Geelong and equalisation in their own words - BF News

[Chief]

http://www.bigfootynews.com/2013/02/geelong-and-equalisation-in-their-own-words/


Geelong and equalisation in their own words

Geelong did a strange thing in the footy world today. They were honest.

While the AFL and Melbourne continued to spin around the “not tanking but fined and suspended” debacle, and Essendon briefed journos that ASADA turning up to tell players there was a loophole they might yet squeeze through as a “good thing”, Geelong addressed one of the most important issues in the game, that of the growing inequality between rich and poor clubs and how league addresses it, head on.

And they did it publicly.

Full article:
http://www.bigfootynews.com/2013/02/geelong-and-equalisation-in-their-own-words/

 

[Books]

Great article.
Good on Geelong. This is honest, transparent and not self-seeking.
Can we get these guys to run the AFL?

 

[Black Diamond]

Great article by JJ and very well done by Geelong. This is my favourite part:

More revenue isn't the solution
Discussions about equalisation are often distracted by suggestions that the solution is to find more revenue. But this isn't the answer. In 1975, the average club revenue was around $300K. By 1985, the average was $3 million. Today, it is $42 million. The revenue growth has been huge and far in excess of inflation – and yet the proportion of clubs in financial trouble stays fairly constant. So, more revenue isn't the solution to this problem. The issue is the distribution of the revenue.

Rich clubs benefit more from revenue raising ideas than the poor clubs because they can 'monetize' any idea better – due to having many more supporters. Thus, suggestions that the key is to find new revenue sources usually make the 'gap' problem worse. (Of course, increasing revenue is important for other reasons but it increases inequality between clubs)

http://www.geelongcats.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/GeelongCats/Club HQ/GFC Equalisation for Web Feb 2013.pdf

 

[Pessimistic]

Last post indicates fans are being fleeced more today for an arguably inferior product

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Rich clubs benefit more from revenue raising ideas than the poor clubs because they can 'monetize' any idea better – due to having many more supporters. Thus, suggestions that the key is to find new revenue sources usually make the 'gap' problem worse. (Of course, increasing revenue is important for other reasons but it increases inequality between clubs)

The financial gap between clubs is driven by the revenue raised by the richest teams. They set the cost benchmarks and smaller clubs go broke trying to keep up.

It follows that the only solution is to reduce the spending capacity of the richest teams and transfer some of that capacity to the poorest teams. Current policies do this pretty well (eg revenue sharing) but it is a constant issue and it appears that some more 'tweaking' is needed.One suggestion in the AFL paper is worth considering. If variable pricing is introduced to selected 'blockbuster' games and the additional revenues shared with other teams and, in particular, allocated to smaller teams, the equalisation objectives would be met.

This is something I never thought I would see considering the Costa administrations views towards the smaller clubs only a few years ago.

Bravo Geelong.

 

[CF]

Brian Cook is Vlad's successor IMHO.

 

[Pessimistic]

Youd hope the 'geelong document' is a watershed in afl strategy.

But on this point:

There is little evidence that the relative size of supporter bases has moved much between clubs over the last 50 years. A few clubs may have lost a little ground after decades of poor performance and arguably only one club has gained due to a level of sustained on-field success 30 years ago that cannot be repeated.

They refer to hawthorn but geelongs performance of the last six hears proves that half the performance can be achived

 

[Boxhead_31]

Some very good points from Cook and Carter that cut right to the heart of what is needed to make the off field game be played on a level playing field:

Geelong's view of the various mechanisms has been outlined in this paper. We suggest
• Dollars taken from larger clubs in compensation for fixture advantages (this would require
some calculation) and allocated to smaller clubs
• A reshaped 'equalisation' fund that only collects on attendees above stadium break-even
and only distributes to the smaller clubs
• New dollars funded by 'variable' pricing on specified blockbuster games and added to the
equalisation fund
• An allocation from AFL funds as some compensation for 'stadium size disadvantages'

One thing that I found most interesting is this:

The club suggests salary cap payments have been "held down to the level that is affordable by the least wealthy clubs", leaving strong clubs room to invest in non-player items.

