AFL Finances

[cos789]

You do realise that the mere fact that we play you in Sydney and never home is a manipulation of the AFL to help your club grow,.

It was Collingwood that offered to play all of it's "away" games in Sydney and all home games at the MCG. LOL.

I'm trying to make a point that the AFL manipulates the fixture for a variety of reasons?

We're well ahead of you in that regard.

Do you also understand that I'm saying that if the fixture was even, there would be a similar amount of Vic derbies but anything non-Vic clubs lose in travel they would gain in more home ground advantage?

So what. Vic clubs have significant less travel, more home ground advantage and more derbies. What's one either way.

why it's unfair on Sydney clubs on a sponsorship and gate receipt level.

FFS, Vic clubs have the benefit of more derbies which facilitate large crowds from BOTH clubs playing.
I know you're a Collingwood fan but surely you understand this elementary principle.

 

[The_Wookie]

It was Collingwood that offered to play all of it's "away" games in Sydney and all home games at the MCG. LOL.

You have a source for this? I know Carlton offered to play all its away games in Sydney. And only because everyone thought that the Swans were going to be canned by the League at the time. It was Collingwood who lead the charge against the Blues going up there because they didnt want Carlton to get an advantage. - (Source: Football Limited)

 

[Vankri]

So the more derbies hense the larger crowds, you do realise having 9 melbourne clubs means the crowds are boosted right? Which means higher gate receipts, which also means sponsorships are higher because the are seen by larger attendances.

Which is why the bottom melbourne clubs scream for more games against other vic sides.

But please go on with your drivel.

It was Collingwood that offered to play all of it's "away" games in Sydney and all home games at the MCG. LOL.



We're well ahead of you in that regard.



So what. Vic clubs have significant less travel, more home ground advantage and more derbies. What's one either way.



FFS, Vic clubs have the benefit of more derbies which facilitate large crowds from BOTH clubs playing.
I know you're a Collingwood fan but surely you understand this elementary principle.

Sigh.

Every club in VIC competes with 9 others for any sponsorship opportunities, and for gate receipts as there are many games on the same weekend and at the same time. If tomorrow the league decided to cut the Vic teams to 4, within a certain period of time the clubs would grow to meet the demand there is for Aussie rules. Vic derbies don't artificially boost crowds, Vic demand for football does and corresponds to the number of teams in the area.

Sydney clubs are not unfairly treated financially because of the number of Vic clubs in the league. Port Adelaide and Adelaide fill up their stadium to almost capacity at all times, and do not in any way suffer in terms of gate receipts because they can't bring supporters from 8 other local clubs to their gates during home games (they do however suffer from the stadium deal in place for them which isn't/wasn't fair but has nothing to do with Vic clubs).

If anything you suffer because the Aussie Rules product is not considered as interesting in your local market. That's not unfair, that's the reality of the AFL trying to force their product in an immature market. If the AFL deemed the opportunity was good enough to introduce 2 professional clubs in an area then you have all the cards to play with, regardless of how many Vic clubs there are, because you have less local competition for the product and a much larger pool to get dollars from. If you're saying the opportunity isn't good enough, then your club shouldn't exist.

 

[Colonial]

Sigh.

Every club in VIC competes with 9 others for any sponsorship opportunities, and for gate receipts as there are many games on the same weekend and at the same time. If tomorrow the league decided to cut the Vic teams to 4, within a certain period of time the clubs would grow to meet the demand there is for Aussie rules. Vic derbies don't artificially boost crowds, Vic demand for football does and corresponds to the number of teams in the area.

Sydney clubs are not unfairly treated financially because of the number of Vic clubs in the league. Port Adelaide and Adelaide fill up their stadium to almost capacity at all times, and do not in any way suffer in terms of gate receipts because they can't bring supporters from 8 other local clubs to their gates during home games (they do however suffer from the stadium deal in place for them which isn't/wasn't fair but has nothing to do with Vic clubs).

If anything you suffer because the Aussie Rules product is not considered as interesting in your local market. That's not unfair, that's the reality of the AFL trying to force their product in an immature market. If the AFL deemed the opportunity was good enough to introduce 2 professional clubs in an area then you have all the cards to play with, regardless of how many Vic clubs there are, because you have less local competition for the product and a much larger pool to get dollars from. If you're saying the opportunity isn't good enough, then your club shouldn't exist.

You really cant be this silly.

Obviously trolling.

 

[Vankri]

You really cant be this silly.

Obviously trolling.

Sure, if that gets you out of actually demonstrating how the fact that there are many VIC derbies is an impediment on your club's sponsorship opportunities or gate receipts.

 

[Colonial]

Sure, if that gets you out of actually demonstrating how the fact that there are many VIC derbies is an impediment on your club's sponsorship opportunities or gate receipts.

Where have i said its an impediment to us.

I have stated that with the large number of derbies it means gate receipts are higher than for the inter state clubs
It also means game day sponsorships are higher because there are more eyeballs there watching it.
This is proven due to the melbourne clubs begging for more games against other vic clubs.

