like $30 million from memory.

A second Sydney team is on the AFL's agenda so they clearly believe it can support a second team. I imagine they have done some work to justify that belief as they would have with SEQ. Why would you expect to see confidential strategic planning documents?

The AFL has made its national expansion plans clear for many years and its not up to the AFL to be "propping up" Melbourne clubs who have had eons to get their finances in order.

The value of the current TV rights deal has a lot to do with the AFL being recognised as a truly national competition. That status commands a premium at the negotiating table and David Gallop (NRL CEO) has conceded this fact. Second teams in SEQ and Sydney will only consolidate this further.

Qld and NSW are 1st and 3rd in terms of advertising dollars spent in Australia. The more people in those markets watch their own teams the better for the AFL. I'm pretty sure the most watched GF ever involved Sydney.

The $780m TV contract puts the $30m Bears losses that you hazily recall into perspective. The Hun today talks of the next TV deal being worth $1b:
http://heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22941238%255E20322,00.html

Its been stated many times on these threads that NSW and Qld don't have a membership culture like the southern states. It doesn't stop the Lions making profits (they've accumulated well over $6m in the last decade) or drawing crowds (avge ~33k last year, ~28k this year). The crowds they do draw are all home crowds too, they don't benefit with away supporters like Melbourne clubs do.

In comparison to the Broncos RL team their crowds are quite respectable. In comparison to North or Melbourne crowds against interstate teams their crowds are also quite respectable.

[Schwabie]

A second Sydney team is on the AFL's agenda so they clearly believe it can support a second team. I imagine they have done some work to justify that belief as they would have with SEQ. Why would you expect to see confidential strategic planning documents?

The point of the initial article (and later posts) is exactly that - the AFL has an "agenda" but that agenda does not seem to be supported by solid financial backing. A second side in Sydney would be an unmitigated disaster. Sydney's current levels of support are largely due to it being a one-team town - take that away, and support will drop away substantially.

The AFL has made its national expansion plans clear for many years and its not up to the AFL to be "propping up" Melbourne clubs who have had eons to get their finances in order.

That is a Victoria v the Rest debate - not really appropriate here. (Not necessarily saying you are wrong).

The value of the current TV rights deal has a lot to do with the AFL being recognised as a truly national competition. That status commands a premium at the negotiating table and David Gallop (NRL CEO) has conceded this fact. Second teams in SEQ and Sydney will only consolidate this further.

Qld and NSW are 1st and 3rd in terms of advertising dollars spent in Australia. The more people in those markets watch their own teams the better for the AFL. I'm pretty sure the most watched GF ever involved Sydney.

The $780m TV contract puts the $30m Bears losses that you hazily recall into perspective. The Hun today talks of the next TV deal being worth $1b:
http://heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22941238%255E20322,00.html


Given that the AFL has to practically beg the stations to show games to NSW and Queensland (and had to get Foxtel to step in to show games live for the last deal) to claim that the northern states played a large role in the $780 million is a stretch. You are correct about the Sydney Grand Final being high-rating - but normal home and away matches are very low rating, such that the broadcasters would rather not show them live.

Its been stated many times on these threads that NSW and Qld don't have a membership culture like the southern states. It doesn't stop the Lions making profits (they've accumulated well over $6m in the last decade) or drawing crowds (avge ~33k last year, ~28k this year). The crowds they do draw are all home crowds too, they don't benefit with away supporters like Melbourne clubs do.

The Lions made $6 million in 10 years? That is pretty ordinary given they won three premierships in a row in that time, plus had recently merged with Fitzroy and obtained benefits from the deal. Further, how much of the $6 million was from the AFL? Funny, how whenever North's profit is mentioned, people are quick to mention how much of it came from the AFL - not so with Brisbane.

If all the Lions have been able to generate is $600,000 per year in profits - one would wonder why the AFL would be spending $100 million to create a Gold Coast team when previously the Gold Coast team had to move to Brisbane to survive.

[Paddywackers]

Where are these 80,000 coming from? If they are coming from footy states, they most likelyb already have teams.

They'll get to see there team play once a year it would seem. Gold Coast Sharks vs Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Adelaide, Brisbane ahould be all sell outs. Exiting times ahead.

