No worries - so if Carlton recruit a big-name player we are living in the '80's and trying to buy a flag.
If Port Adelaide do it I assume it's 'crafty recruiting' (eg. Ryder) ??
Have some teams failed to 'get with the times'
- Thread starter Alberton_Magpie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
No worries - so if Carlton recruit a big-name player we are living in the '80's and trying to buy a flag.
If Port Adelaide do it I assume it's 'crafty recruiting' (eg. Ryder) ??
You shouldn't assess it that way, what you should be assessing it on is the books themselves; revenue vs expenditure. It's irrelevant if the revenue comes from an off shore oil drilling platform or pokies, it's still revenue. Equally so, it doesn't even matter if the club has benefactors that keep it solvent like Carlton used to. How do you think Carlton managed to own so many millions worth of assets? It sure as hell wasn't because of hard work and thrift savings.
It's overly simplistic to compare clubs's finances; I agree, but how else do you compare them? St Kilda should have discovered years ago when their pokies ventures failed that they need to get into other streams of revenue. For example, when Arsenal sold Highbury, they turned it into a housing estate and made a killing. What's stopping football clubs doing this? After all, they are business that have AFL licenses to compete in a sports league, nothing more, nothing less.
Clubs bitching about other clubs being more successful in certain profitable sectors is like complaining about the rain being wet.
Who are all these big name players Carlton "bought"? Judd in what 2007? Thomas in 2014. If Judd didn't want to come back to Melbourne we wouldn't have got him. Thomas free agent. Our problem and like any other struggling club is our recruiting and player development is s**t. Hawthorn has traded away their first round pick more then any other club, but are they a modern club? or smart?
Hird Is Scum
Team Captain
- Mar 7, 2015
- 557
- 1,577
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys
- Banned
- #30
In all fairness Port have shown that clearly doesn't work anymore.
AFL sports clubs need to:
1. Negotiate stadium agreements indepedently of the AFL;
2. Improve the ways they communicate with their members;
3. Determine profitable revenue streams outside of the ol' faithful on-field and pokies, such as profitable marketing and advertising agreements, alignment with private and public industries, state sponsorship (Collingwood);
4. Potentially align themselves with other clubs from other sports to either share facilities or promote one anothers team to followers of different codes, potentially increasing membership base;
5. Limit off-field spending by paying industry standard wages
6. Divide an organisation into two separate entities, the football entity and the business entity, each responsible for generating revenue
Some clubs have done this with varying success, such as Collingwood, Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney, whilst others have failed miserably and continue to sink deeper into their quagmire, like St Kilda, Western Bulldogs, Carlton and Port Adelaide.
Collingwood was at least 6-8 years ahead of every other club with their direction. It wasn't a football direction, it was a business direction.
1. Negotiate stadium agreements indepedently of the AFL;
2. Improve the ways they communicate with their members;
3. Determine profitable revenue streams outside of the ol' faithful on-field and pokies, such as profitable marketing and advertising agreements, alignment with private and public industries, state sponsorship (Collingwood);
4. Potentially align themselves with other clubs from other sports to either share facilities or promote one anothers team to followers of different codes, potentially increasing membership base;
5. Limit off-field spending by paying industry standard wages
6. Divide an organisation into two separate entities, the football entity and the business entity, each responsible for generating revenue
Some clubs have done this with varying success, such as Collingwood, Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney, whilst others have failed miserably and continue to sink deeper into their quagmire, like St Kilda, Western Bulldogs, Carlton and Port Adelaide.
Collingwood was at least 6-8 years ahead of every other club with their direction. It wasn't a football direction, it was a business direction.
Exactly. Floggish thread.
I'm not suggesting that they build and own the stadiums, there just isn't enough money in football to do that. Collingwood is probably the only club that's solvent without AFL assistance and that's because of very profitable marketing and advertising agreements, as well as a swelling membership base. But clubs need to seriously look at ways to either reduce football department expenditure, raise capital, or raise revenue.
Ways to cut expenditure:
- Spend less
- Sponsorships
- State agreements
Ways to raise capital:
- Sell assets
- State sponsorships to build/lease assets
Ways to raise revenue:
- Look at untapped markets
- Improve marketing and advertising deals with suppliers, look at other suppliers for improved terms.
