3rd West Australian team VS long term viability of poorer VIC Teams

[The_Wookie]

What is good for the game nationally is the test.

quantify it for us. Make it seem like a business decision.

 

[Albert Ross]

The ACT Government sponsors GWS for 23 million over 10 years. The NT Government pays half a million per game hosted in the territory. Tourism Queensland contributes to games played in Cairns. The Wellington council contributes towards the games played there, and the Hobart city council pays for North to play in Hobart.

So the AFL competition milks the weak & the small - why is that?
The sporting tourism market feeds the strong, the established, & the recent investment in Adelaide Oval (albeit SNAFU) appears to have achieved, aka to be paying off (true no figures so in current SA process dont count your chickens ...). WA aspires to a similar result in terms of sports tourism.
Team Teflon ie the Vic State Govt continue to enjoy the largesse of the AFL for $zilch whilst the AFL treats the weak, the small (I said that) as cash cows.

The small states are not cash cows, they are loss making without government subsidy. Given a choice Tourism Qld would pay $0 towards games in Cairns and still accrue all the tourism related benefits. But the business case of AFLQ is not strong enough, the revenue from staging the game is not enough. AFLQ has to tip in money to make it viable commercially.

If putting a team in Mt Isa was going to lead to financial surpluses of $50m a year, we'd have a team in Mt Isa.

 

[telsor]

Back to your old modus operandi putting words in a posters mouth & then expecting them to justify the position you concoct.
I pointed out AFL footy charge Taswegians to play there.

How was that an inaccurate interpretation of your comments?

Tas: I have an aversion to bludging off Tassie taxpayers who historically pulled their weight getting the game to what it is today. We, ie the national comp. needs to recognise what the Taswegians have contributed - we dont charge taxpayers elsewhere to see the game, weak is the word that springs to mind.

Team Teflon ie the Vic State Govt continue to enjoy the largesse of the AFL for $zilch

AFL footy charges everywhere to play, in some form or another. Quite apart from the stadia, how many Vic clubs have had government support for their training centers for example? For Tasmanians, they actually get something more tangible in return, sponsorship, which they seem to feel pays back in terms of tourism.

 

[telsor]

What is good for the game nationally is the test.

Now there's a cop out...

 

[telsor]

The small states are not cash cows, they are loss making without government subsidy. Given a choice Tourism Qld would pay $0 towards games in Cairns and still accrue all the tourism related benefits. But the business case of AFLQ is not strong enough, the revenue from staging the game is not enough. AFLQ has to tip in money to make it viable commercially.

If putting a team in Mt Isa was going to lead to financial surpluses of $50m a year, we'd have a team in Mt Isa.

Exactly, it's governments making good business decisions based on their own benefits. They don't 'need' the AFL to play there, they choose to pay and negotiate a deal that works for them.

 

[The_Wookie]

The small states are not cash cows, they are loss making without government subsidy. Given a choice Tourism Qld would pay $0 towards games in Cairns and still accrue all the tourism related benefits. But the business case of AFLQ is not strong enough, the revenue from staging the game is not enough. AFLQ has to tip in money to make it viable commercially.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but that post consists entirely of assumption. As for "given a choice" - Tourism Qld does not have a gun held at its head.

 

[Albert Ross]

Not to put too fine a point on this, but that post consists entirely of assumption. As for "given a choice" - Tourism Qld does not have a gun held at its head.

You're right. I am assuming that given the following choice, that they'd prefer to not have to spend any money

Spend $N to receive $3-4m p/a of reported financial benefit for Cairns
Spend $0 to receive $3-4m p/a of reported financial benefit for Cairns

 

[The_Wookie]

You're right. I am assuming that given the following choice, that they'd prefer to not have to spend any money

Spend $N to receive $3-4m p/a of reported financial benefit for Cairns
Spend $0 to receive $3-4m p/a of reported financial benefit for Cairns

I wasnt just referring to that, your also mentioned that AFLQ would have to subsidise the game to make it commercially viable, and theres little to say thats actually the case.

 

[Kwality]

The small states are not cash cows, they are loss making without government subsidy. Given a choice Tourism Qld would pay $0 towards games in Cairns and still accrue all the tourism related benefits. But the business case of AFLQ is not strong enough, the revenue from staging the game is not enough. AFLQ has to tip in money to make it viable commercially.

If putting a team in Mt Isa was going to lead to financial surpluses of $50m a year, we'd have a team in Mt Isa.

Now Uncle Albert you are not in tune with the conversation - the AFL use Tassie as a cash cow, with Tassie taxpayers subsidising the AFL to have games played there, aka Tassie is a cash cow. Are Vic taxpayers treated similarly?