Your response is that there is only 2 AFL clubs. This is true. But theres 12 NRL clubs as well

 

[Vankri]

Where have i said its an impediment to us.

I have stated that with the large number of derbies it means gate receipts are higher than for the inter state clubs
It also means game day sponsorships are higher because there are more eyeballs there watching it.
This is proven due to the melbourne clubs begging for more games against other vic clubs.

Your response is that there is only 2 AFL clubs. This is true. But theres 12 NRL clubs as well

And that's unfair how exactly? You originally responded to a post arguing about the inequities in the league and how it should affect compensation, and you're the one who used the number of Vic derbies as an argument.

I am saying that Vic derbies are not a symptom of systemic competition unfairness towards the Sydney clubs. And that is because Vic derbies are reflective of offer and demand for the product of Aussie Rules in Victoria, therefore for anything related to that particular product, the number of clubs in Victoria is not an advantage to these clubs, it means they all have to compete against close rivals for sponsorship opportunities and membership build. Like I said Adelaide Oval and Port don't have that gate receipt issue. The reason why you struggle to attract crowds has nothing to do with the fact that there aren't many derbies in your town, because if there were 8 Sydney teams next year in the league you would still struggle for crowds. It's everything to do with the interest of Aussie Rules in your market.

If you're trying to argue that it's unfair that your club was established in an area where there isn't interest for Aussie Rules that's a whole other argument, and if the AFL didn't think there was an opportunity for your club to compete against 12 NRL clubs then they shouldn't have established your club in the are in the first place.

 

[Colonial]

And that's unfair how exactly? You originally responded to a post arguing about the inequities in the league and how it should affect compensation, and you're the one who used the number of Vic derbies as an argument.

I am saying that Vic derbies are not a symptom of systemic competition unfairness towards the Sydney clubs. And that is because Vic derbies are reflective of offer and demand for the product of Aussie Rules in Victoria, therefore for anything related to that particular product, the number of clubs in Victoria is not an advantage to these clubs, it means they all have to compete against close rivals for sponsorship opportunities and membership build. Like I said Adelaide Oval and Port don't have that gate receipt issue. The reason why you struggle to attract crowds has nothing to do with the fact that there aren't many derbies in your town, because if there were 8 Sydney teams next year in the league you would still struggle for crowds. It's everything to do with the interest of Aussie Rules in your market.

If you're trying to argue that it's unfair that your club was established in an area where there isn't interest for Aussie Rules that's a whole other argument, and if the AFL didn't think there was an opportunity for your club to compete against 12 NRL clubs then they shouldn't have established your club in the are in the first place.

It is something that is unbalanced.

As has been stated numerous times.

The benefits the vfl clubs have are classed as natural or historical and as such we should just be grateful to be on the same park as you lot.
The benefits of the northern clubs are unfair and cheating and should be stopped. The usual bs.


Out of this.

But just a point. The northern clubs are here to stay as are the benefits required to even and balance things out.
You can accept this. Or you can cry. Either way.

 

[Vankri]

It is something that is unbalanced.

As has been stated numerous times.

The benefits the vfl clubs have are classed as natural or historical and as such we should just be grateful to be on the same park as you lot.
The benefits of the northern clubs are unfair and cheating and should be stopped. The usual bs.


Out of this.

But just a point. The northern clubs are here to stay as are the benefits required to even and balance things out.
You can accept this. Or you can cry. Either way.

Sounds like you don't have an argument, and still are incapable of understanding the difference between a competition administrator giving leg ups to specific clubs and the natural inequality of any competition of any kind.

Things would clear up in your mind if you made an effort to understand the difference between 'even' and 'fair'.

On your last note, just reflect on how well the AFL managed the Brisbane relocation and what has happened since their last era of success and the end of some of their concessions. I'll leave you to it.

 

[cos789]

Sigh.

Yes, it's difficult to deal with facts.
Like Victorian AFL clubs benefit from playing more derbies and travelling less.
The Sydney AFL clubs face an equally or even more difficult task w.r.t. to sponsorship.

Why don't you try and come up with some other line of "reasoning".

 

[bombersfan4000]

Sounds like you don't have an argument, and still are incapable of understanding the difference between a competition administrator giving leg ups to specific clubs and the natural inequality of any competition of any kind.

Things would clear up in your mind if you made an effort to understand the difference between 'even' and 'fair'.

On your last note, just reflect on how well the AFL managed the Brisbane relocation and what has happened since their last era of success and the end of some of their concessions. I'll leave you to it.

You do realise the nrl commission has done that with the Melbourne Storm? Given them a good leg up and pumped extra millions in to them for years with newsLTD

 

[Slax]

You do realise the nrl commission has done that with the Melbourne Storm? Given them a good leg up and pumped extra millions in to them for years with newsLTD

The NRL are no longer putting money into Melbourne Storm to keep them out of administration, the same can't be said about either Queensland club or for that matter almost half the AFL competition.

