Capping Football Department Spending - Good or Bad?

[LordLucifer]

I'm not convinced that I'll ever see my Doggies win the flag, and my son may not either....

And this is one of the main reasons that there needs to be some mergers of Melbourne-based clubs as well as a completely even draw.

 

[TedDougChris]

I don't think too many will disagree with you but the current argument is about revenue sharing and hence my response.

Understand that, just trying to highlight I'm not necessarily agreeing with the revenue sharing, just fine tuning the ability of poorer clubs to get access to more money. My major focus with regards to equalisation would be to have every club play every other club an equal number of times, both home and away over a predetermined period - with guaranteed even TV exposure in the H&A rounds.

 

[TedDougChris]

And this is one of the main reasons that there needs to be some mergers of Melbourne-based clubs as well as a completely even draw.

As long as we start with clubs most recently punished by the AFL for governance relating to - drug breaches, salary cap cheating and tanking - I'm all for this.....

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I'd like to see the statistics on footy department spending each year and the on-field results. Did Geelong significantly ramp up its spending in 2007, or did they just fail to see a decent ROI in 2006? And at what point did they go from 'in danger of extinction' to 'one of the biggest spending footy departments in the game'? Pretty ballsy move, if that's how it happened. Hawthorn came from relative obscurity in the early-mid 00s to become a powerhouse again, St Kilda did everything short of winning the premiership in 2009/10 (better conversion in 2009 and a better bounce in 2010 would have resulted in perhaps the most dramatic rewriting of a club's history ever...I think we can safely say that those grand finals had nothing to do with footy department spending). The Bulldogs were good enough in 2009 and just came up short. So, I've got two questions:

1. When has the concept that the biggest spending footy departments are pretty much going to be the teams that are competing in September every year, come into play?
2. What was the expenditure of clubs like the Bulldogs and St Kilda in the late 00s, relative to the other clubs and what was the expenditure of relatively new off-field 'power clubs' like Geelong and Hawthorn in their first premiership years in modern times? Because, to me, it seems like those teams had some initial success, which generated $$, which allowed those clubs to put back in to their footy departments, which gave them the opportunity to enjoy sustained success, alongside the traditional big boys.

 

[Kwality]

Why do they AFL wanna try all this s**t to make everyone equal when the obvious answer is to make the fixture equal?

What would that cost the comp Q - you do admit it will cost?

 

[PieNSauce]

Understand that, just trying to highlight I'm not necessarily agreeing with the revenue sharing, just fine tuning the ability of poorer clubs to get access to more money. My major focus with regards to equalisation would be to have every club play every other club an equal number of times, both home and away over a predetermined period - with guaranteed even TV exposure in the H&A rounds.

We'll have to agree to agree then!

 

[TedDougChris]

I'd like to see the statistics on footy department spending each year and the on-field results. Did Geelong significantly ramp up its spending in 2007, or did they just fail to see a decent ROI in 2006? And at what point did they go from 'in danger of extinction' to 'one of the biggest spending footy departments in the game'? Pretty ballsy move, if that's how it happened. Hawthorn came from relative obscurity in the early-mid 00s to become a powerhouse again, St Kilda did everything short of winning the premiership in 2009/10 (better conversion in 2009 and a better bounce in 2010 would have resulted in perhaps the most dramatic rewriting of a club's history ever...I think we can safely say that those grand finals had nothing to do with footy department spending). The Bulldogs were good enough in 2009 and just came up short. So, I've got two questions:

1. When has the concept that the biggest spending footy departments are pretty much going to be the teams that are competing in September every year, come into play?
2. What was the expenditure of clubs like the Bulldogs and St Kilda in the late 00s, relative to the other clubs and what was the expenditure of relatively new off-field 'power clubs' like Geelong and Hawthorn in their first premiership years in modern times? Because, to me, it seems like those teams had some initial success, which generated $$, which allowed those clubs to put back in to their footy departments, which gave them the opportunity to enjoy sustained success, alongside the traditional big boys.

Good questions. I'd have to do a bit of research to try and find the links, but I can recall that there was an article (in the Age, a few years back I think) suggesting that the of the Top 8 spending sides, only two were not in the 8 - and they were 9th and 10th. The two outliers (at the time) were the Saints and Dogs - who, while close - didn't ultimately salute.

This was fairly consistent with the previous few years.

I understand the references to the Hawks and Cats - as both struggled on and off-field in the early 2000's, but it's fairly well acknowledged the Cats make a lot of money from their recent success and the stadium deal they have - contrast with the Dogs and Saints at Etihad. So your current capacity to spend is much higher than ours (for example). But I take your point, good recruitment and player development will give you the opportunity to succeed. How you re-invest that benefit back into the list is really important.

