AFL Clubs delusional says Eagles chief

[Demonic Ascent]

Lets not forget what happened when clubs all had an equal chance back in the days of 12 teams all playing each other twice with a random draw and their own grounds, the whole competition nearly went broke and we lost Fitzroy, the eventual outcome was that intertstate clubs were invited on board to save the competition with their license fees.

Unfortunately the reality is the bigger clubs will likely always generate a lot more cash than the clubs with less support, personally I would love a random draw fair for all but Im not sure it will work, I also recall most clubs that were talked into going to Etihad were at the time quite happy with it, Essendon certainly got the pick of the deals to go there though, again if you generate big crowds you get better stadium deals.

Completely different situation to now you can't even compare the two. How much did the TV rights sell for in 1987? The AFL's revenue maximisation policies have helped to inflate the rights deals but they would have swelled immensely anyway with the national comp, increased media exposure, nature of the evolving media industry etc.

The clubs who went to Docklands were sold a lemon. Go back and compare the modelling sold to them to the actuality 15 years down the track. They're carrying the can for the competition who will inherit a billion dollar asset thanks to their loss making deals.

 

[Forward Press]

Why? Don't get me wrong poker machines are a stain but they are legal. If you want to petition the government to outlaw them I'll agreen with you; but a struggling football club turning it's back on a lucrative revenue stream is pretty stupid regardless of the reasons especially considering the happiness of footy clubs to make money from other harmful vices. This is without even mentioning other forms of gambling revenue they may take in it the fact the only reason they got rid of their pokies in the first place was because they were unprofitable.

Smoking is legal. Would you be comfortable with the Dees having Marlboro on the front of their home jersey?

 

[Sector 7G]

Lets not forget what happened when clubs all had an equal chance back in the days of 12 teams all playing each other twice with a random draw and their own grounds, the whole competition nearly went broke and we lost Fitzroy, the eventual outcome was that intertstate clubs were invited on board to save the competition with their license fees.

Unfortunately the reality is the bigger clubs will likely always generate a lot more cash than the clubs with less support, personally I would love a random draw fair for all but Im not sure it will work, I also recall most clubs that were talked into going to Etihad were at the time quite happy with it, Essendon certainly got the pick of the deals to go there though, again if you generate big crowds you get better stadium deals.

I would argue the comp nearly went broke because of the unfair zones and a lack of a salary cap meant half the comp were uncompetitive for 20 years. I don't think there is a correlation to the draw being even.

Did the clubs have a choice to go to Etihad? A bit like Port and Crows who loved the shinny new AO until they realised 40K crowds didn't break even.

Funny how Ron Evans was head of the AFL at the time when EFC got the guaranteed best deal.

Absolute disgrace that the AFL didn't negotiate on behalf of all clubs equally, given that the clubs had no alternative but play at Etihad so were in a weak bargaining position. Zero balloon payment on Etihad is also a complete rort. Image your employer arranging a novated lease on a car for you, that you make the payments, but after 4 years they get to keep the car debt free.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Smoking is legal. Would you be comfortable with the Dees having Marlboro on the front of their home jersey?

Pretty sure smoking advertising is not legal or is at least restricted. Nice try.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Maybe WA should go back to the WAFL if us eastern staters are bringing you down.

Wut

 

[Forward Press]

Pretty sure smoking advertising is not legal or is at least restricted. Nice try.

Advertising pokies isn't exactly widespread either.

Let's try again - would you be fine if the Dees accepted money from cigarette companies?

 

[Tiger2709]

Completely different situation to now you can't even compare the two. How much did the TV rights sell for in 1987? The AFL's revenue maximisation policies have helped to inflate the rights deals but they would have swelled immensely anyway with the national comp, increased media exposure, nature of the evolving media industry etc.

The clubs who went to Docklands were sold a lemon. Go back and compare the modelling sold to them to the actuality 15 years down the track. They're carrying the can for the competition who will inherit a billion dollar asset thanks to their loss making deals.

In regards 1980's TV money everything is relative, the fact is not all clubs got a bad deal at ES but the smaller clubs sure did and yes they were sold a lemon but whose fault is that?

If you have big memberships etc you get the good stadium deals this is the way it is world wide, do you really think a game between say the Dogs and Saints on Anzac day would attract the same revenue as the current set up? I just cant see it.

Brayshaw was complaining about the worst stadium deal ever then why did they agree to it, not too mention when he compared it to Port he forgot too mention the crowd numbers for Port are double those of North.

The only way to turn around these clubs finances is attract more supporters which gets you more sponsors and more tv money or be bought by a some wealthy Arab or even more difficult do a Hawthorn and win most of the flags over a 30 year period and they stril had to do the Tassie deal to really solidify themselves.

