telsor
Hall of Famer
Do your taxes pay for your share of the AFL? Of the millions funneled into NSW & QLD?
Could interstate clubs sell games to the MCG?
- Thread starter Mick39
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Do your taxes pay for your share of the AFL? Of the millions funneled into NSW & QLD?
Seriously WTF are you on About? The WA government is paying for their stadium. Your parochialism is so nonsensical and misguided.[/
That's the trouble - when the AFL was formed it should not have been an extension of the VFL - it should have been a brand new competition and new teams formed in Victoria which were not part of the VFL. But we all know how the Vics like to think they are superior
Are you saying only the Victorian clubs are funding that? Don't all clubs contribute to the AFL nest egg?
- Jun 9, 2008
- 10,805
- 8,576
- AFL Club
- Carlton
ANSWER TO OP: No
AFL wouldn't allow it, they would prefer to continue propping up unprofitable teams in expansion areas and see the games played there. Financially, there's little to be gained by putting more footy into an already saturated market. It's the same reason as to why we will see an AFL team in north QLD or NZ before Tasmania.
AFL wouldn't allow it, they would prefer to continue propping up unprofitable teams in expansion areas and see the games played there. Financially, there's little to be gained by putting more footy into an already saturated market. It's the same reason as to why we will see an AFL team in north QLD or NZ before Tasmania.
- Moderator
- #530
I for one dont care what you're fed up with. Your pushing an argument with no historical validity based on an arbiitrary date with almost no meaning. When you dont like the argument, you play the man.
The AFL as it stands now is the top league in the country, it is an expansion of the same league from pre 1990 as attested in historical record. A simple rebranding in 1990 doesnt invalidate the 83 years the competition had existed to prior. Anything else is an attempt to rewrite history.
Cmon Kwality, the VFL was never ever a State League, it has always been a national league. I have been informed that enough times on BF that it just has to be true.
Go back as far as you like, it has always been a national comp.
Go back as far as you like, it has always been a national comp.
- Moderator
- #532
Troll all you like, but that speaks to the nature of the competition, not whether the competition was founded in 1990 or not. Yes, the nature of the competition has evolved over the years, but it is still the same competition - just expanded and evolved, it does not invalidate the previous years the competition existed for.
Through the thousands of posts on this subject Wookie other than the odd idiot everyone knows the VFL morphed into the AFL and it is one continuous competition.
What most debate is that Premierships won in the WAFL and the SANFL pre an expanded VFL were worth no more or no less than every flag one in the VFL.
For so many that simply is not acknowledged and it seems it just can't be true.
The fact that they can't even say the words "the VFL was once a State League comp only" is testament to that.
I just don't get what the big deal about it all is.
- Moderator
- #534
There seems to be quite a few people willing to say otherwise.
No one has ever said that premierships won in the SANFL and WAFL before the VFL went national are worth less than VFL premierships of the same time. Ive never seen a post from the Victorian side that has EVER said that. The SANFL and WAFL are however responsible for their own history - as they have been fiercely retaining their independence for over a century, they bear responsibility for that.
The AFL and VFL are and were the same competition, literally, so premierships won in the VFL count in AFL tallies for the sake of league history, if not continuity.
I dont think thats the issue at all, most know the VFL was once just in Victoria. The issue seems to be most people cant acknowledge the fact that the AFL was once just a state league comp that evolved into something else.
me either.
No - but a shedload of my clubs money is in equalisation.
Mate if you are trying to compare my clubs input into absolutely every thing in the afl compared to what it takes out - and vs that with a vic club.... You are barking up the wrong tree. From day dot we have stopped your badly run leage from going busted arse broke. You dont see the afl handing us coin for nothing.
- Moderator
- #536
No you really havent. The 4 million license fee helped, but it wasnt the be all and end all some folks like to pretend it is. for one, it was only half the money recieved - Paul cronin and his syndicate also coughed up 4 million for the Brisbane license. and then there was the $30 million tv deal with seven which really sealed the deal.
it certainly helps the WA sides that Subiaco was leased to the WAFL on peppercorn rent, enabling the WAFL to give a very good deal to the WA sides and massive stadium returns. Such luxuries arent possible in Victoria. Fix the stadium deals and the issue evens out somewhat.
I have never understood clubs signing up for such poor stadium deals. They sign up to it then never stop complaining about it. Why didn't the clubs that have these s**t stadium deals present a united front and say the deal doesn't work for us and until it does we will continue to play out of our own facility.
The rent at Subiaco is not peppercorn, 5 million per year is a lot of money and about what it should be I think.
How much do the clubs pay at docklands? Be interesting to know.
- Moderator
- #538
The AFL mandates where games are played, which is why the league is always involved in club deals even in WA and SA. You can sign a deal to play wherever you like, but the AFL will fixture the game wherever it chooses. Its why the MCG and Etihad rarely even bother negotiating with clubs any more.
The rent is what the clubs pay the WAFL though, not what the WAFL pay the WA Government. Its never been revealed what the clubs pay at Docklands. We do klnow that theres a world of difference in what they control at the stadiums and get revenue from - WA clubs get millions in signage, corporate and catering revenues that the AFL clubs at Etihad dont have any kind of access to, or a limited percentage per head which is defined by the standard admission price.
Cheers for the info
How the * are victorian stadium deals our problem?
