Eddie's stinging "Equalisation" attack on Colin Carter

[MarkT2]

It says: "Provides for AFL Clubs to retain all of their club generated revenue."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-04/afl-statement-competitive-balance-policy

so you get your facts straight.

I know what the basis of calculation is. The comments were about the whinging by Carter and equating the tax to the profit of Collingwood and Geelong which is exactly what was done and exactly what the comment you originally quoted related to so my facts are 100% correct. The whole point is that Carter has an issue with Collingwood's tax relative to Collingwoods profit in comparrison to Geelongs.

Specifically Cater equated Collingwood's $500k tax to it's $5.2m profit and comparred it to Geelongs $300k tax and it's $1.2m profit. They are the facts.

 

[MarkT2]

As one of those old footy ads went; "I'd like to see that!"

On TV of course because you wouldn't get a ticket.

 

[Adam H]

How do you explain Collingwood and Essendon drawing 95k to the first Anzac Day game in 1995?

One off game on a Public Holiday why wouldnt you go?

 

[SuperSub17]

One off game on a Public Holiday why wouldnt you go?

So you would think if St Kilda and the Bulldogs played on Anzac Day next year, 95k would turn up? That's a one off game on a public holiday.

Your logic doesn't stand up

 

[Adam H]

So you would think if St Kilda and the Bulldogs played on Anzac Day next year, 95k would turn up? That's a one off game on a public holiday.

Your logic doesn't stand up

Its on a Saturday next year and plenty of local leagues are now playing on the day but Im tipping a large crowd.

 

[Sttew]

Eddie and Tony have much in common. Many Collingwood supporters love Eddie for the same reasons they hate Tony.

Ironically, Eddie is as left wing as they come, a true Labor man, but one who enjoys the good life of a Toorak mansion, etc.

 

[SuperSub17]

Its on a Saturday next year and plenty of local leagues are now playing on the day but Im tipping a large crowd.

Even though they could only get 62k to a prelim...

 

[Adam H]

Even though they could only get 62k to a prelim...

Like I said give the Saints or the WB maximum exposure for 20 years and see how much their crowd averages increase.

As an example our local league averages about 1000 through the gate this years ANZAC Day game had over 3000.

 

[Collingwoodity]

So you would think if St Kilda and the Bulldogs played on Anzac Day next year, 95k would turn up? That's a one off game on a public holiday.

Your logic doesn't stand up

Quelle suprise!

 

[Sttew]

Even though they could only get 62k to a prelim...

Crikey, you still going on about Anzac Day crowds if Collingwood didn't feature? Talk about diversionary tactics

 

[JackFlash]

It will be a fair dinkum miracle when the day comes that Eddie McGuire actually stops and has a think before putting his foot in his mouth again....

Eddie is heavily influenced by sports team owners in America who have this belief:
You have to be inflexible. You have to be stubborn. You have to be arrogant. You have to be selfish and self-absorbed. Kind of tunnel vision almost.
That's Eddie alright.

 

[Pessimistic]

So true.

Collingwood or eddie are each quite endearing.

Put them together and its the ugliest gig ever

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Ok so Collingwood have just sat back and let the success happen because they moved to the G and being an existing old club whcih should have the supporter base sounds like any multi million dollar business it just runs itself

Melbourne oldest club in the AFL play home games at the G so whats Melbourne's excuse?

That's not an answer to my question. I asked for examples of the hard work Collingwood is supposed to have done. Collingwood traditionally has a large supporter base due to success in the early days of the competition and moderate success throughout the last 50 years (even if not winning premierships still winning their fair share of H&A and making multiple GF's). This is different to Melbourne who didn't even make finals for 23 years (which coincided with a massive growth in the game due to the advent of TV), has only played in 2 GF's since 1964 and has had one of the worst periods in the clubs history over the last 7 years.