The clubs with low support have nearly always been that way, how will having them play in the big games generate enough cash to keep these clubs alive, there is a finite amount of football supporters in Australia and I would say the demographics are unlikely too change quickly enough to help them even if you gave these teams every blockbuster game.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Hawks got a much slice of the Waverley Park sale then St Kilda.

Not having a go at the Hawks (honestly believe Ian Dicker should be remembered as one of the all time legendary club presidents) but it does strike me how much more prosperous the Hawks flourished financially since the sale of VFL Park then the Saints.

Mind you St Kilda have never really had any decent off field administration. Feel bad for their fans TBH

From what I remember Saints were eager to leave and negotiated a deal with Etihad (Colonial) at the time, I think being 2nd to table after Essendon their deal was better than those given to north and bulldogs. Hawthorn dug in about the sale of Waverley and I think as a result got an extra settlement in addition to the Waverley funds. (I think the proceeds from sale of Waverley were split amongst all clubs but happy to be corrected).

 

[Tiger2709]

I would argue the comp nearly went broke because of the unfair zones and a lack of a salary cap meant half the comp were uncompetitive for 20 years. I don't think there is a correlation to the draw being even.

Did the clubs have a choice to go to Etihad? A bit like Port and Crows who loved the shinny new AO until they realised 40K crowds didn't break even.

Funny how Ron Evans was head of the AFL at the time when EFC got the guaranteed best deal.

Absolute disgrace that the AFL didn't negotiate on behalf of all clubs equally, given that the clubs had no alternative but play at Etihad so were in a weak bargaining position. Zero balloon payment on Etihad is also a complete rort. Image your employer arranging a novated lease on a car for you, that you make the payments, but after 4 years they get to keep the car debt free.

Unfortunately you are right about the rorting by the various heads of the VFL/AFL no surprise that Carlton and Essendon have the most flags when they also got the best zones and support from the VFL/AFL when supporters of their clubs were in power.

The problem though is what to do about it, Im not sure why clubs agreed to the Es deals if they were that bad but I imagine they may not have had much choice, but as I said in my last post if you have big member numbers you will always get the best deals that is just the way of the world, I still don't see how playing less popular clubs in the big games will raise the required funds to keep all of them alive.

I'm not sure had these clubs stayed at their own grounds that they wouldn't be in worse positions, look at Carlton at PP it cost a lot of money to have your own ground, the reality is there are too many clubs in Victoria, as much as I hate losing our traditional clubs I think any further expansion into other states may require relocating at least one or two existing Vic clubs, for me it was not a great idea setting up two new clubs in Qld and NSW but Vlad wanted his name in the record books when in reality they should have first allowed the competition to settle a bit and then move two existing clubs as they did with the Swans.

 

[Tas]

Yes, but that's where your explanation is misleading. Sure the venues turned over $23m, but a big chunk of that is lost in govt taxes, staff, operating costs and so on. As such, the pies are not up on you by $23m, they are up on you by this amount less the costs of running the operation

That is true, if you want a full account, because gaming is lucrative while being screwed by the AFL/Docklands isn't...

In 2014 Collingwood generated 23,031,563 in gaming/function revenue and had 17,299,176 in related expenditure for a profit of 5,732,387.

Our Pure operational scenario includes revenue of: AFL distributions of 8,714,004, Prize Money of $300,000, Stadium bonus (lol) of 200,000, Signage of 450,000, Gate Receipts of 1,614,141 and Membership of 5,830,321 for a total of 17,108,466 in revenue related purely to the playing of football. I am not including the future fund payment because that is allocated for debt reduction, market development, etc and it is a payment the AFL makes up at a whim, they might give us nothing after 2016.

Related expenditure include: Football Operations 20,121,009, Administration 4,765,264 and Membership 3,013,817 for a total of 27,900,090. This results in a loss from hosting and playing away games of $10,791,624, a net variance of $16,524.011, after 5 years that is a variance of $82,620,055 based on the same yearly results.

 

[Crankyhawk]

What would the AFL do if the Victorian government introduced legislation that limited pokies to the casino?

Or went back to the pre Kirner days and outlawed them altogether? As well as banned internet gambling? Unfortunately don't see that it can happen.

 

[Hawkk]

In regards 1980's TV money everything is relative, the fact is not all clubs got a bad deal at ES but the smaller clubs sure did and yes they were sold a lemon but whose fault is that?

If you have big memberships etc you get the good stadium deals this is the way it is world wide, do you really think a game between say the Dogs and Saints on Anzac day would attract the same revenue as the current set up? I just cant see it.

