AFL Clubs delusional says Eagles chief

[Grogg]

Because no one buys for a second that if the current administration had inherited an established and profitable gambling business they would have dumped it out of the goodness of their heart.

It's not hard to commit to not making money of something that has only ever lost u money.

Edit: good on u tho you guys have done very well to be profitable and top 4 but the holier than tho no gambling line gets annoying sometimes even tho it wasn't a nth fan.

Granted, but just to be clear we operated under license through betezy who had affiliations with Essendon, Port and the Crows. Both North and Adelaide terminated their association after it was clear the arrangement was unsatisfactory. A little disingenuous to suggest it was totally North's mismanagement that led to the eventual termination.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/afl-link-in-sports-betting-charges-20110922-1knbj.

html://www.vcgr.vic.gov.au/CA256F800017E8D4/WebObj/0D58AC32C36DFCECCA2579220016833D/$File/VCGRwarnsonbettinginducementsOct092011.pdf

 

[Shoei]

News Flash Sport, most professional sporting clubs (especially football) are operating at million dollar losses these days, the Vic AFL club lossrs are pretty small beans compared to the losses several big Euro Soccer teams have racked up.

Seems to me that supporters of affluent interstate teams (most of whom are only in a two team state) constantly whinge about this, don't see why fans of financially well off clubs feel the need to sneer and belittle clubs that are not going so well economically, that's the definition of snobbery IMO.

And what happens when those "Big Euro Soccer teams" can't pay their bills?

Here's a hint - the League doesn't bail them out.

 

[Blackas87]

Two thirds of adults are overweight?

I'd like a link to those figures.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-29/australian-obesity-rates-climbing-fastest-in-the-world/5485724

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4364.0.55.001Chapter4122011-12

http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat.html

 

[Tiger2709]

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

It used to be like that, but I was in Melbourne last year and the payouts are way less than they were, the cheap meals are not so cheap and many of the nice old pubs are now crappy pokie venues I also dislike the modern machines where you can play 50 lines and can barely tell whether you have won or lost, the old one arm bandits had character and you could watch wins roll out on the dials.
I think there is a place for pokies but in Vic they have just gone to far imo.

 

[tribey]

You can debate which one does the most damage, but at the end of the day neither are ethical. Clubs should be ashamed of themselves.
North Melbourne on the other hand, they should be held up as a club with integrity. North Melbourne are leading the way.

I always make a point of feeding some coin through the machines at Alberton with the change from dinner/beers/merch purchases. If I lose it I walk away considering it a donation, if I win I know the proceeds will be going towards my next pint pulled by Greg Phillips/steak/guernsey anyway. The $1300 jackpot I landed a few years ago was the very definition of bittersweet, but I digress.

For every extreme case you hear about - the supposedly powerless mum/dad of popular folklore who feeds their life savings into the hopper - there are how many thousands of casuals who can have a flutter and walk away regardless, as with any vice? Be it gambling, alcohol, food or sex, there's always going to be a minority of individuals who go overboard, sparking moral panic.

 

[Roylion]

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.

I know what he said. It's not correct. There an extensive list of the actions taken by Oakley, Samuel and co. to remove the club from the competition on the Fitzroy board.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-29/australian-obesity-rates-climbing-fastest-in-the-world/5485724

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4364.0.55.001Chapter4122011-12

http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat.html

I wouldn't have even bothered with the stats, one trip to any suburban shopping centre would have answered that question cold

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Advertising pokies isn't exactly widespread either.

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

Sure.

Let's put it this way - pretty sure the clubs that own pubs/pokies venues sell both alcohol and cigarettes there too.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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.

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.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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,

The AFL sells off the only other major ground in the state. They tell you you can't play out of Princes Park. You know only a limited number of games can be scheduled at the MCG and the AFL have their own contract With Docklands to play a certain number of games there each year.

Tell me, what kind of negotiating power did these clubs hold? How would you have gone about it? Seriously, some people are just all to willing to sink the boot in without actually thinking things through and acknowledging that the poorer clubs have more often than not been railroaded by the AFL. The AFL is all care and no responsibility and the bigger clubs then have the gall to complain when some of the benefits they derive from their extremely significant handouts are questioned.

