Expansion Expansion Clubs - 4 year health check

[Colonial]

Losses are fine IF you have a 3 post code - these lunatics don't care about footy nationally.

IMHO if you've been at it over 100 years & cant pull your weight, its rich to be running down rivals in development states, but its conventional thinking, group thinking, even elitism??

Meh, we are used to it.
Over 100 years old and can't get your act together and its "they must be saved. TRADITION!"
4 years old and growing and its "kill em off!"

 

[The_Wookie]

Meh, we are used to it.
Over 100 years old and can't get your act together and its "they must be saved. TRADITION!"
4 years old and growing and its "kill em off!"

And we're used to the complete obscuring of any argument with "what about the vics" from the usual GWS and WA/SA guys.

4 years old. And still a legitimate question as to whether it should have been established or not. It was neither an either/or question. The Victorian teams were staying regardless of GWS inclusion or not. People still argue over expansion policies from the 80s, so this isnt going to go away in a hurry. And like the 80s, its all about preserving traditional victorian clubs. Right. Even as millions are poured into saving first Sydney (three times!) and Brisbane (twice), then Port Adelaide and Adelaide, and now Brisbane again - at the same time tens of millions annually are setting up teams on the Gold Coast and GWS. (not to mention development funding not seen in the southern states in forever). But its all about saving Victorian teams and traditions.

With GWS. there are legitimate complaints about its setup. Its about the cost, and the fact that GWS is going to blow through its 200 million 5 year budget. Its about the draft concessions that no one else was ever given, the extra cap space, the academies. The total lack of demand for the team prior to its creation. There are many reasons not to like the way GWS has been set up.

 

[telsor]

And we're used to the complete obscuring of any argument with "what about the vics" from the usual GWS and WA/SA guys.

4 years old. And still a legitimate question as to whether it should have been established or not. It was neither an either/or question. The Victorian teams were staying regardless of GWS inclusion or not. People still argue over expansion policies from the 80s, so this isnt going to go away in a hurry. And like the 80s, its all about preserving traditional victorian clubs. Right. Even as millions are poured into saving first Sydney (three times!) and Brisbane (twice), then Port Adelaide and Adelaide, and now Brisbane again - at the same time tens of millions annually are setting up teams on the Gold Coast and GWS. (not to mention development funding not seen in the southern states in forever). But its all about saving Victorian teams and traditions.

With GWS. there are legitimate complaints about its setup. Its about the cost, and the fact that GWS is going to blow through its 200 million 5 year budget. Its about the draft concessions that no one else was ever given, the extra cap space, the academies. The total lack of demand for the team prior to its creation. There are many reasons not to like the way GWS has been set up.

Exactly...The supposedly selfish and self absorbed Vics who 'run the comp' have pumped hundreds of millions into other states. What other state's football establishment has made even the slightest effort to do anything similar? (WA/SA teams/owners having been too myopic to make any moves towards a national comp themselves initially are now focussed on extracting every cent from the national league to continue the life support for their local leagues to try and pretend they're relevant).


I have to wonder though, why did the Vic-centric AFL startup GC & GWS anyway, and then feed them more and more concessions? They don't help Vic, and if the money spent on them had gone instead on buying docklands, the Vic clubs would be financially well set...Doesn't make sense...Unless of course the AFL isn't controlled by Vic clubs and/or the Vic clubs are showing significantly more willingness to sacrifice for the good of others than everyone else combined....but of course, those arguments make sense, and thus don't fit the paradigm repeated ad-nauseum by the whingers.

 

[Gigantor]

And we're used to the complete obscuring of any argument with "what about the vics" from the usual GWS and WA/SA guys.

4 years old. And still a legitimate question as to whether it should have been established or not. It was neither an either/or question. The Victorian teams were staying regardless of GWS inclusion or not. People still argue over expansion policies from the 80s, so this isnt going to go away in a hurry. And like the 80s, its all about preserving traditional victorian clubs. Right. Even as millions are poured into saving first Sydney (three times!) and Brisbane (twice), then Port Adelaide and Adelaide, and now Brisbane again - at the same time tens of millions annually are setting up teams on the Gold Coast and GWS. (not to mention development funding not seen in the southern states in forever). But its all about saving Victorian teams and traditions.

With GWS. there are legitimate complaints about its setup. Its about the cost, and the fact that GWS is going to blow through its 200 million 5 year budget. Its about the draft concessions that no one else was ever given, the extra cap space, the academies. The total lack of demand for the team prior to its creation. There are many reasons not to like the way GWS has been set up.

As a football lover, you are genuinely complaining about our academy which is delivering real, tangible results?

If there is one thing which underscores why we need the Giants - it's our academy!