"The fabric of our competition is threatened if this gets too far out of kilter," Geelong said in its submission.

"The players won't put up with it and will have reasonable cause to challenge the salary cap.

Suggesting that what most people have been saying for a very long time that is if they wanted to if the players could take the AFL to court and blow up the whole salary cap / drafting rules as a significant restraint of trade.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Who cares, the majority of puppets will still turn up to watch thinking the game is genuine and it has integrity but no matter what you will show up.
the AFL know this as they could not give a stuff about the game like you puppets do and it is all about money.

So be it!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Why must footy people keep telling us what we already know? Don't tell us, show us. Otherwise STFU.

 

[morgoth]

What a joke this all is.

The AFL has plenty of money, it does not need more from so called 'wealthy' clubs. The wealthy clubs did not want GC and GWS< he AFL did, the fact they are obviously now facing funding issues is their problem. I don't support the AFL and I don't barrack for so called poor clubs. My money goes to Collingwood, if Vlad tries to stick his snout in I am sure we will find a way to get it to the Pies without him getting a cut.

I can see clubs creating a lot of foundations and trusts that sit of the side seperate from the clubs that fund various activites eg facilities, past player payments etc etc. With no formal connection to the club he will not be able to get a piece of it. Wealthy clubs can then reduce membership costs and flatten out profits.

This is a competition, not some friggen charity.

 

[morgoth]

How does Cook address his own situation ie the fact Geelong make a killing from playing games at Skilled.

Will they be kicking money in also? Or does he just expect everyone else to do it whilst he lines his pockets.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

What a joke this all is.

The AFL has plenty of money, it does not need more from so called 'wealthy' clubs. The wealthy clubs did not want GC and GWS< he AFL did, the fact they are obviously now facing funding issues is their problem. I don't support the AFL and I don't barrack for so called poor clubs. My money goes to Collingwood, if Vlad tries to stick his snout in I am sure we will find a way to get it to the Pies without him getting a cut.

I can see clubs creating a lot of foundations and trusts that sit of the side seperate from the clubs that fund various activites eg facilities, past player payments etc etc. With no formal connection to the club he will not be able to get a piece of it. Wealthy clubs can then reduce membership costs and flatten out profits.

This is a competition, not some friggen charity.

You mustn't have looked at a season fixture in the last decade.

It's not a "competition" either.

$1-2 million is a pittance compared to the advantages that your club has handed to it on a plate.

 

[piesaregreat]

You mustn't have looked at a season fixture in the last decade.

It's not a "competition" either.

$1-2 million is a pittance compared to the advantages that your club has handed to it on a plate.

Here we go again
Its all Collingwoods fault
No other club has any advantages from the fixture, TV broadcasts, MRP, rules committee or anything.
Apparently if Collingwood played more interstate games and more Sunday twilight games and didn't play on ANZAC day the competition would be fair and financially equal.

Does your tin foil view of the AFL consider other teams may also benefit from the way football is administered?
Have you ever considered discussing them?
When discussing TV rights will you look outside the Victorian broadcasts?

 

[Kwality]

If variable pricing is introduced to selected ‘blockbuster’ games and the additional revenues shared with other teams and, in particular, allocated to smaller teams, the equalisation objectives would be met

Pricing to be considered, now that is a start for ALL games not just blockbusters.

Its reasonable that those who bank the benefits of the FIXture, kick the can. Not sure that would be enough though.

& Pies fans, its not just about you.

 

[Black Diamond]

Here we go again
Its all Collingwoods fault
No other club has any advantages from the fixture, TV broadcasts, MRP, rules committee or anything.
Apparently if Collingwood played more interstate games and more Sunday twilight games and didn't play on ANZAC day the competition would be fair and financially equal.

Does your tin foil view of the AFL consider other teams may also benefit from the way football is administered?
Have you ever considered discussing them?
When discussing TV rights will you look outside the Victorian broadcasts?