Once again I'll use Arsenal as another example. Over the last 12 months they resigned all of their marketing deals which gave them a windfall of somewhere in the $100m₤ region and raised their marketing revenue from somewhere around 8-10 to top 4 each year. Obviously someway behind Manchester United and Chelsea, but very good nonetheless.
Engimal
Cancelled
10k Posts
North Melbourne - 2018 Luke Davies-Uniacke and Paul Ahern Player Sponsor
Pantskyle
Minecraft
Shiny Penny
Ruby
Don't the AFL have to sign off on the deal though?
Yes, but the last round of negotiations, which the AFL did with Etihad, was to benefit the stadium with almost no benefit to the clubs whatsoever. In fact it penalised the clubs to the point where they were losing up to $500k per match. To break even as an average the stadium has to be at least 66% full, which is a little over 35k.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...e-house-that-jack-rebuilt-20130320-2gfiu.html
This is from 2013, where it's estimated that a crowd of 20k at Skilled/Simonds Stadium could generate more than 500k revenue. Even Hawthorn makes money from Launceston with smaller crowds, but with the benefit of alignment with the state of Tasmania and marketing agreements as a result of that. It isn't much and I'd be surprised if it's little more than $100k~$200k per year, but it's more than nothing.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...had-stadium-20130207-2e1f8.html#ixzz2KFMWnvdf
Anyone who's followed football over the last 3 years would have known that the clubs have wanted the AFL to buy and control the stadium. It's a business with high rent and ridiculously high food prices.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-18/brayshaw-slams-etihad-deal
North played 11 games in 2011 for a return of $600k, less than $60k per game.
- Aug 23, 2011
- 19,104
- 62,068
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Grand Finals at the Gabba
I thought the way the Crows handled the Sanderson/Walsh situation was pretty cringey. They really tried to emphasise how ruthless they were being and how much they demand success (sounds like 1982 Richmond). Then we got comments like "we had a man talk that's how we role" type comments. Pretty funny.
They started the year reasonably well though so it hasn't appeared to hurt them so far.
They started the year reasonably well though so it hasn't appeared to hurt them so far.
Last edited:
- Aug 21, 2007
- 31,670
- 99,023
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
The point wasn't about Carlton actively going out and buying players, that's not even really possible in the modern era. It was that Carlton still seem to think success will follow them because they're a historically big club. Malthouse was a massive buy and you opened the chequebook to get him, but a coach is only one part of the club.
The recruitment of Judd was a good move, IMO, because Judd was and is and elite trainer and an utmost professional. But what came with the Judd trade, and the slew of top draft picks, seemed to be the expectation that it would just happen. That the team would simply rise to the top on the back of all that top end talent. The arrogance of "they know we're coming" and similar sort of marketing showed a club that expected to waltz back into flag contention and dominate.
And don't get me wrong, my club is guilty of the same thing this year. We've believed our own hype, IMO and we're getting the results we deserve.
To be successful in the modern day AFL, every part of your club from the president to the boot studder has to show elite professionalism and a ruthless will to do whatever it takes within the rules to win. To do what it takes to be better than other clubs in every aspect of being a football club. Can you honestly say that is true of Carlton since the salary cap sanctions? If your answer is yes, and the answer of a lot of Carlton people is "yes, we've been doing everything we can", then you're in for a few more false dawns before you finally turn it around.
You seriously don't think clubs have already looked at everything you have said? Most people on AFL club boards are very good business people. The difference between Arsenal and any AFL team is they play in a league that is watched by billions worldwide, so they have sponsors queuing up at the door. Very hard in the AFL for clubs to get sponsors, especially in Victoria where you have 10 teams. In Sydney you have all the NRL teams. You also have the soccer and super league teams wanting sponsorship.
Good people on boards don't necessarily translate to good boards. Carlton have always have hugely successful businessmen on their boards, but have had a sustained period of shitness for 20 years, punctuated by cheating, bribery, fraud, bankruptcy and all manner of undesirable business. This is from very successful, very wealthy business people who've run very successful businesses.