Qld is a different case again.

 

[Kwality]

I wasnt just referring to that, your also mentioned that AFLQ would have to subsidise the game to make it commercially viable, and theres little to say thats actually the case.

The sporting tourism market is far more complex than just AFL footy & who pays for what is a real measure of where the benefit accrues. As is pointed out above you actually need to do a lot of research to claim commercial viability of any sporting event.
Victorians would be well aware of the controversy over the Grand Prix, now the Vic taxpayer does subsidise that event & for the F1 circus it is a cash cow. Whether the taxpayer subsidy makes commercial sense is quite a different issue.

 

[madmug]

Now Uncle Albert you are not in tune with the conversation - the AFL use Tassie as a cash cow, with Tassie taxpayers subsidising the AFL to have games played there, aka Tassie is a cash cow. Are Vic taxpayers treated similarly?

Qld is a different case again.

Remember that it was the Tasmanian Gument who dealt with the AFL, over red wine & agreements written on napkins, in putting on AFL games at York Park Oval, in the close political seat of Bass. A few years before it was the State Gument who would not assist/support Fitzroys games played at North Hobart Oval. Nor will they 'support' North Melbourne games being played at Bellerive Oval now, despite the fact that BRO is up to AFL standard. Indeed when came the chance to have both Hawthorn & St Kilda, they both played on York Park!! Until St Kilda saw what a waste it was playing two AFL clubs in such a small market!

One State, One Club, pleeeeezzzze. The AFL are fools allowing the current situation to continue.

So how much more proof do people need to see that it was a political decision to attract games to Tasmania in order to gain support in the seat of Bass. One can argue the economic value to the state, although it still is clear how blatantly political the whole deal remains.

Hence one can easily be cynical when it comes to why so many teams in Victoria & so few in WA, & indeed no team in Tasmania but two FIFO clubs is fine.

Economics? Piss off.

 

[Kwality]

Remember that it was the Tasmanian Gument who dealt with the AFL, over red wine & agreements written on napkins, in putting on AFL games at York Park Oval, in the close political seat of Bass. A few years before it was the State Gument who would not assist/support Fitzroys games played at North Hobart Oval. Nor will they 'support' North Melbourne games being played at Bellerive Oval now, despite the fact that BRO is up to AFL standard. Indeed when came the chance to have both Hawthorn & St Kilda, they both played on York Park!! Until St Kilda saw what a waste it was playing two AFL clubs in such a small market!

One State, One Club, pleeeeezzzze. The AFL are fools allowing the current situation to continue.

So how much more proof do people need to see that it was a political decision to attract games to Tasmania in order to gain support in the seat of Bass. One can argue the economic value to the state, although it still is clear how blatantly political the whole deal remains.

Hence one can easily be cynical when it comes to why so many teams in Victoria & so few in WA, & indeed no team in Tasmania but two FIFO clubs is fine.

Economics? Piss off.

Wasnt Chairman Jeff involved, a winner for the Libs, a winner for the Hawks ( you do need to acknowledge the great work Hawthorn put into this sponsorship, they didnt just take the money, they have worked long & hard thru a very successful period on field - most Melbourne clubs would have taken the money & cut and run back home at the first sign of a profit).

 

[Pessimistic]

The sporting tourism market is far more complex than just AFL footy & who pays for what is a real measure of where the benefit accrues. As is pointed out above you actually need to do a lot of research to claim commercial viability of any sporting event.
Victorians would be well aware of the controversy over the Grand Prix, now the Vic taxpayer does subsidise that event & for the F1 circus it is a cash cow. Whether the taxpayer subsidy makes commercial sense is quite a different issue.

Until recently theres been very little direct public investment in AFL victoria

 

[Kwality]

Until recently theres been very little direct public investment in AFL victoria

Yep, the money goes to the MCC.

 

[The_Wookie]

AFL Victoria no longer releases its own annual reports, it last did so in 2010. Government grants in 2010 were 1.3 million, AFL funding was $6 million. (Total revenue 17 million).

Yep, the money goes to the MCC.

What correlation is there between public money which goes to the MCG for redevelopments, and and grants paid to AFL Victoria?

 

[Kwality]

AFL Victoria no longer releases its own annual reports, it last did so in 2010. Government grants in 2010 were 1.3 million, AFL funding was $6 million. (Total revenue 17 million).



What correlation is there between public money which goes to the MCG for redevelopments, and and grants paid to AFL Victoria?

Money going to footy .... directly or for a venue used for footy. Footy in Vic is hardly AFL Victoria.