[Shinboner Schem]

...
If all the Lions have been able to generate is $600,000 per year in profits - one would wonder why the AFL would be spending $100 million to create a Gold Coast team when previously the Gold Coast team had to move to Brisbane to survive.
The AFL's sole agenda is to keep its Big Head of being the premier football code in this country and is quickly moving to minimise the success of the NRL and A-league expansion.

When the Bears were first created the AFL probably thought that there'd be enough Melbourne expat support on the Gold Coast for it to be successful, but failed to realise that a team constantly losing and breaking largest loss records would not attract anyone. - Just a guess.

Now with the TV rights providing so many funds, the AFL probably doesn't care how much the entity would lose in the short to medium term (20 years) and probably figures it will win over the residents eventually

[Mickdog]

The point of the initial article (and later posts) is exactly that - the AFL has an "agenda" but that agenda does not seem to be supported by solid financial backing. A second side in Sydney would be an unmitigated disaster. Sydney's current levels of support are largely due to it being a one-team town - take that away, and support will drop away substantially.


I was wondering how you came to this conclusion. :rolleyes:

[Subprime]

The point of the initial article (and later posts) is exactly that - the AFL has an "agenda" but that agenda does not seem to be supported by solid financial backing. A second side in Sydney would be an unmitigated disaster. Sydney's current levels of support are largely due to it being a one-team town - take that away, and support will drop away substantially.



That is a Victoria v the Rest debate - not really appropriate here. (Not necessarily saying you are wrong).



Given that the AFL has to practically beg the stations to show games to NSW and Queensland (and had to get Foxtel to step in to show games live for the last deal) to claim that the northern states played a large role in the $780 million is a stretch. You are correct about the Sydney Grand Final being high-rating - but normal home and away matches are very low rating, such that the broadcasters would rather not show them live.



The Lions made $6 million in 10 years? That is pretty ordinary given they won three premierships in a row in that time, plus had recently merged with Fitzroy and obtained benefits from the deal. Further, how much of the $6 million was from the AFL? Funny, how whenever North's profit is mentioned, people are quick to mention how much of it came from the AFL - not so with Brisbane.

If all the Lions have been able to generate is $600,000 per year in profits - one would wonder why the AFL would be spending $100 million to create a Gold Coast team when previously the Gold Coast team had to move to Brisbane to survive.

You're the one who suggested the AFL should be "propping up" Melbourne clubs, now its not appropriate?

A second Sydney side would be an unmitigated disaster? How about you prove that statement. I think you're wrong.

The TV networks are run by adults and they signed up for the AFL deal knowing the terms and conditions. They agreed to show AFL in NSW and Qld in particular timeslots. The AFL did not beg anyone to pay them $780m for TV rights with AFL-imposed conditions attached. Don't be silly.

As a Collingwood supporter I can tell you the Lions would have made a lot more profit if they weren't paying an extra 10% of the salary cap for so many years. They seemed to spare no expense on the football dept. either. Yet they're prosperous and solvent. On that level at least I say good on them. As for the Bears, its now 20 years ago, and frankly irrelevant.

[Rob]

Finally, you seem to be getting it now. Only problem is, you are wrong.

The "fast growing" claim is the key reason underpinning a Gold Coast team. There really hasn't been any other serious reason actually given. (Again, am happy to stand corrected if you can show me evidence that some other reason is the major impetus behind the move).

In supporting a Gold Coast move, Simon Mann writing in the Age stated that

"the region’s full-time population is growing at almost three times the national average, rising from 360,000 to 535,000 over the same period, and tourism is booming (10.2 million visitor nights a year compared with 4 million in 1998)." (http://www.realfooty.com.au/articles/2007/12/07/1196813025630.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)

Demetriou himself stated that:

"The Gold Coast is the fastest-growing region in Australia and we see it as a key market for AFL football,” said AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou.

“Make no mistake about it … AFL is here to stay on the Gold Coast." http://www.afl.com.au/*****/AFLGoldCoast/tabid/10566/Default.aspx

The ABC's Sports Facotr contained this quote:
Mick O'Regan: Right, but you've got on the Gold Coast, as you would well be aware, one of the fastest-growing, if not the fastest-growing urban area in Australia. I think for the last 25 years or so almost every year per capita, the Gold Coast has the highest rate of growth. You would understand as a businessman that for the AFL to see that market developing and to want to place a representative team into that market, is obviously a crucial decision for the expansion of the league. Is there not a sense that the Kangaroos walking away from the $100-million that the AFL put on the table, are really missing a huge opportunity?