How did Collingwood turn from a rabble into the leading club in Victoria, where there were 10 teams? They were almost bankrupt, didn't have much to their name except a VFL standard ground, and weren't making much money. In the space of 3 years they turned around from being a borderline basket case into a double grand finalist, having a burgeoning membership base and planning for their training facility expansions.
Again, good businessmen doesn't translate to good boards. Unified boards with the same vision and motivation to see it through no matter what are very rare. Collingwood have it, Hawthorn have it, Geelong have it, West Coast have it and Sydney have it. It's why those clubs have been amongst the most successful of recent times.
pinot
Norm Smith Medallist
- Apr 14, 2013
- 6,844
- 3,452
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Banned
- #40
if the AFL is taken to Supreme Court over restraint of trade it will lose.
This is a socialist system where clubs are restricted to trade and against the principles of western society. Each club has the right live within its own consciousness and the ability to recruit, develop and trade like football.
Rugby was taken to supreme courts and lost.
I prefer if clubs have an under 18 competition than TAC.
CLubs should also have the ability to sell players as it generates revenue (or big profits)
Restricting players what they can earn and what clubs can earn
Clubs should also get a big slice out of any broadcast and TV deals.
The AFL is behind the times and in simple terms if taken to supreme court are breaking tenets and the salary cap + draft will be gone.
After 20 years we see no even competition and clubs are still making losses, so what's the point?
This is a socialist system where clubs are restricted to trade and against the principles of western society. Each club has the right live within its own consciousness and the ability to recruit, develop and trade like football.
Rugby was taken to supreme courts and lost.
I prefer if clubs have an under 18 competition than TAC.
CLubs should also have the ability to sell players as it generates revenue (or big profits)
Restricting players what they can earn and what clubs can earn
Clubs should also get a big slice out of any broadcast and TV deals.
The AFL is behind the times and in simple terms if taken to supreme court are breaking tenets and the salary cap + draft will be gone.
After 20 years we see no even competition and clubs are still making losses, so what's the point?
Mate I think you have been living on a different planet. Spend most money on a CEO-Swann, spend most money on a coach and coaching panel, spend a lot if not most on training facilities, get Judd the best player in the league at the time, tried to poach Graham Wright and god knows who else that didn't make the media. We have tried to be ruthless and get the best possible but hasn't worked. But for someone to say we have just sat around and done * all is a joke. You tell me any other club that has gone out and tried to get the best people for the job? Please don't tell Kochy.
The real problem at Carlton is the recruiting, list management and player development. Again we have gone out and spent money on Silvagni who is a favourite son and did a good job at GWS. What we need to do now is find the right coach and assistants who can develop players.
Mate if all those clubs were at the bottom for 10 years and they get less members which equal less revenue, they will be in the same position as Carlton. Winning games of footy hides a lot of things. Sydney will be the first to be in trouble once they start losing games again.
Collingwood turned it around just like Hawthorn because they started winning, got more members which equalled more revenue, got bigger sponsorships because they had more members and better tv time slots. They then can invest the money on and off field. Like I said before when your winning it hides all the things that aren't right or people don't look for them. Carlton are losing so everybody looks for the problems and they are easy to find.
Exactly why the NRL is such a closer competition. You have a salary cap and let the clubs got for it. Problem is we have teams in Qld and NSW that will struggle to get players to go there. The WA and SA teams would dominate because only 2 teams in the state and they produce a lot of players.
Spot on - it's actually the media and posters on here who keep rolling out the 'Carlton trying to buy success' line. Yes- it was true in the '80s and '90s and was bloody successful.
No doubt we were slow in the 2000's to adapt but there seems to be this 're-writing' of history. In 2002-2006 we had the worst side - bar Fitzroy - that I have ever seen run onto an AFL field.
We then rebuilt - using draft picks - and the luck in getting Judd, to a point where we were a 3-points of a Top 4 position. We actually did rebuild using the draft but this just seems to get forgotten ???
- Aug 21, 2007
- 31,670
- 99,023
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
I really don't want to make this a Trigg thing, but if you genuinely thing Steven Trigg was the absolute best man for the job, you're blinded by your support for the club. I'd love to know what he brought to the table that made him the outstanding candidate. Trigg is the exact opposite of what you need at the moment. He's someone who spent time his time at Adelaide sitting on his hands while his club was overtaken by clubs full of more driven and ambitious people at the CEO level.
