AFL Clubs delusional says Eagles chief

[Kwality]

My comment was in response to a comment that Oakley tried to help Fitzroy. That is garbage.

In regards to the national competition, the AFL had an AFL merger guaranteed in 1996. Fitzroy and North had a finalised merger agreement signed off by both clubs with conditions the same as those asked by the Bears (44 players and the like). In a final betrayal, the AFL headed by Oakley, Kennedy and Samuel recommended that Brisbane rebrand itself to look more like Fitzroy and that Fitzroy be ejected from the AFL competition.

I dont disagree on the facts, but a stronger team in Q was always going to be a better result for the national comp IMHO.

 

[Kwality]

And you know this to be a fact because?

At the end of the day, despite your unsubstantiated observations, North is on a trajectory that will see it debt free in the near future. And living within our means on a sustainable model.

If you wish to bring up former misteps such as previous attempts to sustain ourselves in a secondary market as a prediciton of future actions; can I raise the drug culture that pervaded the West Coast Eagles from years gone by as to how your club operates today and will operate into the future?

I clearly questioned the sustainability underlying your current optimism. 'Unsubstantiated observations' suggests you cannot interprete your clubs figures for yourself.

If you need to introduce tit for tat tangents, remember the offer made to North by the Eagles.

 

[Kwality]

And how are they going to build support bases with a majority of games in crap timeslots at the poorer venue against non-Vic clubs with telecasts limited to Foxtel?

The bigger clubs are given fixturing handouts because they rely on their opposition to provide supporters to make money if the gate receipts. They also have greater exposure leading to better sponsorship deals and marketing opportunities etc.

No one is saying to do a complete 180 and give no good fixtures to Collingwood/Carlton/Essendon and give all the good fixtures to North/Dogs/Melbourne just to make it more equitable. I don't understand why anyone interested in a strong and healthy competition would want anything other than clubs to have as equitable and opportunity as possible. Just to be clear you are the one arguing for the status quo where some teams are given significant advantages through the fixture every single year at the expense of others, I just want it to be more equitable so clubs like mine don't have to play all the non-Vic clubs as home games every year and no home games against Essendon or Carlton.

Why do the clubs that get the benefits pay the compensation?

 

[Roylion]

I dont disagree on the facts, but a stronger team in Q was always going to be a better result for the national comp IMHO.

Just give them $6 million, and a few extra draft picks in that case. Because that's effectively what happened. Clearly the AFL had the money, because they were prepared to shell out $12 million to effect two mergers. Fitzroy fans could have watched the North Fitzroy Kangaroos in a red, blue, gold and white jumper go round 14-15 times a year instead of the paltry 5-6 games we get at the moment.

 

[TedDougChris]

WHY dont the clubs you claim get the preferences pay the compensation Doug? They would take you on Doug & cast severe doubts on your claims, easier to hide behind the AFL.

Or the AFL could actually fix the problem - unlikely I know - but it could happen..

 

[Roylion]

Sure, all I know is he stated that he paid the yearly dividend to the roys early to keep up the cash flow. The VFL/AFL board(his bosses) heard about it and was told to stop it. Is this not true?

No, it is not. The dividend in question was the re-direction of Fitzroy's 1992-93 $1.1 million dividend to Westpac. The AFL commission refused to guarantee the dividend in order to push Fitzroy to merge. Westpac wouldn't accept the redirection unless the AFL guaranteed the dividend. This was despite that the club directors had already authorised the AFL commission to pay all their clubs (including Fitzroy) a dividend of at least $1.1 million before September 30th 1993.

Ross Oakley is talking BS.

 

[Kwality]

Or the AFL could actually fix the problem - unlikely I know - but it could happen..

So why do the clubs that benefit keep all the money?

 

[TedDougChris]

So why dont the clubs that benefit keep all the money?

Clubs that have received preferential treatment have kept the money, this has allowed them to invest in areas such as infrastructure, debt reduction, additional coaching/support staff, maintaining 100% of the salary cap at all times etc etc.

This is part of the reason that overall football department spending has increased, despite the salary cap being relatively stable in recent years...

 

[Kwality]

Clubs that have received preferential treatment have kept the money, this has allowed them to invest in areas such as infrastructure, debt reduction, additional coaching/support staff, maintaining 100% of the salary cap at all times etc etc.

This is part of the reason that overall football department spending has increased, despite the salary cap being relatively stable in recent years...