If there was 4-6 vic clubs the stadium ceo's would be sucking your club presidents off while they were having a dump just to get to speak to them about maybe playing a game there from time to time.
Supply and demand.
As for the tv deal - no s**t - the vfl was on the abc - the addition of interstate teams got you/ us commercial tv with all the money that brings.
That was a case of the sum of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts - we couldn't have done it without you - and you couldn't have done it without us.
- Moderator
- #541
You joined their league. By choice I might add. You also took their money from the sale of Waverly Park. Didnt hear too many complaints about that.
Dont have to do anything when the market doesnt have a choice. The AFl signs a contract saying x amount of games will be played at the stadium - regardless of the club.
[quoteSupply and demand.[/quote]
Does not exist in Victoria where the market is artifically constrained by the AFL who controls the fixture, and initiated the two stadium policy in the 80s in conjunction with the Victorian Government, who also oversee the AFLs ticket pricing.
channel 7 initially offered less for the broadcast deal with the eagles included. West Coast was a part of it, but nowhere near the major reason why the tv deal was bigger.
True, So perhaps its time for you to stop acting like you saved the ******* world then.
Where did I say otherwise?
He's boasting about how WA clubs have more money than Vic clubs...They get a free stadium, we pay for ours (and give it to, among others, the WA clubs) while at the same time competing with the AFL for members (after they take the best seats).
Of course, being from SA, you wouldn't know anything about how stadium deals affect the bottom line of clubs, would you....
A free stadium?
What the actual f**k?
Never mind Vic clubs didn't cough up a cent towards the capital cost of either ground.
- Moderator
- #543
Rubbish. Victorian clubs and football supporters paid and pay their way at the stadiums.
Just who do you think paid for Waverly and in turn the 30 million laid down on the Doclands free hold (not to mention the money non victorian clubs recieved from that sale)? Just who do you think is paying the rent on this rent-to-own lease on Docklands?
AFL members cover the AFLs 7 million a year payment to the MCC - thats not the match day hire cost, thats the AFLs share of the Southern/Northern Stand redevelopment costs, as well as the money the AFL had to pay to compensate the MCC for the loss of finals revenue in order for those games to be moved out of the state as needed. Total AFL income at the stadium last year was nearly 9 million dollars, .
But no the Victorians dont cough up s**t right?
telsor
Hall of Famer
Really?
Let's see...up front costs paid for by sale of VFL park (paid for by Vics), and the debts are being paid for by Vic teams...sounds a lot like a mortgage to me. Do you think people who mortgage their home aren't buying/paying for it?
How much have/will you pay for Perth stadium?
telsor
Hall of Famer
Really? I hear a lot of talk about that, but the money from direct equalisation transfers is really pretty small.
If you're talking about the money the AFL pays out, I suggest you go check on who puts the money in in the first place? (hint, it's not coming from WA).
Care to back that myth up with any facts?
I know it makes people in the west feel good about themselves, but repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
BTW, you might want to look closer to home for leagues so badly run they went bankrupt.
telsor
Hall of Famer
telsor
Hall of Famer
OK, a little something for the non-vics who think they contribute as much as Victoria.
For your ground deal, you have a choice...Either $500K/game goes to the AFL (AKA docklands, where we pay for buy the stadium for them), or you can hand about a quarter of the bets seats at your ground over to the AFL, who will then compete with you for members (MCG).
For TV rights, you can have 'equal' access to premium timeslots, but you also get 'equal' access to having your games only shown on Foxtel (bet your sponsors will just love that).
Do both of those and you'll be near enough that we can discuss the other details. (feel free to raise any other big issues...but be prepared to show how it costs millions every year before it'd even make the agenda).
For your ground deal, you have a choice...Either $500K/game goes to the AFL (AKA docklands, where we pay for buy the stadium for them), or you can hand about a quarter of the bets seats at your ground over to the AFL, who will then compete with you for members (MCG).
For TV rights, you can have 'equal' access to premium timeslots, but you also get 'equal' access to having your games only shown on Foxtel (bet your sponsors will just love that).
Do both of those and you'll be near enough that we can discuss the other details. (feel free to raise any other big issues...but be prepared to show how it costs millions every year before it'd even make the agenda).
The reason we are on fta in wa is because *tonnes of people watch - prime time or shittime - doesnt matter - no excuses people rock up to the game and people watch on tv
The reason this happens is because we have a large fanbase - the reason we have a large fanbase is because there isnt too nany *in teams in one city - it also mean we have the political clout to get a good stadium without a s**t stadium deal
But having said that - we would still make money out of an etihad type deal - because we'd fill the place every week.
With all due respect Telsor the clubs chose the s**t stadium deal, they never even put up a fight for a better deal. Not as if any of the clubs were going to be thrown out. Bad business is bad business they all agreed we will have s**t stadium deals so the AFL own the stadium in 20 years. It was their choice. Did any of them ask how about we own the stadium in 50 years and every year we can mange our finances?
Victorian clubs have their stadium deals, we have ours in WA and other states have theirs.
Can I also ask why are memberships so cheap for Victorian clubs? Putting membership cost is the first thing they should do if they want more income. I think our membership cost is to excessive and clearly based on supply and demand but it brings extraordinary income for the club in the doors.
Similar threads
