telsor
Hall of Famer
I will be paying my share mate - through taxes
Do your taxes pay for your share of the AFL? Of the millions funneled into NSW & QLD?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I will be paying my share mate - through taxes
Seriously WTF are you on About? The WA government is paying for their stadium. Your parochialism is so nonsensical and misguided.[/
That's the trouble - when the AFL was formed it should not have been an extension of the VFL - it should have been a brand new competition and new teams formed in Victoria which were not part of the VFL. But we all know how the Vics like to think they are superior
Are you saying only the Victorian clubs are funding that? Don't all clubs contribute to the AFL nest egg?Do your taxes pay for your share of the AFL? Of the millions funneled into NSW & QLD?
My argument is not with which was sometimes/ usually/ not always the top state based league, I'm fed up with the misrepresentation you push knowingly, the AFL is a cut above ALL aka every state league, & it is not about which state league was stronger - they were all inferior, 2nd rate when compared with the AFL.
Cmon Kwality, the VFL was never ever a State League, it has always been a national league. I have been informed that enough times on BF that it just has to be true.
Go back as far as you like, it has always been a national comp.
Troll all you like, but that speaks to the nature of the competition, not whether the competition was founded in 1990 or not. Yes, the nature of the competition has evolved over the years, but it is still the same competition - just expanded and evolved, it does not invalidate the previous years the competition existed for.
Through the thousands of posts on this subject Wookie other than the odd idiot everyone knows the VFL morphed into the AFL and it is one continuous competition.
What most debate is that Premierships won in the WAFL and the SANFL pre an expanded VFL were worth no more or no less than every flag one in the VFL.
For so many that simply is not acknowledged and it seems it just can't be true.
The fact that they can't even say the words "the VFL was once a State League comp only" is testament to that.
I just don't get what the big deal about it all is.
No - but a shedload of my clubs money is in equalisation.Do your taxes pay for your share of the AFL? Of the millions funneled into NSW & QLD?
No - but a shedload of my clubs money is in equalisation.
Mate if you are trying to compare my clubs input into absolutely every thing in the afl compared to what it takes out - and vs that with a vic club.... You are barking up the wrong tree. From day dot we have stopped your badly run leage from going busted arse broke. You dont see the afl handing us coin for nothing.
No you really havent. The 4 million license fee helped, but it wasnt the be all and end all some folks like to pretend it is. for one, it was only half the money recieved - Paul cronin and his syndicate also coughed up 4 million for the Brisbane license. and then there was the $30 million tv deal with seven which really sealed the deal.
it certainly helps the WA sides that Subiaco was leased to the WAFL on peppercorn rent, enabling the WAFL to give a very good deal to the WA sides and massive stadium returns. Such luxuries arent possible in Victoria. Fix the stadium deals and the issue evens out somewhat.
I have never understood clubs signing up for such poor stadium deals. They sign up to it then never stop complaining about it. Why didn't the clubs that have these s**t stadium deals present a united front and say the deal doesn't work for us and until it does we will continue to play out of our own facility.
The rent at Subiaco is not peppercorn, 5 million per year is a lot of money and about what it should be I think.
How much do the clubs pay at docklands? Be interesting to know.
The AFL mandates where games are played, which is why the league is always involved in club deals even in WA and SA. You can sign a deal to play wherever you like, but the AFL will fixture the game wherever it chooses. Its why the MCG and Etihad rarely even bother negotiating with clubs any more.
The rent is what the clubs pay the WAFL though, not what the WAFL pay the WA Government. Its never been revealed what the clubs pay at Docklands. We do klnow that theres a world of difference in what they control at the stadiums and get revenue from - WA clubs get millions in signage, corporate and catering revenues that the AFL clubs at Etihad dont have any kind of access to, or a limited percentage per head which is defined by the standard admission price.