So why are they allowed to keep it? I have never seen or heard of anyone asking the question, have you Doug?

 

[TedDougChris]

So why are they allowed to keep it? I have never seen or heard of anyone asking the question, have you Doug?

I don't think anyone has any issue with the clubs retaining money they have earned, but it's hard to stomach when people criticise those who are denied access to the money. If they money/opportunity to earn money is more fairly distributed, then hopefully all clubs can make a profit (well, most - GWS might be an exception) and the reliance on AFL extra funding could be reduced.

 

[Kwality]

I don't think anyone has any issue with the clubs retaining money they have earned, but it's hard to stomach when people criticise those who are denied access to the money. If they money/opportunity to earn money is more fairly distributed, then hopefully all clubs can make a profit (well, most - GWS might be an exception) and the reliance on AFL extra funding could be reduced.

So one club makes a super profit at the expense of another club & everyone else pays, hello!

 

[theflea]

No, it is not. The dividend in question was the re-direction of Fitzroy's 1992-93 $1.1 million dividend to Westpac. The AFL commission refused to guarantee the dividend in order to push Fitzroy to merge. Westpac wouldn't accept the redirection unless the AFL guaranteed the dividend. This was despite that the club directors had already authorised the AFL commission to pay all their clubs (including Fitzroy) a dividend of at least $1.1 million before September 30th 1993.

Ross Oakley is talking BS.

Ok thanks for that. I wouldn't know who is right or wrong on this issue. Is this the dividend your talking about in this article?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...tive-ross-oakley/story-e6frepf6-1226081971553

 

[Roylion]

Ok thanks for that. I wouldn't know who is right or wrong on this issue. Is this the dividend your talking about in this article?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...tive-ross-oakley/story-e6frepf6-1226081971553

Are you using the following interview?



"We saved Fitzroy about three times," Oakley said.

"We gave them dividends 12 months ahead of time and we all agreed to all sorts of funding arrangements."

It's rubbish. Even Oakley's comments on the 13-1 vote in the interview on AFL 360 are incorrect. The vote wasn't on "saving Fitzroy" Ross. The vote was on whether Fitzroy merged with North Melbourne. His comments on why Nauru appointed an administrator are also incorrect. See below.

In any case how can you give a dividend twelve months ahead of time, when the dividend amount for the next year is unknown? The only funding arrangements agreed to in relation to Fitzroy, was the AFL financing loans to Fitzroy, all of which had to be paid back. The AFL made sure the loans were secure before they did any such lending, taking out debentures against the Club Hotel and so on.

The following is a list of some of the measures that the AFL, led by Ross Oakley, took against Fitzroy in the years leading up to 1996. Ross Oakley was at the helm from 1986 to 1996.

• Fitzroy were forced to move from the Junction Oval in 1984 as part of VFL's ground rationalisation policy, beginning the process of the Club depending on other clubs such as Carlton and Collingwood (their traditional rivals) to generate significant revenue from a home ground.
  