Not too long ago, there was a draft where no players came out of NSW or the ACT, now we have a situation where ALL of the Giants' players in the more recent draft came from the academy.

That's worth far, far more than a measly $6 million per annum the AFL is having to subsidise the Giants. That's cheap for what the game is getting back. That's before we even start factoring in the TV rights, having a game in Sydney every round of the season, doubling media interest, etc, etc.

 

[The_Wookie]

As a football lover, you are genuinely complaining about our academy which is delivering real, tangible results?

If there is one thing which underscores why we need the Giants - it's our academy!

Not too long ago, there was a draft where no players came out of NSW or the ACT, now we have a situation where ALL of the Giants' players in the more recent draft came from the academy.

That's worth far, far more than a measly $6 million per annum the AFL is having to subsidise the Giants. That's cheap for what the game is getting back. That's before we even start factoring in the TV rights, having a game in Sydney every round of the season, doubling media interest, etc, etc.

Im not saying these are my complaints, Im saying that people have genuine cause for complaints - of which academies is one of the smaller parts of the issue. My love of football doesnt interfere in my love of practical solutions.

GWS/Sydney and Brisbane/QLD shouldnt have an academy, AFL NSW/ACT and AFL Queensland should, and it should come out of the development funding for the states, not be run by the clubs themsevlves - and should be a system operating in all states. It would serve the exact same purpose without the perception that it favours any one club.

Its why the AFL funds development in queensland and nsw, it is not why the AFL spends 20 million a year on GWS.

 

[telsor]

As a football lover, you are genuinely complaining about our academy which is delivering real, tangible results?

If there is one thing which underscores why we need the Giants - it's our academy!

Why does your club need to gain the benefits though? After all, everyone else is paying for you to be a part of developing the game in the region, but when you actually do something, you demand all the benefits...

Not too long ago, there was a draft where no players came out of NSW or the ACT, now we have a situation where ALL of the Giants' players in the more recent draft came from the academy.

What, like Hopper, who spent the year playing in Ballarat? Yeah, I bet the Academy had a huge influence on him...Or Kennedy...from Wagga...Not like anyone has ever played AFL from there before (his 3 older brothers also play football, so your influence on him choosing to take up the game is negligible at best)...

That's worth far, far more than a measly $6 million per annum the AFL is having to subsidise the Giants. That's cheap for what the game is getting back. That's before we even start factoring in the TV rights, having a game in Sydney every round of the season, doubling media interest, etc, etc.

A measley $6m? and the rest!

Hell, even your base dividend is pretty much a gift, because the amount you add to the AFLs income (and thus, ability to pay a dividend) would be near zero.


That said, I don't care about the AFL throwing money at you, and any other OFF FIELD support they decide to provide in an attempt to grow the game up there. What grinds my gears is them artificially boosting you up with draft concessions (which is what the academy really is) and salary cap allowances (COLA-lite is still there after all) and thus making the competition unfair ON FIELD in order to help your club attract a bandwagon of support so they can claim it's a success.

 

[telsor]

GWS/Sydney and Brisbane/QLD shouldnt have an academy, AFL NSW/ACT and AFL Queensland should, and it should come out of the development funding for the states, not be run by the clubs themsevlves

Agree.

Not least because the clubs will, naturally, be looking for and focusing heavily of the dozen or so players each year who might make the grade and play AFL for them.

The focus should however be more heavily on numbers....If the state academies can get a few thousand people 'new' people a year playing the game, it'll have a bigger long term impact, but that's (naturally enough) of less interest to the clubs.

 

[Gigantor]

For starters, Victorian clubs have had the benefit of father-son selections denied most other clubs for so long (and arguably Geelong built a premiership team around cheap father-son selections, as they were at the time).

So we now have a rule which applies equally to the academies and father-sons, and obviously the Giants are unlikely to benefit from the latter for a couple of decades.

But the key point about academies, is the development of potential AFL players where there may have been none if there was no academy - the results are there - it's silly to now say it should be done another way when it is clearly working.

GWS have created a pathway for its zone, which is clearly working, adding to the quantum of prospective AFL players, and in doing so, it is achieving precisely the very thing it is designed to do - create new fans and players.

The pay-off to the AFL and the game as a whole for the remainder of this century is massive, priceless, invaluable - all for a measly $6 million per annum in subsidies (at the moment).

 

[The_Wookie]

For starters, Victorian clubs have had the benefit of father-son selections denied most other clubs for so long (and arguably Geelong built a premiership team around cheap father-son selections, as they were at the time)

Again with the what about Victoria shtick. Most clubs in a given year will never use a Father-Son pick. Unlike the Academy system. And if you dont believe me, look at the abomination that is the plast draft with the points system.