The point of the Geelong piece is that making more and more money through Collingwood doesn't work and is inherently unfair in itself. Re the bold bit, did you even read it?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

The point of the Geelong piece is that making more and more money through Collingwood doesn't work and is inherently unfair in itself. Re the bold bit, did you even read it?

I'm surprised you even bothered replying to such an ill informed and stupid response.

You have to laugh about the complete lack of faith that some of the supporters of the big clubs have in regards to their team performing on a level playing field.

One could logically conclude that they don't believe their clubs could ever win a premiership without a massive advantage in football department spending.

 

[The Final Word]

What a joke this all is.

The AFL has plenty of money, it does not need more from so called 'wealthy' clubs. The wealthy clubs did not want GC and GWS< he AFL did, the fact they are obviously now facing funding issues is their problem. I don't support the AFL and I don't barrack for so called poor clubs. My money goes to Collingwood, if Vlad tries to stick his snout in I am sure we will find a way to get it to the Pies without him getting a cut.

I can see clubs creating a lot of foundations and trusts that sit of the side seperate from the clubs that fund various activites eg facilities, past player payments etc etc. With no formal connection to the club he will not be able to get a piece of it. Wealthy clubs can then reduce membership costs and flatten out profits.

This is a competition, not some friggen charity.

Are you suggesting that your club voted against the inclusion of the Suns and Giants?

 

[jerry springer]

share the blockbusters around,

Give other clubs ANZAC day,Easter Monday,Queens Birthday no problems from me

 

[JamieJohnstone]

This is a competition, not some friggen charity.

The AFL is actually registered as a not for profit and does a great deal of work supporting juniour and grass roots footy and education programs outside the big AFL season.

 

[JamieJohnstone]

How does Cook address his own situation ie the fact Geelong make a killing from playing games at Skilled.

Will they be kicking money in also? Or does he just expect everyone else to do it whilst he lines his pockets.

If you read the document, Cook addresses this issue at great length and in great detail.

I didn't pull that stuff out because I thought other points more "grabby" but it is actually the first major point they make on page 1.

 

[Baldur]

.

This is a competition, not some friggen charity.

A footrace between a one legged man and a two legged man is not a competition. Not even when the two legged man is wearing black and white.

 

[Baldur]

I'm surprised you even bothered replying to such an ill informed and stupid response.

You have to laugh about the complete lack of faith that some of the supporters of the big clubs have in regards to their team performing on a level playing field.

One could logically conclude that they don't believe their clubs could ever win a premiership without a massive advantage in football department spending.

They know that they have this huge advantage, they fear losing it. While at the same time they deny they have it. Double Think in action.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Why do Collingwood fans get so defensive when the idea of a competition with an aim of a fair playing field gets brought up? Any chance they might think before pretending everybody's out to get them?

How does Cook address his own situation ie the fact Geelong make a killing from playing games at Skilled.

Will they be kicking money in also? Or does he just expect everyone else to do it whilst he lines his pockets.

Maybe if you'd read it you would've noticed this part:

Geelong's view of the various mechanisms has been outlined in this paper. We suggest
• Dollars taken from larger clubs in compensation for fixture advantages (this would require
some calculation) and allocated to smaller clubs
• A reshaped 'equalisation' fund that only collects on attendees above stadium break-even
and only distributes to the smaller clubs
• New dollars funded by 'variable' pricing on specified blockbuster games and added to the
equalisation fund
• An allocation from AFL funds as some compensation for 'stadium size disadvantages'

Under this system Geelong would be putting plenty of money back in on any games they "make a killing" on.

Now that a couple of idiot Collingwood fans have tried to derail the thread can we get it back to discussion of equalisation, whether it should be done and how? Also maybe discussion of the idea of clubs making their submissions to the AFL public.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

How does Cook address his own situation ie the fact Geelong make a killing from playing games at Skilled.

Will they be kicking money in also? Or does he just expect everyone else to do it whilst he lines his pockets.

Why don't you try reading it? Or do you need it in byte-sized chunks, quoted on bigfooty?