• the VFL refused to allow Hecron in 1987 to take part ownership of Fitzroy as part of a sponsorship deal, that had seen the club reject a relocation to Brisbane in 1986.
• the AFL refused permission for the club to play four home games per year in Canberra from 1995 onwards. The club even offered to play up to seven-eight home games a year in a partial relocation. Upon their application to play four games in Canberra the Club was told that Fitzroy's application to play 4 home games in Canberra (which would have netted the club $350,000 annually guaranteed) would not be a credible exercise in the Canberra market and would not be enough games to be worthwhile. Ross Oakley later said that Fitzroy was their 'worst product" and that the AFL wasn't going to send their 'worst product" up to Canberra. Fitzroy then offered to play 7 home games in Canberra, which would have netted Fitzroy at least an extra $700,000 a year on top of what had already been negotiated. This was refused as well. In fact when adding in corporate sponsorship, and ground rights at Bruce Stadium (which would have been upgraded), Fitzroy's projections were they could have made $1 million extra per season. Fitzroy's application had the support of 'AFL for Canberra' organisation, the Canberra Raiders, the Ainslee Football Club and the ACT chief minister who had offered for the ACT government to upgrade Bruce Stadium. However the AFL point blank refused to entertain the idea. An AFL commissioner later admitted that the reason why the AFL knocked it back was because they wanted Port Adelaide in the competition and therefore wanted to keep the pressure on Fitzroy to merge.
• the AFL refused to help financially assist Fitzroy's Tasmanian experiment in 1991-1992. Fitzroy had to pay the whole cost themselves, including accommodation. Fitzroy had to even billet their players in supporters' homes. Since that time, AFL support for Hawthorn, St Kilda and North Melbourne home games in Tasmania has been significant.
• in order to pressure Fitzroy to merge or liquidate, the AFL refused to guarantee Fitzroy's 1992-1993 dividend which Fitzroy wanted re-directed to Westpac, despite AFL club directors agreeing to do so. Westpac wouldn't accept the re-direction unless the AFL guaranteed that Fitzroy would receive at least a $1.1 million. It took the threat of legal action and the support of other clubs for the AFL to finally relent.
• In 1993 the AFL threatened to sue Fitzroy for $250,000 that had been paid to Fitzroy by CUB as part of a club sponsorship, which included selling CUB's product in the Fitzroy Club Hotel. CUB was the AFL's sponsor and the AFL thought they should have received the money instead of Fitzroy. This was despite the fact that CUB had been a minor sponsor of Fitzroy for over ten years previously. They even threatened to reduce the dividend to other clubs by the amount Fitzroy received. This was the major reason the Lions had to consider a better financial deal at the Western Oval, in order to try and raise more revenue which in turn alienated some supporters and players. That new deal included Footscray loaning Fitzroy the $250,000 demanded by the AFL, which was then paid to the AFL. Alistair Lynch later said that Fitzroy's forced move to the Western Oval was the major reason why he decided to leave Fitzroy and sign with the Bears. Broderick, Gale, Elliott and Dundas followed Lynch shortly after. Robert Shaw the Fitzroy coach lamented at the time that he'd just lost his next three club captains.
• the AFL objected to a Fitzroy sponsorship deal with Schweppes because the AFL were sponsored by Coca Cola. Fitzroy managed to raise $110,000 from this sponsorship.
• it was later discovered that it was the AFL that had been advising player manager Damian Smith on the best way for the Bears to acquire Alistair Lynch from Fitzroy.
• From 1993 the AFL issued a number of solvency notices to Fitzroy where the club had to satisfy AFL criteria that they could meet their financial debts for the next 12 months or their AFL licence would be withdrawn. Fitzroy was the only club to receive a solvency notice.
• the AFL refused to allow millionaire Bernie Ahern to lend any more money to Fitzroy, after he saved them from merging / folding in 1991. He lent money to Fitzroy for a second time later on, because in his words, he felt Fitzroy had been treated unfairly.
• From 1994 onwards the AFL presented several proposals to the Fitzroy directors to surrender Fitzroy's licence to the AFL and thereby liquidate Fitzroy Football Club Ltd., if it could not effect a merger, in return for "assistance packages" to keep the club going. That way Fitzroy's creditors (including Nauru) wouldn't get paid. One of these included a merger with the Port Adelaide Football Club to form the "Port Adelaide Power Lions."
• the AFL regularly leaked sensitive information provided by Fitzroy about their finances to the media, in order for journalists like Mike Sheahan to write negative stories about Fitzroy, which in turn scared off potential sponsors.
• the AFL regularly informed potential sponsors who would make inquiries about the possibility of sponsoring Fitzroy that not to bother because Fitzroy would not be in the competition for much longer (That's from a Fitzroy director at the time)
• Fitzroy's auditors KPMG were even raided by the Australian Securities Commission, under a warrant to investigate Fitzroy for 'suspect trading while insolvent' for 1993 and 1996. The ASC claimed they were acting on information passed to them. Naturally Fitzroy believe it was probably the AFL, who were the only external organisation who had full access to Fitzroy's finances. Nothing ever came of the raid.
• ....and even at the end, the AFL gave Fitzroy and North Melbourne until July 5th 1996 to complete their merger (which was done at 2 pm on July 4th), only to give the go-ahead to a Brisbane - Fitzroy merger on July 4th, after a Richmond led protest over the merger conditions (originally agreed to by the AFL and the clubs and communicated as such to both the AFL North Melbourne and Fitzroy).
• The reason that Nauru appointed an administrator to recover their $1.25 million loan was because the AFL was telling North that if they held out against Nauru, they wouldn't have to pay them at all and would receive the entire merger amount themselves. Then the AFL threatened to not guarantee the merger money. Faced with the prospect of getting none of their loan back this forced Nauru to step in and recover the money themselves by appointing an administrator. This was despite the fact that the Fitzroy directors had already done a deal to settle with Nauru out of the merger money. However on the AFL's advice and urging North refused to authorise Fitzroy to pay any more than $550,000, instead of the $1 million asked. The debt to Nauru did not have to be paid back in full until October 2001, given it was a seven year deal. That's not exactly what Ross Oakley implies in the interview above on AFL 360.