Brayshaw was complaining about the worst stadium deal ever then why did they agree to it, not too mention when he compared it to Port he forgot too mention the crowd numbers for Port are double those of North.

The only way to turn around these clubs finances is attract more supporters which gets you more sponsors and more tv money or be bought by a some wealthy Arab or even more difficult do a Hawthorn and win most of the flags over a 30 year period and they stril had to do the Tassie deal to really solidify themselves.

The clubs with low support have nearly always been that way, how will having them play in the big games generate enough cash to keep these clubs alive, there is a finite amount of football supporters in Australia and I would say the demographics are unlikely too change quickly enough to help them even if you gave these teams every blockbuster game.

Just on this, I posted this 6 months ago...

VFL home and away 1925-1941
Carlton 6,453,474
Richmond 5,705,325
South Melbourne 5,460,580
Collingwood 5,242,330
St Kilda 4,882,603
Essendon 4,647,125
Footscray 4,587,062
Melbourne 4,534,566
Fitzroy 4,487,053
Geelong 4,360,087
North Melbourne 3,260,847
Hawthorn 2,961,458

VFL home and away 1960-1977
Collingwood 10,653,827
Richmond 9,882,139
Carlton 9,479,277
Melbourne 9,257,471
Essendon 8,622,204
St Kilda 8,139,310
Geelong 7,801,814
Hawthorn 6,995,164
Footscray 6,939,251
South Melbourne 6,263,811
Fitzroy 5,973,928
North Melbourne 5,613,855

AFL home and away 1997 - 2014
Collingwood 20,119,156
Essendon 18,761,728
Carlton 16,157,619
Richmond 15,733,715
Hawthorn 14,189,768
Adelaide 13,498,176
Geelong 13,399,210
St Kilda 13,145,652
West Coast 12,847,639
Melbourne 12,461,141
Sydney 12,261,147
W Bulldogs 11,700,503
North Melbourne 11,584,999
Fremantle 11,247,356
Brisbane Lions 10,781,670
Port Adelaide 10,727,516

Across VFL/AFL history Carlton (1, 2, 3), Richmond (2, 2, 4) and Collingwood (4, 1, 1) have been the only consistent 'big clubs'. For all intent and purpose, in terms of football history, its really a big 3 (Collingwood, Richmond and Carlton) with Essendon in 4th

In terms of the climbers, Hawthorn (12, 8, 5) have basically been on a continuous upswing since the mid 1960s (which is a common theme in this thread). Essendon's emergence from a middle of the road club was very late from 6, 5 to a clear 2nd (probably the Sheedy factor).

South Melbourne (3, 10, 11) was a seriously big club through the 20's and 30's but dropped off dramatically in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Melbourne (8, 4, 10) started low, emerged and dropped back to mediocrity while the Saints (5, 6, 8) and Dogs (6, 9, 12) all started from pretty big bases (certainly bigger than Hawthorn and North Melbourne) but decades without premiership success have hindered their growth...

All things considered, I think you are spot on with this post...although you are selling Carlton short massively. For most of their history, Carlton was one of the 2 biggest clubs in the league (with Richmond up to 1940, with Collingwood up until the mid 1990's)

Another stat post, sorry guys

and...

Between 1960-1977 the 'small 4' was Footscray, South, Fitzroy and North Melbourne...Melbourne (4th) and St Kilda (6th) were roughly comparable to Essendon (now comfortably proclaimed the second biggest club in the country)

In fact if you look at growth percentages:

From 1925 - 1941 to 1960 - 1977

Hawthorn 236.20%
Melbourne 204.15%
Collingwood 203.22%
Essendon 185.53%
Geelong 178.93%
Richmond 173.20%
North Melbourne 172.78%
St Kilda 166.70%
Footscray 151.28%
Carlton 146.89%
Fitzroy 133.13%
South Melbourne 114.71%

Average: 171.53%

From 1960 - 1977 to 1997 - 2014

Essendon 217.59%
North Melbourne 208.42%
Hawthorn 202.85%
Sydney 195.74%
Collingwood 188.88%
Geelong 171.74%
Carlton 170.45%
W Bulldogs 168.61%
St Kilda 161.50%
Richmond 159.21%
Melbourne 134.60%

Average: 163.81%

From 1925 - 1941 to 1997 - 2014

Hawthorn 479.14%
Essendon 403.72%
Collingwood 383.78%
North Melbourne 355.27%
Geelong 307.31%
Richmond 275.77%
Melbourne 274.80%
St Kilda 269.23%
W Bulldogs 255.07%
Carlton 250.37%
Sydney 224.53%

Average - 280.98%

Hawthorn and North Melbourne were so far behind the 8 ball its ridiculous (in some ways they were the VFL equivalent of the Gold Coast (North) and GWS (Hawthorn))

I guess in some way that reiterates the status quo...it takes decades and decades of success (impossible in the age of equalisation) but there has been some volatility over the years...