Collingwood is a big club for multiple reasons and good luck to them - what I want to know is what "hard work" has been done by the club over the last decade or so to create the club they are today? They have been consistently good on-field, they have lobbied the AFL to structure the fixture in a manner which significantly advantages Collingwood every year and they have a President with a massive media presence and connections which creates massive exposure for the club and it's sponsors. There's nothing wrong with this (well except for the unfair fixturing) but it doesn't point to "hard work". Collingwood supporters/Eddie complain when other clubs want to take money off them they have created through "hard work" all I want to see are some examples of this.

 

[Vankri]

That's not an answer to my question. I asked for examples of the hard work Collingwood is supposed to have done. Collingwood traditionally has a large supporter base due to success in the early days of the competition and moderate success throughout the last 50 years (even if not winning premierships still winning their fair share of H&A and making multiple GF's). This is different to Melbourne who didn't even make finals for 23 years (which coincided with a massive growth in the game due to the advent of TV), has only played in 2 GF's since 1964 and has had one of the worst periods in the clubs history over the last 7 years.

Collingwood is a big club for multiple reasons and good luck to them - what I want to know is what "hard work" has been done by the club over the last decade or so to create the club they are today? They have been consistently good on-field, they have lobbied the AFL to structure the fixture in a manner which significantly advantages Collingwood every year and they have a President with a massive media presence and connections which creates massive exposure for the club and it's sponsors. There's nothing wrong with this (well except for the unfair fixturing) but it doesn't point to "hard work". Collingwood supporters/Eddie complain when other clubs want to take money off them they have created through "hard work" all I want to see are some examples of this.

Do you realise that there is a difference between having a large supporter base and actually converting it into a profitable asset to the club?
Carlton, historically part of the (so-called) Big 4, is currently in debt and has been struggling in the membership department lately. Do you think their supporter base magically disappeared? No, they simply - for various reasons - failed to mobilise it and capitalise on it.

So there are two components of hard work:
- Off field: getting your finances right, investing in the right areas, boosting your membership department and getting it to operate smartly and most efficiently, developing marketing strategy and campaign, diversifying revenue streams, segmenting membership offers to fit the supporter base's needs, etc.
- On field: maintaining a competitive team and a winning culture and of course providing success and results. Getting your football department right IS hard work and part of what Collingwood has done well in the last decade.

People easily forget how terrible Collingwood's finances were 15 years ago, to accommodate their flawed arguments, and conveniently pretend that Collingwood's current healthy situation came out of nowhere.

The only correct argument struggling clubs can make against Collingwood regarding equalisation is that we benefit from the unfair fixture. That said, you'll find many Collingwood supporters advocating for a fair fixture too, for the integrity of the competition, and because playing countless 'blockbusters' and token grand finals every second week actually proves a disadvantage over the course of a season.

It should also be noted that due to the nature of the fixturing, all Victorian clubs try to lobby for home games against the biggest clubs, and we're the biggest of all. It's not Collingwood's fault, it's the AFL system's, so I fail to see how we should be over-taxed over it.

 

[MarkT2]

There is no unfair fixture advantage. It is not evenly distributed but it is a product of economics not equity. Any fixturing advantages any club has exists for the purpose of maximising revenue which is shared by all clubs. That fact does not go to fairness anyway. Yes Collingwood have a more advantageous fixture than some. There are clearly reasons for that but automatically translating advantage to "unfairness" is a product of the entitlement driven simple minded.

As for hard work, anyone that has been to a Collingwood Presidents Club function and the similar events of some of the other clubs would see why people who turn companies who don't even barrack for Collingwood have tables there. Eddie is the master networker and he takes the sponsors with him and works for them. I have seen this first hand.

2 simple comparisons are telling:
Melbourne and Collingwood were on a par 50 years ago. Clearly they are not now. There was no great advantage Collingwood had over Melbourne in 1964 when Melbourne beat them for their 12 flag but the two clubs have gone very different ways since.
In 1999, Eddie's first year as president, Collingwood finished, and lost $1m and was literally its knees. They asked the AFL for help which was refused (blocked chiefly by Carlton the way Eddie tells it). At that time Essendon and Carlton were a long way ahead of Collingwood and Hawthorn for that matter. Now Collingwood and Hawthorn, both coming from different starting points and both approaching it in different ways, are a long way ahead of Carlton and Essendon. The difference isn't luck it is quality administration - and hard work.