 

[djpaulydemon]

It totally matters. If your answer ends up being "well, including dividends from the league profits which they get anyway tipping them over the line, I guess almost none of them", then there's not much you guys can really hang your hats on here in regards to a complete overhaul of the AFL...

Do we want a league that sees clubs profitting wildly given preference, leverage, influence, whatever, over teams which are paying the bills but not to that extent? North, Port, Sydney, Hawthorn - four clubs from four different corners of financial possibility - the top four in 2014. There's your spending argument rattled. A supposed battler, an interstater with zillions tied up in a state league and benefactors who ran a loss, a team that enjoys some favours in a hostile market, and a Victorian self-made heavyweight...and on Friday of PF weekend before the first bounce, bets as to the premiers went in all four directions, and noone except my homies got it right...!

What you guys are arguing about is how sterile you can make a national football league. You might as well call it Big Bash FL and dress them up in uniforms not unlike those the Brady Bunch were wearing in the movie last weekend. If the necessarily socialist entity that is AFL football can handle a couple of clubs using smaller shovels knowing the overall end product isn't affected, that those clubs will end up back in finals contention as proven by results in the past, and a lot of supporters haven't been disenfranchised, then what's the issue...? If I wanted to watch franchises profit on levels comparable to the USSR v USA nuclear arms race, then I'd read Business Weekly, not tune into the footy...

This is a great post. We are watching a sporting competition. It's about seeing a group of players experience the ultimate successs through hard work and a dedication to learning and understanding their teammates and the game they play. Not about which team makes the most money or has the most fans.

As explained by Gibbke the narratives of each club are unique and quite interesting with many small clubs being in contention in most years of the competition. While some clubs will keep getting larger the structures are in place to keep the competion staying even. It's muxh more exciting compared to some of the euro soccer leagues or MBL where the richest and biggest team usual wins the title.

 

[Kwality]

AFL Victoria no longer releases its own annual reports, it last did so in 2010. Government grants in 2010 were 1.3 million, AFL funding was $6 million. (Total revenue 17 million).



What correlation is there between public money which goes to the MCG for redevelopments, and and grants paid to AFL Victoria?

The Govt has limited funds (well it should act as if it does) - the State does very well economically from footy.

 

[Pessimistic]

So just keep adding WA teams until one is a ganuine struggler with no hope ?

A side effect would be no return blockbusters for the bigger WA teams as the league grows in size

 

[telsor]

So just keep adding WA teams until one is a ganuine struggler with no hope ?

A side effect would be no return blockbusters for the bigger WA teams as the league grows in size

People keep talking about wanting a team in Tas, when they're likely to be even bigger strugglers than the weak Vic clubs. My theory is to use Tas as an 'average' and create a few more teams to set the balance at that level. At least then when you equalise, you can start from a relatively even level (you play the same teams the same number of times). It also reduces the perennial whinge about travel.

 

[Kwality]

People keep talking about wanting a team in Tas, when they're likely to be even bigger strugglers than the weak Vic clubs. My theory is to use Tas as an 'average' and create a few more teams to set the balance at that level. At least then when you equalise, you can start from a relatively even level (you play the same teams the same number of times). It also reduces the perennial whinge about travel.

If equalisation is your preferred stance, you can hardly deny the travel issue.

The only way Tas should get a side is to strip a Melbourne club of its licence, a relocation does nothing for Taswegians.

 

[telsor]

If equalisation is your preferred stance, you can hardly deny the travel issue.

The only way Tas should get a side is to strip a Melbourne club of its licence, a relocation does nothing for Taswegians.

More clubs in WA means less travel.

Giving WA teams more home games merely swaps one inequity (travel) for another (home ground advantage).

 

[Gibbke]

Nah. The way Tasmania should get a side is if the AFL expands to 19+ teams...whether that dilutes the pool is an entirely different matter, but our proud state shouldn't have blood on its hands...

 

[thegreig]

I think Tassie and a 3rd WA team will be next to join the AFL and it will be within 10 years. I can't see anything else happening for a very long time after that though, maybe and it's a big maybe a NZ team but only if a Melbourne team relocate or two merge. Everywhere else (ACT,NT, FNQ) are just too small.

 

[Kwality]

I think Tassie and a 3rd WA team will be next to join the AFL and it will be within 10 years. I can't see anything else happening for a very long time after that though, maybe and it's a big maybe a NZ team but only if a Melbourne team relocate or two merge. Everywhere else (ACT,NT, FNQ) are just too small.

WHY more teams? The current comp has approx 80 extras on the lists courtesy of AFL expansion, players who would have been in the second tier, belong in the second tier, & we further weaken the talent pool.