Hawthorn (4.79 times its 1925-1941 average) and North Melbourne (3.55 times its 1925-1941 average) are easily amongst the four growers over the preceding period, but both were so far in the pack in the 1920s and their current positions (Hawks 5, North 11) are reflective of that pre 1970s lack of success. Success matters but its is a very, very, very slow burn...

North Melbourne has grown its support base greater than all clubs save Hawthorn, Essendon and Collingwood (although they were coming from an incredibly small base)

The only way clubs can grow and get out of the 'cycle of doom' is to scrap the equalisation measures. The current system makes it very difficult for small clubs with strong organisation to have runs of sustained / constant success. If North had a decade of success where they won another 3-4 flags Ihave no doubt that their support, member, revenue and financial base would improve considerably over a 10-15 yer period. The current system runs in contrast to that, it accentuates the status quo...

 

[Crankyhawk]

Explain how Geelong's stadium returns (ignoring capital cost implications) are because of a politically motivated sweetheart deal....?

Marginal seats in Geelong boosted by state government funding to build the stadium (so reducing capital costs for stadium management) allowing stadium management to charge lower rent yet still make profit. That's my guess.

 

[Tas]

Just on this, I posted this 6 months ago...



and...



The only way clubs can grow and get out of the 'cycle of doom' is to scrap the equalisation measures. The current system makes it very difficult for small clubs with strong organisation to have runs of sustained / constant success. If North had a decade of success where they won another 3-4 flags Ihave no doubt that their support, member, revenue and financial base would improve considerably over a 10-15 yer period. The current system runs in contrast to that, it accentuates the status quo...

Great post Hawkk, I think our biggest Achilles' heel was our administration and the lack of testicular fortitude to follow through with something properly, our administration since Casey was a three ring circus and sadly it was a critical period as the AFL was transitioning from VFL to AFL.

In the last 5 years since JB/Euge took over the club was really the first time we hit any Victorian suburbs hard for promotion and the membership map now shows the Wyndham regions which is the main region we are developing produce the top 4 concentration of our members, sadly for the Dogs, the same 4 are their top ones as well.

I think we finally have the stability in leadership and a decent enough administration to continue to grow, however, if the football department continues to be a spending war it is going to draw vital resources away from market growth.

 

[ep2018]

I agree something needs to be done about the mounting debt with some clubs. However, I don't think clubs like collingwood and hawthorn should be forced to be penalized for their wealth. When I buy my membership each year, I do so to financially contribute to my club, not to someone elses.

You're financing Essendon's legal bills too. How does it make you feel?

 

[Blackas87]

Smoking is legal. Would you be comfortable with the Dees having Marlboro on the front of their home jersey?

I wouldn't, were you comfortable with Hungary Jacks as your major sponsor for 25 years?

 

[Forward Press]

I wouldn't, were you comfortable with Hungary Jacks as your major sponsor for 25 years?

Nope, never was. And I knew that old argument would pop up.

I do believe AFL clubs have an ethical responsibility to the community to not promote unhealthy things like gambling, drinking, tobacco and fast food.

One thing I am proud of though is that the Eagles (and the Dockers and the rest of WA) don't rely on pokies to get by.

 

[theflea]

Nup.

Well I guess you will have to tell him that, as he said it on SEN. And im pretty sure he said it in his book.

 

[Last of the Roys]

I haven't read through the whole thread, but God I couldn't help but laugh when I saw this article.

The CEO of perhaps the richest sporting club in Australia calls the poorer AFL clubs delusional for having the temerity of actually trying to go little way towards matching the rich clubs in spending in order to try and be competitive on-field. Oh the poor delusional bastards! Don't they know their role is to make up the numbers for the TV deal?

In all seriousness, what alternative do poor clubs have? Make profits by having very little football department spending outside of the mandatory 95% (or whatever it now is) on player payments - this would virtually guarantee poor onfield results, which in turn would lead to future reductions in support / revenue. A vicious cycle.

Is it any wonder they stretch their budgets to the max to try and achieve the virtuous cycle that the rich clubs have landed in. That is especially the case when the AFL basically ensuring that no club will die (although no doubt the AFL will still try to relocate any Melbourne club that gets itself into big trouble).

It seems like it has become increasingly harder for poorer clubs to consistently compete on-field and off-field with the ever increasing corporatisation of the game.