 

[Mateyman]

Of course it would - both clubs have 30-40k members, add in neutrals in MCC/AFL members, non-member supporters and GA neutrals, they'd get that much easily.

Gee, with all these people about to come to the footy, you would've thought they'd come to a preliminary final with their team wouldn't you?

 

[Mateyman]

Collingwood is a big club for multiple reasons and good luck to them - what I want to know is what "hard work" has been done by the club over the last decade or so to create the club they are today? They have been consistently good on-field, they have lobbied the AFL to structure the fixture in a manner which significantly advantages Collingwood every year and they have a President with a massive media presence and connections which creates massive exposure for the club and it's sponsors. There's nothing wrong with this (well except for the unfair fixturing) but it doesn't point to "hard work". Collingwood supporters/Eddie complain when other clubs want to take money off them they have created through "hard work" all I want to see are some examples of this.

If you are talking purely in a short term $$$ way, then yes they may have. However, Collingwood and Geelong have had the hardest fixtures in terms of teams played over the last 7 years or so (remember this being brought up in another thread), meaning those extra $$$ for blockbusters, have most likely cost us premiership points in some seasons.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Do you realise that there is a difference between having a large supporter base and actually converting it into a profitable asset to the club?
Carlton, historically part of the (so-called) Big 4, is currently in debt and has been struggling in the membership department lately. Do you think their supporter base magically disappeared? No, they simply - for various reasons - failed to mobilise it and capitalise on it.

So there are two components of hard work:
- Off field: getting your finances right, investing in the right areas, boosting your membership department and getting it to operate smartly and most efficiently, developing marketing strategy and campaign, diversifying revenue streams, segmenting membership offers to fit the supporter base's needs, etc.
- On field: maintaining a competitive team and a winning culture and of course providing success and results. Getting your football department right IS hard work and part of what Collingwood has done well in the last decade.

People easily forget how terrible Collingwood's finances were 15 years ago, to accommodate their flawed arguments, and conveniently pretend that Collingwood's current healthy situation came out of nowhere.

The only correct argument struggling clubs can make against Collingwood regarding equalisation is that we benefit from the unfair fixture. That said, you'll find many Collingwood supporters advocating for a fair fixture too, for the integrity of the competition, and because playing countless 'blockbusters' and token grand finals every second week actually proves a disadvantage over the course of a season.

It should also be noted that due to the nature of the fixturing, all Victorian clubs try to lobby for home games against the biggest clubs, and we're the biggest of all. It's not Collingwood's fault, it's the AFL system's, so I fail to see how we should be over-taxed over it.

Basically the difference between Collingwood and Carlton is Collingwood has been successful over the last 13 or so years while Carlton have been going through their worst period in their history. Yeah Collingwood's finances were terrible 15 years, coincidentally also following a number of years of poor performances. They begin making finals/GF's again and they begin converting supporters into $'s.

Your comments about "hard work" look great as some broad generalisations about how a club should operate but hasn't provided anything specific re: Collingwood.

The part about the fixture is correct on one hand regarding the uneven nature however to argue clubs request home games against Collingwood is a fallacy and the propaganda pushed by the AFL and Eddie to justify the uneven and unfair fixture. The AFL following lobbying by the big clubs and due to a false belief it will maximise crowds create an uneven fixture which benefits the big clubs - so they don't have to lodge requests as they already get benefits from the rigged fixture. The smaller clubs have to lodge requests just to get home games which in a fair competition they would get their fair share of anyway.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

If you are talking purely in a short term $$$ way, then yes they may have. However, Collingwood and Geelong have had the hardest fixtures in terms of teams played over the last 7 years or so (remember this being brought up in another thread), meaning those extra $$$ for blockbusters, have most likely cost us premiership points in some seasons.

It's not just short term dollars though as the exposure creates greater long term sponsorship opportunities and makes it easier to consolidate and expand their supporter base meaning they derive both a short and long term advantage from the fixturing. Remember this has been going on for about 20 years so this has resulted in an artificially lopsided competition.