 

[PowerForGood]

And what happens when those "Big Euro Soccer teams" can't pay their bills?

Here's a hint - the League doesn't bail them out.

And you know why?
Because they don't have to.
The AFL does, and the clubs know it, and the AFL know it.

 

[B4Bear]

Fair call from the Dogs. They are in a down patch and are getting s**t fixtures. North are winning, getting good fixtures and good exposure.

You mean we got that in 2014. Do you honestly think that the fortunes of a club can be turned around from one fairly successful season?

It takes years of sustained success for that to occur, and even then it may not occur.

The AFL have set the parameters that North have to meet in order to get continued AFL support. We have met, and in some areas exceed those benchmarks. We have spent considerable time and effort developing a secondary market in Hobart which provides us with a revenue stream outside of Melbourne, and then get trolled over it.

No matter what we do, people complain.

If good fixtures are a consequence of performace, then why are Carlton on FTA 6 times this year on a Friday night and North get 2 games? (Noting we get 7 Saturday nights, which while good is not the same as the traditional Friday exposure)

 

[Kwality]

I know what he said. It's not correct. There an extensive list of the actions taken by Oakley, Samuel and co. to remove the club from the competition on the Fitzroy board.

The national comp is the better for Oakleys leadership. Not fair, yep, but you can duck the hard decisions only for so long, see the Demetriou years.,,

 

[TedDougChris]

You mean we got that in 2014. Do you honestly think that the fortunes of a club can be turned around from one fairly successful season?

It takes years of sustained success for that to occur, and even then it may not occur.

The AFL have set the parameters that North have to meet in order to get continued AFL support. We have met, and in some areas exceed those benchmarks. We have spent considerable time and effort developing a secondary market in Hobart which provides us with a revenue stream outside of Melbourne, and then get trolled over it.

No matter what we do, people complain.

If good fixtures are a consequence of performace, then why are Carlton on FTA 6 times this year on a Friday night and North get 2 games? (Noting we get 7 Saturday nights, which while good is not the same as the traditional Friday exposure)

Agreed - the sustained pumping up of certain clubs and the denial of the same opportunities to other clubs has occured over a longer time scale than a single year. And one or two good years won't fix it....

 

[Kwality]

You mean we got that in 2014. Do you honestly think that the fortunes of a club can be turned around from one fairly successful season?

It takes years of sustained success for that to occur, and even then it may not occur.

The AFL have set the parameters that North have to meet in order to get continued AFL support. We have met, and in some areas exceed those benchmarks. We have spent considerable time and effort developing a secondary market in Hobart which provides us with a revenue stream outside of Melbourne, and then get trolled over it.

No matter what we do, people complain.

If good fixtures are a consequence of performace, then why are Carlton on FTA 6 times this year on a Friday night and North get 2 games? (Noting we get 7 Saturday nights, which while good is not the same as the traditional Friday exposure)

Like it or not B4, North have flip flopped from Canberra to Sydney to the Gold Coast to Ballarat & never fixed your problems, even tried stealing Swans members, & now its Tassie taxpayers funding your optimism. No sponsorship lasts forever, then what, still an unsustainable footy club in the Melbourne market.

 

[Roylion]

The national comp is the better for Oakleys leadership. Not fair, yep, but you can duck the hard decisions only for so long, see the Demetriou years.,,

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.

 

[B4Bear]

Like it or not B4, North have flip flopped from Canberra to Sydney to the Gold Coast to Ballarat & never fixed your problems, even tried stealing Swans members, & now its Tassie taxpayers funding your optimism. No sponsorship lasts forever, then what, still an unsustainable footy club in the Melbourne market.

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?

 

[B4Bear]

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.

For your argument to hold any water North should have made half the amount of money that Port did. Instead they made about a sixth.

It is a terrible deal for our and other clubs in the same position. As has been said forever, when the AFL owns the stadium, the whole of the competition will draw on that revenue, and it has been substantially paid for by the current tenants.

Let's have a model that allows the current tenants to receive all of the money made out of the stadium when it passes into AFL control. How long would it be before there are cries from every other team?