I know that my club the Brisbane Lions are only still afloat today because the AFL is prepared to pump more money into them. Don't mistake that for some wonderful situation though - they only put in barely enough money for the Club to keep its head above water, not nearly enough for it to thrive. We now have a skeleton administration compared to what it once was and possibly some of the poorest training facilities in the League. Greg Swann / Leigh / Leppa are doing their best to turn the situation around, however it is a very tough ask - we need a fair bit of luck on field in the short term, governments to come to the party on training facilities and the AFL's new equalisation policies to actually work.

I am sure a number of other poorer clubs are in similar situations. As for the historical reasons why some clubs are poor and some clubs are not, yeah some of it is due to poor decision making by the clubs themselves (like the Lions losing millions in bad investments in the GFC).

But there is also a s**t-load of inequality in opportunities that has increased the divide between rich and poor over the last 20 years. Primarily the draw has been manipulated to maximise overall attendances and overall TV ratings. That is fine if there are strong equalisation measures in place, but there haven't been. (Not to mention decisions like bringing in new clubs like the Gold Coast into a Rugby dominated state to compete with a Club that already had the lowest membership base in the League).

Instead you get the rich clubs playing in the best spots against other rich teams getting all of the TV coverage, most of the sponsorship dollars, and their virtuous cycle is off and running while the poor clubs are left in a poverty trap.

Maybe all of this oversells the role of dollars / spending in generating on-field success. Once upon a time I might have agreed with you, but not these days.

IMHO, the future for competitiveness within the AFL competition looks pretty bleak if the growing inequality between clubs isn't dealt with.

 

[theflea]

Explain how Geelong's stadium returns (ignoring capital cost implications) are because of a politically motivated sweetheart deal....?

Imo the cats have essentially a similar WAFC deal with the Geelong counsel who own the stadium. Both own the stadia and charge a rate for use, but get all or most of the revenue streams. Its not politically a good deal, however the ground upgrades are a political football, which I think is your point.

 

[theflea]

You can't just put in more pokies there's a limited amount of licenses and you have to bid for them and North don't have any because they couldn't make them profitable just like their online gambling site.

As a poster recently said, if the footy clubs didn't have these places, then the profits would just go to private companies or persons. I think the profits going to our clubs is a better alternative.

 

[theflea]

Advertising pokies isn't exactly widespread either.

Let's try again - would you be fine if the Dees accepted money from cigarette companies?

If they owned a cigarette company and got the profits? Sure why not, it legal.

 

[Blackas87]

Nope, never was. And I knew that old argument would pop up.

I do believe AFL clubs have an ethical responsibility to the community to not promote unhealthy things like gambling, drinking, tobacco and fast food.

One thing I am proud of though is that the Eagles (and the Dockers and the rest of WA) don't rely on pokies to get by.

While I can't stand pokies myself, The productive commissions 2010 report into gambling stated that 0.5% of Australians have significant gambling problems with 1.4% make significant risks. Comparing that too 67.4% over weight and 31.4 obese, 18% smoking, and 7.4% with significant drinking problems and 18.4% drink at levels that that put themselves into harm once a year.

I don't play pokies but certainly not going to stop anyone, drinking is far worse and I drink, just like every club sells it.

 

[Forward Press]

While I can't stand pokies myself, The productive commissions 2010 report into gambling stated that 0.5% of Australians have significant gambling problems with 1.4% make significant risks. Comparing that too 67.4% over weight and 31.4 obese, 18% smoking, and 7.4% with significant drinking problems and 18.4% drink at levels that that put themselves into harm once a year.

I don't play pokies but certainly not going to stop anyone, drinking is far worse and I drink, just like every club sells it.

Two thirds of adults are overweight?

I'd like a link to those figures.

 

[fabulousphil]

Nope, never was. And I knew that old argument would pop up.

I do believe AFL clubs have an ethical responsibility to the community to not promote unhealthy things like gambling, drinking, tobacco and fast food.

One thing I am proud of though is that the Eagles (and the Dockers and the rest of WA) don't rely on pokies to get by.

Give them half a chance and the Eagles and Dockers would have pokies in a flash, what is interesting about WA is that the state has the highest spend on lotto per capita not only in Australia but the world, if we did have pokies that spend would more than likely decrease.

It is possible to go to a club, put 20, 30 or 40 $ in a pokie win it back or lose it have a relatively cheap decent meal, a few beers and break even or be down $100 which is about what it would cost at a pub without pokies.

Gambling can be addictive to some and wreck some lives but for the majority it is not.

For mine there are some good reasons to have pokies and good reasons to not