There you have it - several different people going on the record that the "fast growing" population is the major reason for the relocation.


Because it is a key reason. But like I said, there are faster growing (by percentage) cities and regions in Queensland alone, yet no-one's talking about an AFL team in those areas.
It's obviously a combination of population size and growth, as well as a few other factors. ****en obviously. I can't even believe that you're disputing it, as if the AFL would be putting a team there if only 10,000 people lived there. :rolleyes:


Yes Rob, I so "seriously" believe that - hence the article and my follow up comments. Even those articles which you link to don't prove that detailed work has been done vis a vis the Lions - it seems far more ad hoc.

If the AFL had prepared a detailed independent study they would be producing them to back up their case. You still haven't provided any evidence of anyone from the AFL so much as REFERRING to an independent study or financial analysis - yet, you expect me to prove the negative.

As I said, if you can show me an independent study, feasibility, report - or even a reference to a independent study, feasibility, report I will happily concede. But all you have been able to muster is a vague reference to the impact on the Lions.

Sigh. Fine. How about this?

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/roos-face-the-afls-way-or-the-highway/2007/10/30/1193618885344.html

"the AFL prepared the way for the Kangaroos' relocation by assigning staff to study demographics, source revenue and stitch up a stadium deal"

That's a pretty obvious reference i'd say.
Fair dinkum, I reckon unless someone hand delivers you a copy of any investigations done, you'll permanently be in denial. If they haven't made any of their findings public, how on earth is that going to happen? I've got no idea exactly what the AFL have done, but it's pretty clear that they haven't just randomly put a pin on the Gold Coast.

[Caraboo]

What I find interesting is the names they've 'named' in the advisory group, but more interesting the ones they haven't.

John Witheriff - Never heard of him.

Graeme Downie - his inclusion to be expected vien his long services to the Bears & Lions including weathering the transition of the Bears from private ownership under Pellerman to membership based organisation, director during the Noel Gordon years (merger time) and then Chairman for years after that.

Ross Oakley - AFL CEO at time of the Merger. Has never been far from the fray. Regardless of his 'hated' status over the merger dealings mostly, it is often overlooked that he set the groundwork for the turnaround of the Brisbane Lions finances. In 2001 when they won the first cup, the club had only 18k odd members and made an 850k loss. This was when Andrew Ireland departed and the search started for a new CEO. The AFL were sending someone up to Brisbane for a couple of days each week to oversee finances as things were looking dire. To most, the common train of thought is that the club was 'leaderless' until a new CEO (Bowers started 5 months later). Not the case. Oakley was there. 3 days a week i think it might have been. Investigating, studying, laying groundwork for the new CEO to come in and clean ship and start afresh.

Since then the $6M 'made' being commented about here is reported operating profit. Not the significant out of operations increases - probably best described as gaining assets and contingancy slush funds that was reported maybe 2 years ago at something like 7M in cash reserves along with the Brisbane Lions Foundation $ that people donate to or leave to in their will to secure the ongoing operation of the club during hard times.

Now all that said.


You often hear of GC Mayor Ron Clarke in the news articles. But what about other influential GC Council execs that might have ties/interests in the operation of a team from the GC area?

Dale Dickson - Gold Coast City Council CEO. Former Brisbane Bears Player. You can't tell me he has no input to all this stuff.

Rick Olarenshaw - former player & current accredited player manager. Gold Coast ties/address/office/links for his buiness.

Graham McMahon - former Essendon President. Appointed to chair to some AFL Qld commission for the development of the game in Qld 4 years ago supported by $Millions in funding from the AFL.

Reiwoldt/Kennedy/Lawrence/Romero/Merritt/, just off the top of my head, who are all AFL linked and medium to high profile business names on the Gold Coast.

Doc Mackenzie - former Bears director (was he chairman at one stage? I can't remember), major ties and fingers in pies with AFL on the Gold Goast.

And hell, even the new prime minister. Rudd. AFLQ headquarters in smack bang in the middle of his electorate. He mentioned in speaches about loving the game and attending heaps of games at the Gabba (from memory the quote is something like "if you've been to as many games as I have at the Gabba........"), and a supporter of local and state sporting organisation. And AFLQ will also have some sort of ties to the licensing of a new team.

I personally think all this stuff is way further down the line in terms of research, business development, AFL endorsed individuals (participants in set up of new club), than is being reported in the media.