Utterly missed the issue with Academies. The AFl already funds development programs, the Academies are a natural fit for that. The AFL shouldnt be funding GWS to fund academies as well. (which is also why its not just a 6 million extra subsidy - the Swans arent spending anywhere near 6 million for the exact same program)

 

[telsor]

For starters, Victorian clubs have had the benefit of father-son selections denied most other clubs for so long (and arguably Geelong built a premiership team around cheap father-son selections, as they were at the time).

By Victorian clubs, you mean ALL CLUBS, right? True, the 2 new clubs wouldn't have any players who qualify, so I'd be OK with a concession of similar scale...but getting more/better players in one year than some clubs have had in history...not really the same thing.

So we now have a rule which applies equally to the academies and father-sons, and obviously the Giants are unlikely to benefit from the latter for a couple of decades.

OK, so if you get, maybe, one academy player eligable every 10 years or so, it'll be all fair and even...

But the key point about academies, is the development of potential AFL players where there may have been none if there was no academy - the results are there - it's silly to now say it should be done another way when it is clearly working.

GWS have created a pathway for its zone, which is clearly working, adding to the quantum of prospective AFL players, and in doing so, it is achieving precisely the very thing it is designed to do - create new fans and players.

and why do the clubs need to do that? Why not, as Wookie suggested, leave development in the hands of AFLNSW/ACT & AFLQLD so they can handle ALL development, at all levels through the state without corrupting the integrity of the competition?

The pay-off to the AFL and the game as a whole for the remainder of this century is massive, priceless, invaluable - all for a measly $6 million per annum in subsidies (at the moment).

Again with the 'measly $6m'....Your annual report last year referred to $20,161,867 in grant revenue from the AFL (and a loan of $750k from the AFL), and considering the extra revenue you bring to the AFL would be lucky to be the $161,867 (especially if you factor in the other assistance they give you), that's a 'measley' $20m in 2015 alone. Even if you did get the dividend (which you haven't earned), you're still looking at around double the '$6m' you keep quoting.

 

[Gigantor]

Again with the what about Victoria shtick. Most clubs in a given year will never use a Father-Son pick. Unlike the Academy system. And if you dont believe me, look at the abomination that is the plast draft with the points system.

Utterly missed the issue with Academies. The AFl already funds development programs, the Academies are a natural fit for that. The AFL shouldnt be funding GWS to fund academies as well. (which is also why its not just a 6 million extra subsidy - the Swans arent spending anywhere near 6 million for the exact same program)

It works on the same basis as father-son, and new clubs like the Giants and Suns don't have access to father-sons.

Who could ever have imagined at the start of the Giants that the key concern from footy fans would be the fact that the Giants were producing AFL players where none had previously existed!

That's precisely why the Giants were created!

And it's important that we retain as many of them as possible for the good of game development in NSW, but also because there is no go-home factor as exists when we get a player from Melbourne or Perth (as we note in recent news) - so what you see as an advantage merely serves to maintain a level playing field - the players we are not taking from Melbourne and Perth become available for the clubs from Melbourne and Perth.

 

[Gigantor]

For decades the footy community has expressed concern about NSW not producing enough AFL players, and there were periods where we'd go 4 or 5 years without seeing a single player coming out of either NSW or the ACT.

Now, within a period of some 3 years, we have the Giants being able to fill the whole of its draft quota from its academy - which is a massive win for footy. It benefits the whole footy community in so many different ways. Also, these are players additional to what would already have been there - it doesn't actually effect any other club - it boosts the total number of potential AFL players.

This is what it's all about!

 

[The_Wookie]

its also not how the draft was meant to work. and thats the issue.

 

[Kwality]

Im not saying these are my complaints, Im saying that people have genuine cause for complaints - of which academies is one of the smaller parts of the issue. My love of football doesnt interfere in my love of practical solutions.

GWS/Sydney and Brisbane/QLD shouldnt have an academy, AFL NSW/ACT and AFL Queensland should, and it should come out of the development funding for the states, not be run by the clubs themsevlves - and should be a system operating in all states. It would serve the exact same purpose without the perception that it favours any one club.

Its why the AFL funds development in queensland and nsw, it is not why the AFL spends 20 million a year on GWS.

 

[The_Wookie]

Wtf are you on about now?

 

[Gigantor]

Who are you directing the question at??

 

[Kwality]

Exactly...The supposedly selfish and self absorbed Vics who 'run the comp' have pumped hundreds of millions into other states. What other state's football establishment has made even the slightest effort to do anything similar? (WA/SA teams/owners having been too myopic to make any moves towards a national comp themselves initially are now focussed on extracting every cent from the national league to continue the life support for their local leagues to try and pretend they're relevant).


