AFL Finances

[Max Power 83]

Our fixture is not too different from melbournes, you know, the fixture which is killing them

Isn't it?

You host 3 of the big 4 Vic clubs at the G, as well as rivals Sydney and Geelong (Easter Monday), and Melbourne.

Melbourne host 4 interstate teams in Gold Coast, Freo, Sydney, and Brisbane. Of the Vic clubs, we get the 3 lowest drawing in St Kilda, North, and Bulldogs.
Collingwood QB is the only team we host where we can realistically draw a decent a gate.

On top of that you play 4 Friday nights, and 1 Thursday night, hosting 2. We play 1 Friday in which we are the away team.
I know from a financial standpoint which I'd prefer.

 

[Papa G]

Teams should get games based on matchups and the excitement that game will bring

Lately I haven't been watching too much prime time because it's boring.
Tigers v Eagles and Dogs v Lions
who really wants to watch that?
Port v Cats no way

AFL needs to give the fans quality viewing during these slots

Cats v Port was the highest rating Friday night game in Melbourne all year. Neither team comes from Melbourne.

 

[Papa G]

Easy solution for the Hawks is to be less successful, drop members and become one of the middle of the road clubs again. They won't have to contribute then. Not sure many will have an issue with that either.

If the AFL decides to pull the Tasmanian safety blanket out from under them and when the inevitable slide comes, the Hawks will not be as financially secure as they are now, that is for sure. They may want to tread carefully.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I still dont understand why the F/S and academies are always talked about as one.

They are completely different.

One gives a club access to maybe one good player every 4 or 5 years under father son.

The other gives a club 2 or 3 prospects every single year.

They are nothing alike.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Newbold is correct on this, as best as I can understand it. I just wish he'd had the same enthusiasm when the Swans were banned from trading.

But forfeiting (not trading) future draft picks is fraught and won't be good for the "beneficiaries" nor the competition.

The Academies are crucial for national development and those that are critical of them should look not to Sydney, but to Brisbane, and note the exodus of young talent when life for the club isn't so rosy. Brisbane will need to be propped up again.

The Academies are good for Victorian clubs because every Academy player that is drafted means one less Victorian kid is shifted interstate.

The Academies are good socially because they reduce the number of teenagers forced to move interstate away from their families at such an important age and stage in their social development. And it doesn't matter how good the club culture is, it's not a better environment than a family one (albeit with some exceptions). But imagine if they were drafted to a club with a culture representing the worst that is believed of Essendon? (This is to illustrate a point, not to start a WADA fight).

And the Academies are good for the comp as a whole because the greater interest there is in the Northern states, the better the financial arrangements that are spread across the whole competition.

Rather than bellyache about perceived advantages, it would be better if the Victorian clubs and the AFL said "OK, you have these Academies, you are required to take x% of your drafted players over a given period (say 3 years) at a cost of your next pick from what has been bid out of the Academy.

That way Sydney, for instance, would have to take the good with the bad. I also think that the same arrangement should apply to the WA and SA sides. They get first dibs on local talent (but at a cost of the draft pick following any rival club bid).

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I still dont understand why the F/S and academies are always talked about as one.

They are completely different.

One gives a club access to maybe one good player every 4 or 5 years under father son.

The other gives a club 2 or 3 prospects every single year.

They are nothing alike.

You are correct. They are nothing alike.

In the case of the Academies, the clubs have put millions of dollars and thousands of hours into developing new talent (that's hundreds of young kids) in hostile football territories.

In the case of father/son, the clubs have had the good fortune that one of their players from a previous era has put one through the big sticks some 18 years previous.

 

[The 747]

Most non-expansion clubs would disagree with these AFL measures, it's just that Hawthorn and Collingwood are the two Vic clubs that are not financially dependant on the AFL, so therefore are the only two clubs with the balls to speak up and disagree with the AFL in public.
Do we really want more flags to go to NSW & Qld?
How about some on field measures to help Dogs, Dees, Saints who have been waiting a lot longer than GWS or GC for a flag.
Bravo.

How are Richmond, Geelong and Essendon financially dependent on the AFL in a way that Hawthorn and Collingwood are not?

 

[telsor]

You are correct. They are nothing alike.

In the case of the Academies, the clubs have put millions of dollars and thousands of hours into developing new talent (that's hundreds of young kids) in hostile football territories.

In the case of father/son, the clubs have had the good fortune that one of their players from a previous era has put one through the big sticks some 18 years previous.

Yeah, one all* get. The other all clubs pay for, but only 4 clubs get.



