Member ownership v Private ownership

[Papa G]

Pokies have no place in Fooball and all clubs should be getting rid of them, clubs should go on the stock market if they want capital

You want private ownership of clubs?

 

[catman2006]

You want private ownership of clubs?

Better then poker machines to be honest

 

[bombersfan4000]

Better then poker machines to be honest

It might work in the epl where there is world wide appeal & population. But who in Australia has a spare 50 million for an afl club

 

[Rob]

It might work in the epl where there is world wide appeal & population. But who in Australia has a spare 50 million for an afl club

Brisbane Broncos are listed on the ASX. It can be done.

Completely against AFL rules though, so there's quite a few hurdles.

 

[telsor]

Brisbane Broncos are listed on the ASX. It can be done.

Completely against AFL rules though, so there's quite a few hurdles.

If memory serves, North was listed for a while...Things went (especially) bad however when Carlton started trying to buy them...

Pretty sure that's why the AFL has rules against it happening again.

 

[bombersfan4000]

Brisbane Broncos are listed on the ASX. It can be done.

Completely against AFL rules though, so there's quite a few hurdles.

The Broncos are one of the few successful privately owned football clubs in Australia, but they do own a mini casino filled with pokies & have been one of the more successful team out there with a dream stadium deal at Suncorp thanks to he qld government.
The operating costs of an afl team is pretty much double that of an nrl club requiring more investment.

The afl is on the right track in owning most of its teams cause it at least has full control of them. We have seen it through out this year with most of the nrl clubs being privatsed many of the clubs owners and management were not happy with the way the nrl commission was heading.

 

[Rob]

The Broncos are one of the few successful privately owned football clubs in Australia, but they do own a mini casino filled with pokies & have been one of the more successful team out there with a dream stadium deal at Suncorp thanks to he qld government.
The operating costs of an afl team is pretty much double that of an nrl club requiring more investment.

The afl is on the right track in owning most of its teams cause it at least has full control of them. We have seen it through out this year with most of the nrl clubs being privatsed many of the clubs owners and management were not happy with the way the nrl commission was heading.

That's pretty much why the AFL doesn't like it. Private owners tend to have vastly different interests to the governing body. At least when clubs are member owned then there's generally an overall idea to to what's best for the game. Private owners give a s**t about their pockets and not a lot else.

 

[telsor]

That's pretty much why the AFL doesn't like it. Private owners tend to have vastly different interests to the governing body. At least when clubs are member owned then there's generally an overall idea to to what's best for the game. Private owners give a s**t about their pockets and not a lot else.

I suspect a private owner would have a lot more to say about fixturing for one...

 

[DERIBERATE]

That's pretty much why the AFL doesn't like it. Private owners tend to have vastly different interests to the governing body. At least when clubs are member owned then there's generally an overall idea to to what's best for the game. Private owners give a s**t about their pockets and not a lot else.

Yet these member owned clubs looking after the fans don't have home grounds. What control do fans have? Clubs bend over and touch their toes for everything the AFL wants.

Does Melbourne Victory hate football (and humanity) too because they're a listed public company limited by shares?

 

[Rob]

Yet these member owned clubs looking after the fans don't have home grounds. What control do fans have? Clubs bend over and touch their toes for everything the AFL wants.

For most clubs, fans (i.e members) can vote out some or all of the board. You know, the people running the club.

And you seriously think the 'fans' want to go back to urine soaked hell hole home grounds?

Does Melbourne Victory hate football (and humanity) too because they're a listed public company limited by shares?

Firstly, they're not listed. But they most definitely have shareholders - and they're lucky enough to be pretty much the only A-League club making a profit, so their shareholders aren't kicking in millions a year like other teams in the league. But in any case, they're going to campaign based on their own personal interests. I would have thought even the most casual followers of the game can see the pitfalls of private ownership. Palmer, Tinkler, Sage, the Bakries. That Manchester City deal could easily go arse up once their supporters realise they're simply a feeder development team. Or the owners get bored with kicking in millions a year for little to no return.

