Extra Home Game For WA Teams

[Spook]

I dont subscribe to travel being the reason for extra games in SA & WA and its the Hawks that demonstrate the Melbournecentric view of some clubs/fans belong with lace up guernseys.

Why would my views be Melbourne centric if I am a 6th generation West Aussie and have lived in WA/Perth my whole life?

 

[Colonial]

aren't we taking about traveling?

So yes. You cant include your home games you choose to move. Its away games

 

[Spook]

Those 4 trips you choose to take from Melbourne to Launceston must be exhausting.

So you are saying that travel is not exhausting? Make up your mind, is it or isn't it?

 

[Spook]

So yes. You cant include your home games you choose to move. Its away games

Why not, What I am saying is that the travel burden cant be that bad for Hawthorn as we have done quite well since traveling 9 times a year.

 

[Spook]

No, the VFL was doing quite well, some of the clubs not so much, but the league was fine.

Don't forget, it was WA/SA clubs who were asking to join the VFL.

Mate, that is so very un-true. The VFL was broke and needed a cash injection. A meeting was called by John Elliot and held in southern Vic from memory and the expanded VFL idea was floated.

 

[telsor]

Shame you couldnt address the issue - yep, the other issues you raise are contentious.

The good of the game: when the game loses $ millions it currently has thru the Subi stadium management deal & pays it to some outside body (e.g the MCC), the infrastructure serviced by those lost $millions suffers & IF the 2nd tier is not to die, the junior development is severely compromised (the player pool numbers & quality is diminished), then the AFL will stump it up. Thats the good of the game I refer to.

http://www.wafootball.com.au/wafc/organisational-chart

Extra games are a negotiating tool available to Vic clubs currently, footy nationally will be the beneficiary IF both WA & SA get access to the same tool. Vic clubs take a leaf from the Hawks play book, it works apparently.

WA and SA teams should try and play games in other markets then in order to gain access to the same negotiating tool, rather than (once more) relying on Victoria to do the heavy lifting for you.

 

[Colonial]

WA and SA teams should try and play games in other markets then in order to gain access to the same negotiating tool, rather than (once more) relying on Victoria to do the heavy lifting for you.

Yeah. All those derbies must be hard on the finances and travel......

 

[telsor]

Mate, that is so very un-true. The VFL was broke and needed a cash injection. A meeting was called by John Elliot and held in southern Vic from memory and the expanded VFL idea was floated.

The VFL owned Waverley. It was doing fine.

The Elliot meeting was about breaking off to form a 'superleague', and gained little interest, meanwhile, as is documented, WA & SA clubs were asking to join the VFL.

One of the 'fixes' for the VFL financial issues was to stop paying transfer fees, which would have crippled WA/SA.

 

[telsor]

Yeah. All those derbies must be hard on the finances and travel......

All those home ground advantages must be hell on the win loss record.

 

[Colonial]

All those home ground advantages must be hell on the win loss record.

In the professional world home ground advantage means jack. Isnt that what you vics say constantly regarding having a home gf every year?

 

[telsor]

In the professional world home ground advantage means jack. Isnt that what you vics say constantly regarding having a home gf every year?

Yeah, but if we made less money, who would fund you?

 

[Colonial]

Yeah, but if we made less money, who would fund you?

Our club is doing fine (maybe check the payments to each of the clubs in the afl report). Or are you talking grassroots?

 

[Colonial]

Are you serious? The AFL is funding GWS mate, surely you don't argue that point

The Giants’ annual report revealed the funds it received from the AFL, which will total about $85 million from 2010 to 2016. Other AFL clubs receive about $7 million less than the Giants from the AFL annually
Financial review

yes they are. But;
Maybe read their end of year report. In 2013 we got 10 mill. No different to anyone else. Will i take the word of the report or a copy paste job from yourself of a newspaper article.