* - Yes, GWS & GC don't get FS yet, but I am open to *some* compensation for that.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Yeah, one all* get. The other all clubs pay for, but only 4 clubs get.



* - Yes, GWS & GC don't get FS yet, but I am open to *some* compensation for that.

What do Richmond do with their future fund allocation.

*- I've said to you before, read and find out and stop quoting your dad.

 

[telsor]

What do Richmond do with their future fund allocation.

*- I've said to you before, read and find out and stop quoting your dad.

We pay for things that the AFL has already bought you.

 

[robbieando]

He isn't trying to change the bidding system that has been introduced for all clubs, nor is he trying to get rid of the academies or their first right of access to players from them, Swans fans are over-reacting on this front. He isn't proposing a change to anything that is already in place. What he is doing is pointing out that giving 4 clubs access to the ability to trade their future draft picks could be open to abuse, see clubs trade away their futures and give a trading advantage that shouldn't be allowed.

Trading for future picks should only be introduced if its open to ALL clubs and with strict rules on how many picks you can trade in a certain time period. Also clubs wishing to bid on F/S and Academy players must have a minimum number of points.

This is a fair call from Newbold

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

We pay for things that the AFL has already bought you.

No. Like what? You pull this same cliche ridden bullshit in every single Swans related thread and to be honest, it's ******* boring. Every time you're challenged you come back with this rubbish. Now, go do some research (which doesn't mean ask your dad). Tell me what are the benefits paid for by Victorian clubs and, in particular, Richmond.

 

[Hawkk]

If the AFL decides to pull the Tasmanian safety blanket out from under them and when the inevitable slide comes, the Hawks will not be as financially secure as they are now, that is for sure. They may want to tread carefully.

Doubt it - we've got something in the vicinity of $32m in net assets ($52.4m total assets / $11.04m total liabilities) with the second largest revenue in the league ($68m)

I don't think we've ever traded whilst technically insolvent like others ( )

 

[Rushed_Behind]

Why can't your club just compete on the same footing as the other clubs? Same salary cap, same draft?

There should be a like multiplier. You my friend just received x100.

You can take the kid out of a pokies venue but you can't take the pokies out of the kid.

Also good luck getting an answer.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I've just read Emma Quayle's explanation. This is so far fetched as to not even be a story. The Swans aren't going to do what Newbold so fears because to do so give us no advantage at all. Is he saying that we'll trade out our first 2 picks, for players of the value we're banned from trading in anyway, then leave ourselves with a 2,000 point deficit to take into next year?

 

[telsor]

No. Like what? You pull this same cliche ridden bullshit in every single Swans related thread and to be honest, it's ******* boring. Every time you're challenged you come back with this rubbish. Now, go do some research (which doesn't mean ask your dad). Tell me what are the benefits paid for by Victorian clubs and, in particular, Richmond.

In particular Richmond...none...It's like saying what government spending is paid for by your individual taxes...the money if aggregated and then spent by the AFL.

The point is that the Northern clubs don't do much of the earning ( if you think Ch7 pays big bucks for being forced to show every NSW/QLD teams game on FTA for those awful ratings, you're kidding yourself ), but do more than their share of spending, both from helping the new clubs start up and from the development and promotion of the game up there.

You want specifics, then tell me how GWS, GC and/or Brisbane pay for the 'millions of dollars and thousands of hours' that go into the academies, and where the kids those academies recruit first started playing football.

The AFL (AKA the heartland clubs) pays for junior development, then pay for you to run academies, and at the end, you skim off the cream of the results.

 

[robbieando]

I've just read Emma Quayle's explanation. This is so far fetched as to not even be a story. The Swans aren't going to do what Newbold so fears because to do so give us no advantage at all. Is he saying that we'll trade out our first 2 picks, for players of the value we're banned from trading in anyway, then leave ourselves with a 2,000 point deficit to take into next year?

Think of it as if we were next year able to trade away our 2017 draft picks to meet our deficit, that's his concern - getting a sugar hit via trade this year and next year plus Mills/Dunkley. However though I would say as you rightly point out our trade ban restricts us from trading in anyone on a contract higher than 340k this year so who in this league would be available on a contract at that price worth giving up a 1st Round Pick?

The Giants on the other hand....

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

In particular Richmond...none...It's like saying what government spending is paid for by your individual taxes...the money if aggregated and then spent by the AFL.

The point is that the Northern clubs don't do much of the earning ( if you think Ch7 pays big bucks for being forced to show every NSW/QLD teams game on FTA for those awful ratings, you're kidding yourself ), but do more than their share of spending, both from helping the new clubs start up and from the development and promotion of the game up there.