The AFL long term needs to look at Queensland and work out what it actually wants to do there because it is abundantly clear that SE Qld despite the population will not be able to financially support 2 AFL teams in the even medium term future. I may of also questioned the viability of GWS, but there is a better chance of 2 teams surviving on their own in Sydney without support than Queensland. Hell the NRL can't make a go of a team on the Gold Coast what chance realistically do the Suns have, especially as it cost a lot more to run an AFL team than NRL team.

 

[cos789]

The AFL long term needs to .......

explain their accounting to people better.
The AFL collect revenue and then re-distribute it so it is not straight forward.
The relative financial position of clubs changes and a has a lot to do with on field performances and secondly stadium contracts.
The Lions had a fantastic run for 6 years where they outdrew he Broncos.
Up until very recently the Suns and even the Giants were looking good.
Both the suns and Giants have good stadium arrangements unlike some Melbourne clubs that need large crowds just to break even.
Some clubs have needed to sell their home games.
The community model of AFL clubs generally is more appealing than the private model of some NRL clubs.
You might say the Suns cannot survive because the Titans struggle but it might just be the case that the GC likes the Suns.

 

[Slax]

explain their accounting to people better.
The AFL collect revenue and then re-distribute it so it is not straight forward.
The relative financial position of clubs changes and a has a lot to do with on field performances and secondly stadium contracts.
The Lions had a fantastic run for 6 years where they outdrew he Broncos.
Up until very recently the Suns and even the Giants were looking good.
Both the suns and Giants have good stadium arrangements unlike some Melbourne clubs that need large crowds just to break even.
Some clubs have needed to sell their home games.
The community model of AFL clubs generally is more appealing than the private model of some NRL clubs.
You might say the Suns cannot survive because the Titans struggle but it might just be the case that the GC likes the Suns.

Lions have now arguably the worst stadium deal in the competition (Adelaide Oval deal might be worse) which is crippling the club.

Gold Coast deal had a honeymoon period so it will get tougher for them once this is over, which will see them have problems. But the other problem is that the people on the Gold Coast just aren't that interested in sport and it doesn't matter who it is or how well they are going they've never filled stadiums, just wait for the Commonwealth Games in 2018 and that will show.

 

[fabulousphil]

Lions have now arguably the worst stadium deal in the competition (Adelaide Oval deal might be worse) which is crippling the club.

Gold Coast deal had a honeymoon period so it will get tougher for them once this is over, which will see them have problems. But the other problem is that the people on the Gold Coast just aren't that interested in sport and it doesn't matter who it is or how well they are going they've never filled stadiums, just wait for the Commonwealth Games in 2018 and that will show.

The GC had over 14,000 yesterday, when you consider the likely population growth of the GC, the extra fans they may pick up with that growth, the recent grassroots growth of the game on the GC then MO would be the club has a good chance of making it.

Most clubs struggle financially and scratch and scrape to make a profit and have done so for a hundred years, GC will probably be no different, it is a ongoing fact, but we ( the footballing public) are much more consumed by profit and loss statements.

 

[Rob]

Lions have now arguably the worst stadium deal in the competition (Adelaide Oval deal might be worse) which is crippling the club.

Seriously, on what basis? If you were getting 30k+ a game you'd be making shitloads of money.

 

[Slax]

Seriously, on what basis? If you were getting 30k+ a game you'd be making shitloads of money.

The deal has a good upside but the downside is very bad and like the original Etihad deals where when we get small crowds we have to pay the Gabba Trust.

 

[Slax]

Most clubs struggle financially and scratch and scrape to make a profit and have done so for a hundred years, GC will probably be no different, it is a ongoing fact, but we ( the footballing public) are much more consumed by profit and loss statements.

AFL is business and big business at that, so bottom line means everything, they might play a sport and but don't think for one minute that if things got bad they wouldn't kill of a franchise.

 

[fabulousphil]

AFL is business and big business at that, so bottom line means everything, they might play a sport and but don't think for one minute that if things got bad they wouldn't kill of a franchise.

Quite clearly bottom line does not mean everything, if that was the case we would have about 6 wealthy clubs left and The Swans or Lions would not be amongst them.

 

[Colonial]

Quite clearly bottom line does not mean everything, if that was the case we would have about 6 wealthy clubs left and The Swans or Lions would not be amongst them.

Has there actually been a club that hasnt been rock bottom?

 

[Slax]

Has there actually been a club that hasnt been rock bottom?

But as the dollars in the game grow the impact of hitting rock bottom means a greater danger of flirting with bankruptcy

 

[Colonial]

But as the dollars in the game grow the impact of hitting rock bottom means a greater danger of flirting with bankruptcy

True but didnt the AFL just buy all of the Demons debt and pay their super coach?

 

[Slax]

True but didnt the AFL just buy all of the Demons debt and pay their super coach?

Yes, and now the Demons are falling back into debt, so hasn't really done them any good.

 

[Colonial]

Yes, and now the Demons are falling back into debt, so hasn't really done them any good.

Touchè

 

[fabulousphil]

Yes, and now the Demons are falling back into debt, so hasn't really done them any good.

Every year is the same, some clubs are perennial profit makers, but most are on the bread line, that won't change, they employ new strategies, new marketers and usually the job burns them out and they start again the next year anew with fresh hopes and new employees.