 

[Colonial]

WTF, no different??? Honestly mate read the link.... "Other AFL clubs receive about $7 million less than the Giants from the AFL annually"

2013 PAYMENTS TO CLUBS
CLUB BASE CLUB FUTURE FUND OTHER TOTAL
Adelaide 7,196,244 1,000,000 2,156,095 10,352,339
Brisbane Lions 7,196,244 2,994,000 1,067,155 11,257,399
Carlton 7,196,244 1,000,000 3,313,913 11,510,157
Collingwood 7,196,244 1,275,000 3,585,298 12,056,542
Essendon 7,196,244 3,325,000 2,603,589 13,124,833
Fremantle 7,196,244 600,000 2,558,717 10,354,961
Geelong Cats 7,196,244 1,137,500 3,170,480 11,504,224
Gold Coast Suns 7,196,244 500,000 2,078,942 9,775,186
GWS Giants 7,196,244 1,734,781 1,808,586 10,739,611
Hawthorn 7,196,244 575,000 4,094,550 11,865,794
Melbourne 7,196,244 3,885,000 999,547 12,080,791
North Melbourne 7,196,244 3,045,000 2,535,812 12,777,056
Port Adelaide 7,196,244 2,450,000 2,440,456 12,086,700
Richmond 7,196,244 2,475,000 3,208,223 12,879,467
St Kilda 7,196,244 2,370,000 3,219,521 12,785,765
Sydney Swans 7,196,244 1,945,609 2,181,083 11,322,936
West Coast Eagles 7,196,244 575,000 1,700,521 9,471,765
Western Bulldogs 7,196,244 2,995,000 3,015,218 13,206,462
Total 129,532,392 33,881,890 45,737,707 209,151,990

 

[Colonial]

OMG.... This is the club Payments.... Please include the 'Expansion Payments' as well mate

And they are listed where exactly?
These are the only payments listed as being paid to the club in 2013.

are you talking about the new markets payments? If so it doesnt say anything about it going to the club itself. Probably going to grassroots all over the country

And gotten way off topic. Delete if need be mods

 

[Spook]

And they are listed where exactly?
These are the only payments listed as being paid to the club in 2013.

As per the Financial review article they were "lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission." is that good enough?

and
You can find them on page 124 of the AFL annual report http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/AFL Annual Report 2012_web.pdf

 

[Kwality]

I am a West Aussie as well so for obvious reasons I would like more games here but it doesn't make sense though. I have heard it all now a team saying they should have more home games than other teams! C'mon really!!!!

The AFL schedule games wherever for whatever reason & the concept is, IMHO, only relevant to clubs earning ability, e.g clubs play home & away games on the same oval, Geelong plays home games at Geelong & in Melbourne, the Hwaks play home games in Melbourne & Tassie, as do North - your view of a home game being played in the home town appears out dated Spook, yes/no?
Richmond play home games out of Melbourne when financially convenient, as do the Saints & Melbourne.
Members rights dont suffer as a result, although it can be suggested some clubs are able to offer 17/18 memberships 7 others cant, again rejecting the old days of home games.

The reason I advocate more games in WA & SA is that demand for footy exceeds supply. Its a win/win for footy in WA & SA, and footy fans in Melbourne still wont be missing out on home games in the sense you view see home games Spook. That extra games in both Adelaide & Perth can be used as a bargaining tool with stadium mangement issues is a bonus for the game nationally, relocating games that are subsidised by the AFL to locations where the games plat their way.

 

[The_Wookie]

The responsibility of the AFL is to the game , the game nationally. When it uses its discretionary powers it needs act in the best interests of the game & explain it to its constituency, not on the whim of vested interests or the loudest mouth - an example of the latter is Eddies call on academies, where his call should receive no more attention than any other stakeholder. (No I'm not anti Eddie but on this issue he is just one of 18 presidents cheering for his club)

Eddie is outspoken sure. You can do that when you are all over tv and radio, and your club beats everyone else for members, and is just behind West Coast for membership without completely fleecing its membership dry of funds.

Now the extra game issue, are you taking some perverse pleasure from the game going backwards OR just WA (thats the way it looks) - rip $millions out of the game in WA & the AFL will have to cover it.
The levelled playing field referred to is the stuff up by football in Vic in negotiating stadium deals.

The leveled playing field is coming from the fact that the "peppercorn rent" enjoyed by the WAFL that in part enables the present financial strength of both it and its clubs, is about to be faced with a commercial reality. Yes, it would have been nice if the state had government had essentially paid off VFL debt and gifted it a stadium back in the 80s, but apparently Victorians didnt really care for government bailouts and handouts that much.