 

[Papa G]

For your argument to hold any water North should have made half the amount of money that Port did. Instead they made about a sixth.

It is a terrible deal for our and other clubs in the same position. As has been said forever, when the AFL owns the stadium, the whole of the competition will draw on that revenue, and it has been substantially paid for by the current tenants.

Let's have a model that allows the current tenants to receive all of the money made out of the stadium when it passes into AFL control. How long would it be before there are cries from every other team?

How do you know that Etihad have been skimming as much money as the SANFL has been? The figures Brayshaw quoted in isolation mean nothing. Port still made a $2.5 million loss this year, with 54,000 members and average home crowds of just under 45,000. The Crows made a loss with the highest home game attendances in the league. North made a "profit" averaging nearly 20,000 less to their home games.

 

[theflea]

I know what he said. It's not correct. There an extensive list of the actions taken by Oakley, Samuel and co. to remove the club from the competition on the Fitzroy board.

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?

 

[theflea]

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.

My comment was only referencing Oakley giving a dividend early(and not getting approval to do it), not anything else beyond that.

 

[Bender571]

For your argument to hold any water North should have made half the amount of money that Port did. Instead they made about a sixth.

You appear to be assuming that profit in linear starting at an attendance of zero, which is unlikely to be the case.

If we look at the figures already discussed in this thread (North; attendance of 291,000 generated $611k net, Port attendance of 490,000 generated $4.5m net) it's possible to suggest they had the same deal. The deal theoretically could've been a break even of 260,000 people and for every person after that the club gets $19.70. North got 31,000 over the break even multiplied by $19.70 = $610,700. Port got 230,000 over the break even multiplied by $19.70 = $4,531,000.

tl;dr You can't say North got half the crowd, they should get half the profit.

 

[Tiger2709]

The AFL sells off the only other major ground in the state. They tell you you can't play out of Princes Park. You know only a limited number of games can be scheduled at the MCG and the AFL have their own contract With Docklands to play a certain number of games there each year.

Tell me, what kind of negotiating power did these clubs hold? How would you have gone about it? Seriously, some people are just all to willing to sink the boot in without actually thinking things through and acknowledging that the poorer clubs have more often than not been railroaded by the AFL. The AFL is all care and no responsibility and the bigger clubs then have the gall to complain when some of the benefits they derive from their extremely significant handouts are questioned.

No one is sinking the boot in so don't get all upset, Im all for a totally random fixture but realistic enough to know that wont maximise the money and may even be harmful for some of the less wealthy clubs, Hawthorn held out on what looked to be a forced deal and look where they are now, if all clubs slated to go to ES had held off as a group they may have gotten better deals who knows, but it is way too late too complain now about it the damage is done.

I know Richmond had a lot of years with crap fixture as we weren't pulling in the crowds, Benny Gale has done a great job in turning things around by first raising our membership to number two in the league and then using that bargaining power to get better deals, Melbourne have enough hidden supporters to do similar you just have to get the right people in the head office, which I feel you are doing these days, unfortunately some clubs are always going to struggle it is the way of things.

 

[Tiger2709]

For your argument to hold any water North should have made half the amount of money that Port did. Instead they made about a sixth.

It is a terrible deal for our and other clubs in the same position. As has been said forever, when the AFL owns the stadium, the whole of the competition will draw on that revenue, and it has been substantially paid for by the current tenants.

Let's have a model that allows the current tenants to receive all of the money made out of the stadium when it passes into AFL control. How long would it be before there are cries from every other team?

You do get future funding from the AFL of over 2 million a year though, surely some of that is to balance the loss from the ES deal, the way things are now the money from ES when it is AFL owned will not be shared evenly, the bigger clubs will get less than the poorer clubs that is how equalisation works.

At Richmond we got out of the hole we were in by the supporters donating 6 million dollars and buying memberships, because of that and some small on-field improvements we now get better stadium deals and more select games, are we supposed to then share that with other clubs when it came out of our own pockets?

 

[Kwality]

Agreed - the sustained pumping up of certain clubs and the denial of the same opportunities to other clubs has occured over a longer time scale than a single year. And one or two good years won't fix it....

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.