 

[Mateyman]

It's not just short term dollars though as the exposure creates greater long term sponsorship opportunities and makes it easier to consolidate and expand their supporter base meaning they derive both a short and long term advantage from the fixturing. Remember this has been going on for about 20 years so this has resulted in an artificially lopsided competition.

Conversely, you could argue soft fixtures = more finals = success = $$$+exposure

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Conversely, you could argue soft fixtures = more finals = success = $$$+exposure

That doesn't make any sense, you're assuming bigger crowds only come to games against teams on top of the ladder - in recent years a home game against Fremantle would be a tough game and also a poor drawing game whereas a home game against Richmond, Essendon or Carlton would be an easier game in comparison and would also be far more financially advantageous.

 

[Topper Harley]

They should make Collingwood play a final down at Kardinia at the last moment, that would really put the wind up him.

Collingwood were the reason that final was played at KP.

 

[Mateyman]

That doesn't make any sense, you're assuming bigger crowds only come to games against teams on top of the ladder - in recent years a home game against Fremantle would be a tough game and also a poor drawing game whereas a home game against Richmond, Essendon or Carlton would be an easier game in comparison and would also be far more financially advantageous.

It's a generalisation, however I know that in the last 7 or so years Collingwood/Geelong/Hawthorn have had the toughest draws. In recent years, Collingwood vs Geelong or Hawthorn has been a blockbuster BECAUSE of ladder position. Also, if more money truly leads to greater success generally (as you would have to assume if you believe equalisation is important), you would expect that playing the "rich" teams would, in general, be harder.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

It's a generalisation, however I know that in the last 7 or so years Collingwood/Geelong/Hawthorn have had the toughest draws. In recent years, Collingwood vs Geelong or Hawthorn has been a blockbuster BECAUSE of ladder position. Also, if more money truly leads to greater success generally (as you would have to assume if you believe equalisation is important), you would expect that playing the "rich" teams would, in general, be harder.

Collingwood gets return games against Carlton and Essendon every single year, they certainly haven't been "hard" opponents over the last decade and would get bigger crowds compared to hosting interstate clubs or the smaller Vic clubs every year. Melbourne's fixture this year has 7 home games against non-Vic sides, and one each against North and the Dogs. Thats 9/11 home games that we will struggle to break even on let alone make any decent cash and thats not even considering when we play these games such as Mothers Day, Easter Sunday, Sunday twilight etc. We have only hosted Essendon and Carlton once each over the last 5 years!

Just look at Collingwoods home game last week - played late Sunday arvo, at Docklands against the Bulldogs - only got 28k to the game despite the Pies massive supporter base. That is the effect the fixture has on the smaller clubs almost every week.

 

[Vankri]

Basically the difference between Collingwood and Carlton is Collingwood has been successful over the last 13 or so years while Carlton have been going through their worst period in their history. Yeah Collingwood's finances were terrible 15 years, coincidentally also following a number of years of poor performances. They begin making finals/GF's again and they begin converting supporters into $'s.

Your comments about "hard work" look great as some broad generalisations about how a club should operate but hasn't provided anything specific re: Collingwood.

The part about the fixture is correct on one hand regarding the uneven nature however to argue clubs request home games against Collingwood is a fallacy and the propaganda pushed by the AFL and Eddie to justify the uneven and unfair fixture. The AFL following lobbying by the big clubs and due to a false belief it will maximise crowds create an uneven fixture which benefits the big clubs - so they don't have to lodge requests as they already get benefits from the rigged fixture. The smaller clubs have to lodge requests just to get home games which in a fair competition they would get their fair share of anyway.

So basically you have no argument.
Of course I can only speak broadly when it comes to what the non-football side of 'hard work' comprises, I don't work at the club. And they wouldn't be doing it well if it was all out in the public space.

Do you think CEOs, the entire football department, marketing, membership, sponsoring departments get paid to do nothing? Clearly that's where Collingwood and Eddie have done well. But you wouldn't be able to push your anti-Collingwood biased argument if you recognised it.