I have to wonder though, why did the Vic-centric AFL startup GC & GWS anyway, and then feed them more and more concessions? They don't help Vic, and if the money spent on them had gone instead on buying docklands, the Vic clubs would be financially well set...Doesn't make sense...Unless of course the AFL isn't controlled by Vic clubs and/or the Vic clubs are showing significantly more willingness to sacrifice for the good of others than everyone else combined....but of course, those arguments make sense, and thus don't fit the paradigm repeated ad-nauseum by the whingers.

Now you are keen to trot out this line
WA/SA teams/owners ..... are now focussed on extracting every cent from the national league to continue the life support for their local leagues to try and pretend they're relevant).
Where does the Vic equivalent come from, or is it some elitist sense of entitlement that stops you including Vic footy in the same class.

We all know the money the WA & SA AFL clubs pump into local footy but when it comes to the Melbourne based teams, , no doubt you'll be able to quote from your own clubs financials (?) or just trumpet meaningless generalisations based around your reserves team, making no contribution to Vic footy beyond that, pokies incoming regardless.

 

[The_Wookie]

Now you are keen to trot out this line
WA/SA teams/owners ..... are now focussed on extracting every cent from the national league to continue the life support for their local leagues to try and pretend they're relevant).
Where does the Vic equivalent come from, or is it some elitist sense of entitlement that stops you including Vic footy in the same class.

We all know the money the WA & SA AFL clubs pump into local footy but when it comes to the Melbourne based teams, , no doubt you'll be able to quote from your own clubs financials (?) or just trumpet meaningless generalisations based around your reserves team, making no contribution to Vic footy beyond that, pokies incoming regardless.

Doesnt have to quote club financials. The AFL takes a big share of revenues from both Docklands and the MCG (where despite the revenue to football being 69%, the clubs receive less than 40%, in addition the AFL undertakes its own membership program which actively competes with the clubs. Finally, the attendance bonuses for season attendances are paid to the league, not the clubs. The AFL in Victoria generates 10s of millions in revenue from all these. In effect, in the state of Victoria, the AFL acts like a club itself and takes revenues that in other states would go to the clubs and the state competitions.

As for meaningless generalisations around reserves teams - 10 Victorian clubs paying license fees into AFL Victoria totals almost 2 million a year - which is more than Adelaide and Port Adelaide have ever directly contributed in a single year to state football since their inception.

 

[Rob]

Doesnt have to quote club financials. The AFL takes a big share of revenues from both Docklands and the MCG (where despite the revenue to football being 69%, the clubs receive less than 40%, in addition the AFL undertakes its own membership program which actively competes with the clubs. Finally, the attendance bonuses for season attendances are paid to the league, not the clubs. The AFL in Victoria generates 10s of millions in revenue from all these. In effect, in the state of Victoria, the AFL acts like a club itself and takes revenues that in other states would go to the clubs and the state

As for meaningless generalisations around reserves teams - 10 Victorian clubs paying license fees into AFL Victoria totals almost 2 million a year - which is more than Adelaide and Port Adelaide have ever directly contributed in a single year to state football since their inception.

Doesn't that go towards running the league? It's not a gift.

 

[telsor]

Doesn't that go towards running the league? It's not a gift.

So Vic clubs pay for the running of both the AFL (AFL members, stadium deals) and VFL (licence fees), while WA & SA only pay for their own state leagues....damn those selfish Vics...

 

[Rob]

So Vic clubs pay for the running of both the AFL (AFL members, stadium deals) and VFL (licence fees), while WA & SA only pay for their own state leagues....damn those selfish Vics...

Pay for the running of it? They're entering teams in it! Who the f**k should be paying for it if not the actual participants?

 

[The_Wookie]

Doesn't that go towards running the league? It's not a gift.

How would you feel if the AFL was taking a share of the revenue from Subiaco/Burswood or Adelaide oval? or what that not be a gift but robbing the state leagues of their rightful income?

 

[The_Wookie]

Pay for the running of it? They're entering teams in it! Who the f**k should be paying for it if not the actual participants?

Victorian football is paying for itself. Period. Anyone who says otherwise needs to check their bias against reality.

 

[telsor]

Pay for the running of it? They're entering teams in it! Who the f**k should be paying for it if not the actual participants?

No problem there, just comparing to SA & WA where they also pay for the state league, but DON'T have the AFL taking a large slice of the pie for itself first.

 

[Rob]

How would you feel if the AFL was taking a share of the revenue from Subiaco/Burswood or Adelaide oval? or what that not be a gift but robbing the state leagues of their rightful income?

Maybe, but they also pay the rent there as well as guarantee finals, which partly subsidises the MCG. It's not a 1 way street.

Not that i'm in favour of AFL membership or the AFL getting involved in stadium deals anyway.