If you look at the recent winners:

Swans, WCE, Geelong, Hawks, Geelong, Pies, Geelong, Swans, Hawks. Hmm, not a minnow or non-AFL propped up team amongst..... If you go back even further. Essendon, Brisbane, Brisbane, Brisbane, Port - finally, we get a smaller club or non-AFL propped up team there.... That's what, one in 14 years.... That's a significant trend to me...

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I understand the references to the Hawks and Cats - as both struggled on and off-field in the early 2000's, but it's fairly well acknowledged the Cats make a lot of money from their recent success and the stadium deal they have - contrast with the Dogs and Saints at Etihad. So your current capacity to spend is much higher than ours (for example). But I take your point, good recruitment and player development will give you the opportunity to succeed. How you re-invest that benefit back into the list is really important.

Very true. Geelong may never come close to the big Melbourne clubs in the membership dick-measuring contest, but it's pretty apparent that we have access to a golden goose with the Kardinia Park set-up...a unique leg-up among Victorian clubs (and perhaps all clubs...not sure how the interstate clubs go with regards to getting revenue from match day food & bev and the like). That's why equalisation is an important issue and why I'm pretty proud that our CEO is one of its main advocates. Brian Cook's statements on the issue clearly come from a good of the game perspective and (in the short-term at least) he can't be accused of being motivated by self-interest, since equalisation is only likely to hurt Geelong over the next few years.

 

[TedDougChris]

Very true. Geelong may never come close to the big Melbourne clubs in the membership dick-measuring contest, but it's pretty apparent that we have access to a golden goose with the Kardinia Park set-up...a unique leg-up among Victorian clubs (and perhaps all clubs...not sure how the interstate clubs go with regards to getting revenue from match day food & bev and the like). That's why equalisation is an important issue and why I'm pretty proud that our CEO is one of its main advocates. Brian Cook's statements of the issue clearly come from a good of the game perspective and (in the short-term at least) he can't be accused of being motivated by self-interest, since equalisation is only likely to hurt Geelong over the next few years.

Both you and the Hawks have spent time and effort to get your s**t together and have benefit massively from this. And I agree with your sentiments re: Cook.

 

[sir_jaycee]

Merge the following clubs , no ifs or buts

St Kilda Merges with Melbourne
Bulldogs Merge with Geelong
North Merges with Cartlon

Therefore you have the following 15 teams

Coll
Freo
GWS
SYD
Gold
Rich
Northern Blues
Port
Western Cats
Adelaide
Essendon
Hawks
Lions
Melbourne Saints ( lol )
Westcoast

Currently there is 23 rounds , with the new format there will be 30 rounds.
Each round will have a bye , if my numbers are correct , each team will have 2 byes .
The extra weeks required for the season can be fixed by removing the Nab cup and having a top 6 instead of a top 8.
Increase the squad sizes to allow for player rotations due to the extra games.

Simple Solution that requires no compromise , the perfect person to do this will be Jeff Kennett.
Each team plays each other twice.

I firmly believe the above solution will fix a lot of problems with the AFL moving forward.

 

[jim boy]

I was against it initially, but I am warming to it.

For starters, don't equate innovation with money. Innovation is ideas, and they usually come pretty cheap.

Another fallacy being banded around is the that merchandise sales will be used to fund other clubs. Well no it wont, clubs can still spend money on things like improving facilities or cheaper merchandise.

This cap actually rewards well-run clubs and penalises badly run clubs. If a club wastes money, they can't just spend there way out of a hole.

The current system accentuates club inequalisation. Big clubs now spend more, achieve better results and therefore attract more supporters who cash means the club can spend more and achieve even better results and so on. These clubs are getting bigger and better not because they are well run, they are getting bigger because the gravitational mass of their own supporter base is pulling in more.

A competition with a few teams dominating year in year out is not sustainable for AFL. It is sustainable for some competitions, like EPL because there is so much more to play for - competation in Europe, avoiding relegation, achieving promotion, a semi-meaningful cup competition. In AFL you can usually predict from which group of 6 teams the premier is going to come from six weeks into the season.

Also the AFLPA will eventually revolt if equalisation isn't maintained. PLayers have a right to a meaningful career and their career can be destroyed simply because they have been drafted to a team that everyone knows will never attain success.

 

[Smoocher]

Don't cap it. Then in 10 years time we could simply have 5 or 6 powerful clubs playing each other 8 times a year. BIG YAWN FEST. An even competition is a good competition. Make it boring and watch supports drop off.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

And this is one of the main reasons that there needs to be some mergers of Melbourne-based clubs as well as a completely even draw.