So thanks for the help Ross. Oh yes and it is correct that the VFL-AFL gave office space, when Fitzroy launched fundraisers in 1986 and 1991. Carlton and Collingwood wouldn't provide any at their home grounds.

 

[theflea]

Are you using the following interview?



"We saved Fitzroy about three times," Oakley said.

"We gave them dividends 12 months ahead of time and we all agreed to all sorts of funding arrangements."

It's rubbish. Even Oakley's comments on the 13-1 vote in the interview on AFL 360 are incorrect. The vote wasn't on "saving Fitzroy" Ross. The vote was on whether Fitzroy merged with North Melbourne. His comments on why Nauru appointed an administrator are also incorrect. See below.

In any case how can you give a dividend twelve months ahead of time, when the dividend amount for the next year is unknown? The only funding arrangements agreed to in relation to Fitzroy, was the AFL financing loans to Fitzroy, all of which had to be paid back. The AFL made sure the loans were secure before they did any such lending, taking out debentures against the Club Hotel and so on.

The following is a list of some of the measures that the AFL, led by Ross Oakley, took against Fitzroy in the years leading up to 1996. Ross Oakley was at the helm from 1986 to 1996.

• Fitzroy were forced to move from the Junction Oval in 1984 as part of VFL's ground rationalisation policy, beginning the process of the Club depending on other clubs such as Carlton and Collingwood (their traditional rivals) to generate significant revenue from a home ground.
  