There's benefits to it, no question. But there's also a massive risk to the stability and credibility of the league.

 

[DERIBERATE]

For most clubs, fans (i.e members) can vote out some or all of the board. You know, the people running the club.

And you seriously think the 'fans' want to go back to urine soaked hell hole home grounds?

Not in Australia at the moment, but from memory a high pressure hose sets you back maybe $100 at Bunnings. I've heard investing is the go. Beats spending $10 million on assistant coaches.

Firstly, they're not listed. But they most definitely have shareholders - and they're lucky enough to be pretty much the only A-League club making a profit, so their shareholders aren't kicking in millions a year like other teams in the league. But in any case, they're going to campaign based on their own personal interests. I would have thought even the most casual followers of the game can see the pitfalls of private ownership. Palmer, Tinkler, Sage, the Bakries. That Manchester City deal could easily go arse up once their supporters realise they're simply a feeder development team. Or the owners get bored with kicking in millions a year for little to no return.

There's benefits to it, no question. But there's also a massive risk to the stability and credibility of the league.

Sounds like a bit of fear, uncertainty... throw some doubt in. Private ownership is by far the most common model used throughout the world. But it's big and scary in aussie rules land. Apparently free market ideas don't work in free markets. Or if they do work there's still some other way to discredit them. Big bad foreign owner gets a pretty good run.

 

[Rob]

Not in Australia at the moment, but from memory a high pressure hose sets you back maybe $100 at Bunnings. I've heard investing is the go. Beats spending $10 million on assistant coaches.

You might want to visit Stadium Warehouse and see what they cost. It's a shade more than $100. And $10 million.

Sounds like a bit of fear, uncertainty... throw some doubt in. Private ownership is by far the most common model used throughout the world. But it's big and scary in aussie rules land. Apparently free market ideas don't work in free markets. Or if they do work there's still some other way to discredit them. Big bad foreign owner gets a pretty good run.

It's not scary. It's tried and failed in the AFL.

Nothing to do with the free market, it's what's best for the game.

 

[DERIBERATE]

It's not scary. It's tried and failed in the AFL.

Businesses run by cowboys in the 80s with 6 month time horizons on investments? Those guys? What business didn't go **** up in the 80s!

 

[Rob]

Businesses run by cowboys in the 80s with 6 month time horizons on investments? Those guys? What business didn't go **** up in the 80s!

So you disagree then? No problem.

Although you haven't exactly put forward much of an argument though except 'the rest of the world does it'. I don't know if you've noticed, but most AFL fans couldn't give a fat rats clacker what the rest of the world does.

 

[telsor]

Businesses run by cowboys in the 80s with 6 month time horizons on investments? Those guys? What business didn't go **** up in the 80s!

Yes, soccer has shown us how to do private investment. Just look at the gold coast and newcastle for some excellent examples.

 

[DERIBERATE]

Yes, soccer has shown us how to do private investment. Just look at the gold coast and newcastle for some excellent examples.

I assume you're talking about the Australian variety of NU, but there's a bit of recency bias creeping in there if you think Tinkler is the sum of their problems. 15 years ago they were the poster child for the bastard offspring of leagues clubs. Cultural problems are there independent of who owns them.

It seems that the only evidence required to debase private ownership is to point at one or two clubs at their worst, then attack the rest. Have a look at the top 4 divisions/100 teams of English football (I use the example because it's commonly derided as a money league). How many clubs have actually ceased to exist? Wimbeldon? I'm genuinely struggling to find many examples of clubs actually being eliminated. Even Rangers in SPL survived, and they had half of Glasgow circulating wooden coffins in the stadium celebrating their deaths.

 

[telsor]

So you disagree then? No problem.

Although you haven't exactly put forward much of an argument though except 'the rest of the world does it'. I don't know if you've noticed, but most AFL fans couldn't give a fat rats clacker what the rest of the world does.

'the rest of the world does it' is the only argument soccer fans have for their games supposed superiority.