You might have payed a lot of money to get Greg Swann but that doesn't mean he was the best person for the job and while he helped fix your off field issues, you certainly didn't achieve anything under his stewardship bar stablising the finances.
The recruiters and list managers and player development people are all hired by the people above them, and several of your board members have been around for quite a while. Even if you open up the chequebook and hire the best people, they can't thrive or get the best out of themselves when the culture is poor.
You can argue that you should have hired better coaches, but you did. You did hire top level coaches. You did recruit enormously talented footballers. The problem isn't one aspect of the club, it's every aspect of the club. Carlton is an absolutely enormous football club that hasn't caught up to the modern standards of professionalism set by the likes of Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong.
If you genuinely believe that the people in charge of your football club were genuinely ruthless and have the same level of professionalism as the likes of Hawthorn and Sydney, you're kidding yourself. If this is a feeling that permeates throughout Carlton people, you'll never improve.
Very different situation.
The AFL are buying Etihad. They're paying it off over 25 years.
All that's really happened is they were leant $500m to build it, they're paying it back, and multiple times during the mortgage period they've tried to snake a better deal by slamming the "stadium" publicly for "screwing the clubs" (hello public heartstrings) merely for getting the returns they agreed to.
You tell me what ruthless decision Hawthorn or Sydney made?
Where did I say Trigg was the best man for the job? Where did I even mention Trigg? I wouldn't have hired him because of the cheating he did with the Tippett deal. I said when Ratten was there we needed to turn over the list but we stopped and went down hill real quick. The bottom line like I said a million times is the recruiting, list management and player development are the major problems at the club.
But please tell me what ruthless decisions Hawthorn and Sydney made so I understand what you are talking about.
- Aug 21, 2007
- 31,670
- 99,023
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
You said that Carlton had gone after the best people. Swann and especially Trigg were in no way the best people.
Hawthorn and Sydney fostered winning cultures by getting people like Trigg out of their clubs. You can't run with the line that you've gotten the right people in place when you've hired Trigg.
Hawthorn under Kennett gave home games away to Tasmania to improve their financial position. Under Clarkson they culled an enormous amount of dead wood under their list and developed a game plan not to catch up to the top clubs, but to catch them by surprise with Clarko's cluster pioneering modern style full field zoning.
They drafted strictly with a long term strategy of precision kicking which has made them the most skillful side in the comp, something that other clubs can't easily copy.
It's that sort willingness to take risks and innovate for the long term that was totally absent from Carlton's rebuild, and it's why it failed. Hawthorn got the right people in place, developed a long term plan and did whatever it took to execute it, and cast aside people who weren't contributing to the long term vision.
Carlton was rudderless in comparison.
You can argue that the football department is the issue all you like, but you need to look more closely at the club as a whole. Professionalism and strategy comes from the top down and can't be separated from the off field stuff. Professionalism is a culture that permeates every part of the club, and if you fall behind other clubs in one area, you'll fall behind in others. Any failure of the football department reflects the board that instituted it.
Hawthorn and Sydney fostered winning cultures by getting people like Trigg out of their clubs. You can't run with the line that you've gotten the right people in place when you've hired Trigg.
Hawthorn under Kennett gave home games away to Tasmania to improve their financial position. Under Clarkson they culled an enormous amount of dead wood under their list and developed a game plan not to catch up to the top clubs, but to catch them by surprise with Clarko's cluster pioneering modern style full field zoning.
They drafted strictly with a long term strategy of precision kicking which has made them the most skillful side in the comp, something that other clubs can't easily copy.
It's that sort willingness to take risks and innovate for the long term that was totally absent from Carlton's rebuild, and it's why it failed. Hawthorn got the right people in place, developed a long term plan and did whatever it took to execute it, and cast aside people who weren't contributing to the long term vision.
Carlton was rudderless in comparison.
You can argue that the football department is the issue all you like, but you need to look more closely at the club as a whole. Professionalism and strategy comes from the top down and can't be separated from the off field stuff. Professionalism is a culture that permeates every part of the club, and if you fall behind other clubs in one area, you'll fall behind in others. Any failure of the football department reflects the board that instituted it.
Similar threads