You want specifics, then tell me how GWS, GC and/or Brisbane pay for the 'millions of dollars and thousands of hours' that go into the academies, and where the kids those academies recruit first started playing football.

The AFL (AKA the heartland clubs) pays for junior development, then pay for you to run academies, and at the end, you skim off the cream of the results.

But you've shifted the argument. You've used this argument against Sydney in the past now you're saying it's the other three.

Those Academies (and I'm not sure how they're funded) should be supported by the AFL. They are largely untapped markets which have greater growth potential than any other. It's basic commercial common sense.

The Academies more broadly should be supported for reasons I posted earlier which I won't repeat (but they're in the previous page). The Riverina I agree should be excised from the Academy zone. What do the "heartland clubs" pay for junior development? If you're talking the "future fund allocation" of which Sydney gets no more than other clubs I ask you again......what do Richmond do with their allocation?

 

[Kwality]

Couldn't agree more, Hawthorn are taxed like a Collingwood but are a looong way of a Collingwood fixture.

But this issue is more concerned with the AFL's relentless effort to turn our "competition" into a high-rating television show in Sydney.

So the Hawks FIXture the Tas games, the Pies give up Queens Birthday to Melbourne - what other games are included in the FIX you refer to hawker?

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

There should be a like multiplier. You my friend just received x100.

You can take the kid out of a pokies venue but you can't take the pokies out of the kid.

Also good luck getting an answer.

You know the answer academies can be abolished when they is a suitable amount of players coming from NSW/QLD.

Victorian clubs have a pathway to playing AFL football which is TAC cup, Academies for NSW/QLD attempt to bridge the gap and get players into AFL.

It's offtopic to this thread anyways.

 

[The King!]

Equalisation is a fresh new issue

 

[The King!]

You know the answer academies can be abolished when they is a suitable amount of players coming from NSW/QLD.

Victorian clubs have a pathway to playing AFL football which is TAC cup, Academies for NSW/QLD attempt to bridge the gap and get players into AFL.

It's offtopic to this thread anyways.

its never off topic don't be naive

 

[The King!]

gotta love how everyone talks like whatever they club did or does is some reflection them.

Hawks fans make money= their fans can smell their own farts....mmmm success

 

[Hawkk]

Isn't it?

You host 3 of the big 4 Vic clubs at the G, as well as rivals Sydney and Geelong (Easter Monday), and Melbourne.

Melbourne host 4 interstate teams in Gold Coast, Freo, Sydney, and Brisbane. Of the Vic clubs, we get the 3 lowest drawing in St Kilda, North, and Bulldogs.
Collingwood QB is the only team we host where we can realistically draw a decent a gate.

On top of that you play 4 Friday nights, and 1 Thursday night, hosting 2. We play 1 Friday in which we are the away team.
I know from a financial standpoint which I'd prefer.

How did our draw compare in 2012, 2013 and 2014

Has Melbourne ever drawn GWS, Gold Coast, Fremantle (T), Port Adelaide (T), Brisbane, Sydney (T), Adelaide, West Coast, North Melbourne (T), Geelong and Collingwood as home games?

Didn't think so...didn't even get any ASD funding to off set the FIXture either

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Why can't your club just compete on the same footing as the other clubs? Same salary cap, same draft?

Hi. This question has been answered many times. I don't think you find the answers convenient.

We would love to compete on the same salary cap. Unfortunately, in real terms, our salary cap has been reduced to about 85% of the rest of the competition. That is because the value of a dollar in Melbourne is the equivalent of about $0.85 in Inner Sydney. That is simply a statistical fact.

As to the Academies, unfortunately, NSW and Queensland don't have the same historical attachment to Australian football as Victoria. That places our clubs at a disadvantage vis a vis attracting and retaining players, sponsors and supporters. Now it has been determined by people higher than me when I was about 11 that my club would be shifted to Sydney. That was unfortunate, but your club was among those that voted for it.

Then they thought it would be clever to sell the franchise to a crook from Carlton. That failed.

Now, finally, they seem to have realised that organic growth in the Northern regions is the only way the Northern clubs will succeed (and by that I mean survive independently rather than collect flags). The Academies are the best idea so far in achieving that organic growth. For that organic growth to be realised, it is considered that the locally developed new talent should play with the local clubs to give the local people a sense of ownership of their local franchises.

Does that wind up giving us an advantage? Probably. But I guarantee it's nothing like the advantage afforded Geelong by their getting home games at Kardinia Park.