• the VFL refused to allow Hecron in 1987 to take part ownership of Fitzroy as part of a sponsorship deal, that had seen the club reject a relocation to Brisbane in 1986.
• the AFL refused permission for the club to play four home games per year in Canberra from 1995 onwards. The club even offered to play up to seven-eight home games a year in a partial relocation. Upon their application to play four games in Canberra the Club was told that Fitzroy's application to play 4 home games in Canberra (which would have netted the club $350,000 annually guaranteed) would not be a credible exercise in the Canberra market and would not be enough games to be worthwhile. Ross Oakley later said that Fitzroy was their 'worst product" and that the AFL wasn't going to send their 'worst product" up to Canberra. Fitzroy then offered to play 7 home games in Canberra, which would have netted Fitzroy at least an extra $700,000 a year on top of what had already been negotiated. This was refused as well. In fact when adding in corporate sponsorship, and ground rights at Bruce Stadium (which would have been upgraded), Fitzroy's projections were they could have made $1 million extra per season. Fitzroy's application had the support of 'AFL for Canberra' organisation, the Canberra Raiders, the Ainslee Football Club and the ACT chief minister who had offered for the ACT government to upgrade Bruce Stadium. However the AFL point blank refused to entertain the idea. An AFL commissioner later admitted that the reason why the AFL knocked it back was because they wanted Port Adelaide in the competition and therefore wanted to keep the pressure on Fitzroy to merge.
• the AFL refused to help financially assist Fitzroy's Tasmanian experiment in 1991-1992. Fitzroy had to pay the whole cost themselves, including accommodation. Fitzroy had to even billet their players in supporters' homes. Since that time, AFL support for Hawthorn, St Kilda and North Melbourne home games in Tasmania has been significant.
• in order to pressure Fitzroy to merge or liquidate, the AFL refused to guarantee Fitzroy's 1992-1993 dividend which Fitzroy wanted re-directed to Westpac, despite AFL club directors agreeing to do so. Westpac wouldn't accept the re-direction unless the AFL guaranteed that Fitzroy would receive at least a $1.1 million. It took the threat of legal action and the support of other clubs for the AFL to finally relent.
• In 1993 the AFL threatened to sue Fitzroy for $250,000 that had been paid to Fitzroy by CUB as part of a club sponsorship, which included selling CUB's product in the Fitzroy Club Hotel. CUB was the AFL's sponsor and the AFL thought they should have received the money instead of Fitzroy. This was despite the fact that CUB had been a minor sponsor of Fitzroy for over ten years previously. They even threatened to reduce the dividend to other clubs by the amount Fitzroy received. This was the major reason the Lions had to consider a better financial deal at the Western Oval, in order to try and raise more revenue which in turn alienated some supporters and players. That new deal included Footscray loaning Fitzroy the $250,000 demanded by the AFL, which was then paid to the AFL. Alistair Lynch later said that Fitzroy's forced move to the Western Oval was the major reason why he decided to leave Fitzroy and sign with the Bears. Broderick, Gale, Elliott and Dundas followed Lynch shortly after. Robert Shaw the Fitzroy coach lamented at the time that he'd just lost his next three club captains.
• the AFL objected to a Fitzroy sponsorship deal with Schweppes because the AFL were sponsored by Coca Cola. Fitzroy managed to raise $110,000 from this sponsorship.
• it was later discovered that it was the AFL that had been advising player manager Damian Smith on the best way for the Bears to acquire Alistair Lynch from Fitzroy.
• From 1993 the AFL issued a number of solvency notices to Fitzroy where the club had to satisfy AFL criteria that they could meet their financial debts for the next 12 months or their AFL licence would be withdrawn. Fitzroy was the only club to receive a solvency notice.
• the AFL refused to allow millionaire Bernie Ahern to lend any more money to Fitzroy, after he saved them from merging / folding in 1991. He lent money to Fitzroy for a second time later on, because in his words, he felt Fitzroy had been treated unfairly.
• From 1994 onwards the AFL presented several proposals to the Fitzroy directors to surrender Fitzroy's licence to the AFL and thereby liquidate Fitzroy Football Club Ltd., if it could not effect a merger, in return for "assistance packages" to keep the club going. That way Fitzroy's creditors (including Nauru) wouldn't get paid. One of these included a merger with the Port Adelaide Football Club to form the "Port Adelaide Power Lions."
• the AFL regularly leaked sensitive information provided by Fitzroy about their finances to the media, in order for journalists like Mike Sheahan to write negative stories about Fitzroy, which in turn scared off potential sponsors.
• the AFL regularly informed potential sponsors who would make inquiries about the possibility of sponsoring Fitzroy that not to bother because Fitzroy would not be in the competition for much longer (That's from a Fitzroy director at the time)
• Fitzroy's auditors KPMG were even raided by the Australian Securities Commission, under a warrant to investigate Fitzroy for 'suspect trading while insolvent' for 1993 and 1996. The ASC claimed they were acting on information passed to them. Naturally Fitzroy believe it was probably the AFL, who were the only external organisation who had full access to Fitzroy's finances. Nothing ever came of the raid.
• ....and even at the end, the AFL gave Fitzroy and North Melbourne until July 5th 1996 to complete their merger (which was done at 2 pm on July 4th), only to give the go-ahead to a Brisbane - Fitzroy merger on July 4th, after a Richmond led protest over the merger conditions (originally agreed to by the AFL and the clubs and communicated as such to both the AFL North Melbourne and Fitzroy).
• The reason that Nauru appointed an administrator to recover their $1.25 million loan was because the AFL was telling North that if they held out against Nauru, they wouldn't have to pay them at all and would receive the entire merger amount themselves. Then the AFL threatened to not guarantee the merger money. Faced with the prospect of getting none of their loan back this forced Nauru to step in and recover the money themselves by appointing an administrator. This was despite the fact that the Fitzroy directors had already done a deal to settle with Nauru out of the merger money. However on the AFL's advice and urging North refused to authorise Fitzroy to pay any more than $550,000, instead of the $1 million asked. Not exactly what Ross Oakley implies in the interview above on AFL 360.

So thanks for the help Ross. Oh yes and it is correct that the VFL-AFL gave office space, when Fitzroy launched fundraisers in 1986 and 1991. Carlton and Collingwood wouldn't provide any at their home grounds.

Thanks for this clarification. Sad sorry events really.

 

[Roylion]

Thanks for this clarification. Sad sorry events really.

Yes it was. Very frustrating for Fitzroy fans especially in light of comments from Greg Swann last year, who was one of the team of administrators moved in by Nauru and therefore had access to all the finances. His comments were that Fitzroy could have easily been saved and retained in the AFL, had there been any will to do so.