How the * are victorian stadium deals our problem?No you really havent. The 4 million license fee helped, but it wasnt the be all and end all some folks like to pretend it is. for one, it was only half the money recieved - Paul cronin and his syndicate also coughed up 4 million for the Brisbane license. and then there was the $30 million tv deal with seven which really sealed the deal.
it certainly helps the WA sides that Subiaco was leased to the WAFL on peppercorn rent, enabling the WAFL to give a very good deal to the WA sides and massive stadium returns. Such luxuries arent possible in Victoria. Fix the stadium deals and the issue evens out somewhat.
How the **** are victorian stadium deals our problem?
If there was 4-6 vic clubs the stadium ceo's would be sucking your club presidents off while they were having a dump just to get to speak to them about maybe playing a game there from time to time.
As for the tv deal - no s**t - the vfl was on the abc - the addition of interstate teams got you/ us commercial tv with all the money that brings.
That was a case of the sum of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts - we couldn't have done it without you - and you couldn't have done it without us.
Where did I say otherwise?
He's boasting about how WA clubs have more money than Vic clubs...They get a free stadium, we pay for ours (and give it to, among others, the WA clubs) while at the same time competing with the AFL for members (after they take the best seats).
Of course, being from SA, you wouldn't know anything about how stadium deals affect the bottom line of clubs, would you....
A free stadium?
What the actual f**k?
Never mind Vic clubs didn't cough up a cent towards the capital cost of either ground.
A free stadium?
What the actual f**k?
Never mind Vic clubs didn't cough up a cent towards the capital cost of either ground.
No - but a shedload of my clubs money is in equalisation.
Mate if you are trying to compare my clubs input into absolutely every thing in the afl compared to what it takes out - and vs that with a vic club.... You are barking up the wrong tree. From day dot we have stopped your badly run leage from going busted arse broke. You dont see the afl handing us coin for nothing.
How the **** are victorian stadium deals our problem?
If there was 4-6 vic clubs the stadium ceo's would be sucking your club presidents off while they were having a dump just to get to speak to them about maybe playing a game there from time to time.
Supply and demand.
As for the tv deal - no s**t - the vfl was on the abc - the addition of interstate teams got you/ us commercial tv with all the money that brings.
So you think ~20% TV of the FTA TV viewers bring in that much money? Care to explain how that happens?
Oh, and Pay-TV makes up about half the broadcasting contract, and you can bet they pay less for the states that have every game on FTA (meaning they mostly pay for Vic).
That was a case of the sum of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts - we couldn't have done it without you - and you couldn't have done it without us.
Nah....While I agree that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, the only state that it couldn't have been done without is Victoria. That was especially true as the league was being created (one reason only the VFL could do it) but even now, if WA clubs broke away, top level footy in WA would die (you'd have local comps and people watching TV for the AFL to see top level games). If Vic broke away, the national league would die (it might struggle on for a while, but soon enough the whole country would go back to state leagues for a few years until the Vics restarted a national comp).
OK, a little something for the non-vics who think they contribute as much as Victoria.
For your ground deal, you have a choice...Either $500K/game goes to the AFL (AKA docklands, where we pay for buy the stadium for them), or you can hand about a quarter of the bets seats at your ground over to the AFL, who will then compete with you for members (MCG).
For TV rights, you can have 'equal' access to premium timeslots, but you also get 'equal' access to having your games only shown on Foxtel (bet your sponsors will just love that).
Do both of those and you'll be near enough that we can discuss the other details. (feel free to raise any other big issues...but be prepared to show how it costs millions every year before it'd even make the agenda).
OK, a little something for the non-vics who think they contribute as much as Victoria.
For your ground deal, you have a choice...Either $500K/game goes to the AFL (AKA docklands, where we pay for buy the stadium for them), or you can hand about a quarter of the bets seats at your ground over to the AFL, who will then compete with you for members (MCG).
For TV rights, you can have 'equal' access to premium timeslots, but you also get 'equal' access to having your games only shown on Foxtel (bet your sponsors will just love that).
Do both of those and you'll be near enough that we can discuss the other details. (feel free to raise any other big issues...but be prepared to show how it costs millions every year before it'd even make the agenda).