 

[telsor]

I assume you're talking about the Australian variety of NU, but there's a bit of recency bias creeping in there if you think Tinkler is the sum of their problems. 15 years ago they were the poster child for the bastard offspring of leagues clubs. Cultural problems are there independent of who owns them.

It seems that the only evidence required to debase private ownership is to point at one or two clubs at their worst, then attack the rest. Have a look at the top 4 divisions/100 teams of English football (I use the example because it's commonly derided as a money league). How many clubs have actually ceased to exist? Wimbeldon? I'm genuinely struggling to find many examples of clubs actually being eliminated. Even Rangers in SPL survived, and they had half of Glasgow circulating wooden coffins in the stadium celebrating their deaths.

Gee, I thought we were talking about Australia....

 

[DERIBERATE]

'the rest of the world does it' is the only argument soccer fans have for their games supposed superiority.

...it's a pretty big place you know

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Businesses run by cowboys in the 80s with 6 month time horizons on investments? Those guys? What business didn't go **** up in the 80s!

The issue with private ownership isn't that, it's the ultimate potential consequence

In any league with private ownership, if a team is financially failing it either goes bust or is sold. And if sold, you can see a fire sale of players to stem the tide, or relocation to a city more willing to subsidise its activities

Both of these are loathed in the Australian rules sphere.

We hate the idea of relocations as evidenced by the last decade or two, and extinctions are viewed even less favourably.

A massive chunk of the league is surviving on additional afl subsidies, and with private ownership this goes immediately

Do we want a league where Richmond (for example) is relocated three times in ten years on the whim of its private owners?

 

[Prince Imperial]

Membership ownership of our clubs is one of the great strengths of Australian Football. Ultimately teams represent the people who own them and it is one of the reasons why the Australian game has by far the biggest level of memberships in this country.

Real Madrid and Barcelona are both fully owned by their members and they don't do too badly. The most attended soccer league in the world, the Bundesliga has a rule that clubs must be majority owned by their members. This has ensured lower ticket prices for German fans rather than the price gouging that occurs in the EPL to bolster the profits of their wealthy owners.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/da...g/2009/nov/13/bundesligafootball-bayernmunich
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22625160

 

[Rob]

I assume you're talking about the Australian variety of NU, but there's a bit of recency bias creeping in there if you think Tinkler is the sum of their problems. 15 years ago they were the poster child for the bastard offspring of leagues clubs. Cultural problems are there independent of who owns them.

It seems that the only evidence required to debase private ownership is to point at one or two clubs at their worst, then attack the rest. Have a look at the top 4 divisions/100 teams of English football (I use the example because it's commonly derided as a money league). How many clubs have actually ceased to exist? Wimbeldon? I'm genuinely struggling to find many examples of clubs actually being eliminated. Even Rangers in SPL survived, and they had half of Glasgow circulating wooden coffins in the stadium celebrating their deaths.

It's not just about clubs dissolving, it's about how the fans don't have any control. There are plenty of examples of supporters becoming disenchanted with the workings of 'their' club. Even to the extent that they went and started their own club - generally with rules about limiting any influence around private ownership.
Like I said, there are benefits to it. The influx of money coming in as an example - the A-League probably wouldn't have got off the ground without it. But the risks are huge.

 

[jatz14]

Sounds like a bit of fear, uncertainty... throw some doubt in. Private ownership is by far the most common model used throughout the world. But it's big and scary in aussie rules land. Apparently free market ideas don't work in free markets. Or if they do work there's still some other way to discredit them. Big bad foreign owner gets a pretty good run.

Depends on what you want your comp to look like. Most Aussie rules followers are not that interested in an EPL type situation, where you have mega clubs, and perennial also rans, largely based on owners. We all like our team to be first amongst equals, not a giant amongst minnows.

 

[telsor]

...it's a pretty big place you know

bigger isn't always better you know.

 

[madmug]

bigger isn't always better you know.

Hallelujah for that brother, oh wait!