IF extra games were offered to Adelaide Oval through the clubs, not the SANFL, they might have a negotiating tool to resolve the current financial stand off & the game would be the winner. Under no circumstances should the AFL use extra games in Adelaide as a tool, they are compromised & have made no progress despite spin to the contrary.

WA clubs are just as beholden to handouts from the AFL clubs and AFL matches (via the WAFC) as any SANFL club.

So WA can benefit, but not SA from this extra games crap? [/quote]

In summary Wookie, your view on this issue is through rose coloured glasses ...

Im summary, this is your usual anti victorian - and apparently now, anti SA - rubbish.

 

[Kwality]

The responsibility ...
Now the extra game issue, are you taking some perverse pleasure from the game going backwards OR just WA (thats the way it looks) - rip $millions out of the game in WA & the AFL will have to cover it.
The levelled playing field referred to is the stuff up by football in Vic in negotiating stadium deals.
IF extra games were offered to Adelaide Oval through the clubs, not the SANFL, they might have a negotiating tool to resolve the current financial stand off & the game would be the winner. Under no circumstances should the AFL use extra games in Adelaide as a tool, they are compromised & have made no progress despite spin to the contrary.
...

WA & SA should be allocated extra games Wookie.

PS the Subi deal is with the WAFC not the WAFL.

 

[Spook]

The AFL schedule games wherever for whatever reason & the concept is, IMHO, only relevant to clubs earning ability, e.g clubs play home & away games on the same oval, Geelong plays home games at Geelong & in Melbourne, the Hwaks play home games in Melbourne & Tassie, as do North - your view of a home game being played in the home town appears out dated Spook, yes/no?
Richmond play home games out of Melbourne when financially convenient, as do the Saints & Melbourne.
Members rights dont suffer as a result, although it can be suggested some clubs are able to offer 17/18 memberships 7 others cant, again rejecting the old days of home games.

The reason I advocate more games in WA & SA is that demand for footy exceeds supply. Its a win/win for footy in WA & SA, and footy fans in Melbourne still wont be missing out on home games in the sense you view see home games Spook.

As long as clubs choose to play there home games 'away' no problems, but they don't choose to play in WA

 

[Scotland]

So you are saying that travel is not exhausting? Make up your mind, is it or isn't it?

You choose to play 4 home games in Tasmania. Don't want that travel then don't play there.

10 trips from Perth to SA/Vic/NSW/Qld/ACT/Tas is not the same as a few trips from Melbourne to Launceston.

If Hawthorn had to fly to Perth twice every year while other clubs did not they would be rightly filthy. Clubs hate the cross country trip. Try doing it 10 times a year.

 

[W.C. Fry]

As long as clubs choose to play there home games 'away' no problems, but they don't choose to play in WA

Actually North Melbourne wanted to but was not allowed by the AFL.

 

[Scotland]

As long as clubs choose to play there home games 'away' no problems, but they don't choose to play in WA

West Coast and Fremantle are the only clubs the AFL permits to play home games in WA.

 

[Kwality]

As long as clubs choose to play there home games 'away' no problems, but they don't choose to play in WA

Yep thats as it was, BUT the AFL schedule games these days & clearly I'm suggesting the benefits of playing games in WA & SA exceed the dislocation to club members in Melbourne, given many clubs play away from the old style concept of a home ground, the Hawks being the most successful moving from the olden' days, leaders on & off field. Be honest there are Victorians want to keep anything that favours their clubs, regardless of the good of the game.

 

[telsor]

WHAT A LOAD OF BULLSHIT.
Seriously trying to rewrite history, get your facts right, watch the formation of west coast doco.
Its on youtube you may learn a thing or two.

Which facts are you unclear on?

1980 East Perth applied to join the VFL, gets knocked back.
1981 SANFL approves an join team bid to join the VFL, gets knocked back.
1983 WAFL applies for financial aid to the state government.

Which league was broke again?

http://www.worldofwookie.com/aflbusiness/?page_id=497