Carlton Kangaroos?

 

[Bluelegs]

Just out of interest what are the innovations that have been achieved in the past five or so years through unrestricted football spending?

Not long ago Essendon were stating their case against an off-field tax http://www.afl.com.au/news/2012-12-20/evans

 

[erbenz]

I'm in favour of equalisation, even if my club stands to be pegged back of its advantages because of it.

The NFL's model is studied for a reason, and even the NBA has a reasonable cycle of up and down.

Tweaking the fixture will go some way to correcting the problem, as would a diversification of certain clubs into different markets, but at the same time it's clear the clubs that would be financially served through an embrace of those different territories aren't keen to do it so they shouldn't be forced.

The only concern is a) - Handouts - Which is only a problem because of there seems to be this idea that on-field competitiveness needs to extend to the boardroom/off-field domain. Without the people you compete against their wouldn't be a competition so it stands to reason that a more community minded approach would actually strengthen those on-field rivalries and the AFL's branding by generating better matches.

b) Restriction of Innovation - This is bullshit. The tethering of innovation to finance is business school bluster at best and has no basis in reality. Capping a spend doesn't mean you can't invest in creative and novel ways of doing things, it just means you need to actually, work out if it's right for your football club and has results. And truth be told, this sort of 'innovative' thinking led to the supplements scandal - A cap on spending cuts down the risk of wasted money on ethically grey areas of the game.

 

[Bluelegs]

Carlton Kangaroos?

"No, no, no, not MY club. I meant your clubs."

 

[TedDougChris]

Just out of interest what are the innovations that have been achieved in the past five or so years through unrestricted football spending?

Dank - although not sure if anyone is stupid enough to repeat it...

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I only agree with a "luxury tax" on FD spending in the current context however ultimately the AFL needs to address the fixture as one of the key elements of inequality in the competition.

They have the Salary Cap and Draft as pillars of equality in the competition - the draw needs to be included with these as an uncompromising pillar of equality in the competition.

 

[Bluelegs]

Merge the following clubs , no ifs or buts

St Kilda Merges with Melbourne
Bulldogs Merge with Geelong
North Merges with Cartlon

Therefore you have the following 15 teams

Coll
Freo
GWS
SYD
Gold
Rich
Northern Blues
Port
Western Cats
Adelaide
Essendon
Hawks
Lions
Melbourne Saints ( lol )
Westcoast

Currently there is 23 rounds , with the new format there will be 30 rounds.
Each round will have a bye , if my numbers are correct , each team will have 2 byes .
The extra weeks required for the season can be fixed by removing the Nab cup and having a top 6 instead of a top 8.
Increase the squad sizes to allow for player rotations due to the extra games.

Simple Solution that requires no compromise , the perfect person to do this will be Jeff Kennett.
Each team plays each other twice.

I firmly believe the above solution will fix a lot of problems with the AFL moving forward.

Sounds terrible even discounting the mergers. 30 rounds are you kidding? The season is too long as it is.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Sounds terrible even discounting the mergers. 30 rounds are you kidding? The season is too long as it is.

Dude has some serious issues - frst of all why the hell would Geelong merge with the Dogs?

 

[TedDougChris]

Dude has some serious issues - frst of all why the hell would Geelong merge with the Dogs?

Anyone using the phrase 'moving forward' in a post should be disregarded immediately.... Oh s**t......

 

[Checkside35]

Can someone outline why the Bulldogs have not capitalised on what should be a stronghold out in the west?
Socioeconomic variables will need some explaining.

 

[Quivorir]

What would that cost the comp Q - you do admit it will cost?

Initially yes. But when clubs get more exposure, they get more money assuming the perform well from members signing up. They get more money eliminating the need for the AFL to give handouts to prop the clubs up.

 

[Seethus]

Immigration, they don't have the old school

Can someone outline why the Bulldogs have not capitalised on what should be a stronghold out in the west?
Socioeconomic variables will need some explaining.

aussie

 

[thejester]

I'd like to see the statistics on footy department spending each year and the on-field results. Did Geelong significantly ramp up its spending in 2007, or did they just fail to see a decent ROI in 2006? And at what point did they go from 'in danger of extinction' to 'one of the biggest spending footy departments in the game'? Pretty ballsy move, if that's how it happened.

Geelong had one of the highest FD spends in 2007, IIRC - although that could have been the product of the 2006 review (hiring Balme, new fitness staff). We launched the academy system a month after the flag as well off memory, which is indicative that regardless of on-field success the administration was planning for a long-term increase in FD spend.