Paying your hard earned into your Clubs bottom line only to have it handed over for Equalisation?

[juss]

On one hand, I want all the money I give to go to my own club, and for my own club to be financially strong. On the other hand, if the AFL doesn't help out some clubs, they won't be able to sustain themselves and the competition will be weaker overall, which makes for a poorer spectator sport. Wouldn't be very interesting if the league was made up of only 7 or 8 teams.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Did we ever work out why that was? I know Collingwood usually get towards the higher end of AFL distributions, but that's due to the large number of AFL members with Collingwood club support. Other than the facilities grant, I can't fathom why they'd get any disequal funding.

i think it was for facilities

 

[kranky al]

Oh seriously OK the WAFC .... now can we move on and get back to the friggin topic rather than all about wa footy crap.

How would the WAFC Feel if the AFL changed the rules and insisted on a % of the WA Clubs profit for the Equalization fund. In my opinion the AFL should insist on that money from all 18 clubs on a percentage basis. why should the better run Vic Clubs be the only ones to add money to this fund!

Actually that's exactly what they have just done you Victorian gerbil fondler

That's why it's kinda topical that we bring up the wafc

 

[Kwality]

The Saints up at the trough, the trough fed by Equalisation. They've leases at Moorabin & Seaford now floating an idea to spend money at the Junction Oval. There are clubs that could afford to keep three homes, BUT the Saints are not one.

The greasy fingers of the AFL is all over this, its Cricket Vic looking for a home and dangling the carrot of earlier access to the MCG if this development gets off the ground. Are the Saints just a blind, being used to achieve what the AFL has been consistently unable to deliver.

 

[telsor]

The Saints up at the trough, the trough fed by Equalisation. They've leases at Moorabin & Seaford now floating an idea to spend money at the Junction Oval. There are clubs that could afford to keep three homes, BUT the Saints are not one.

The greasy fingers of the AFL is all over this, its Cricket Vic looking for a home and dangling the carrot of earlier access to the MCG if this development gets off the ground. Are the Saints just a blind, being used to achieve what the AFL has been consistently unable to deliver.

Link?

 

[1061]

Link?

https://www.google.com.au/

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ing-home-to-junction-oval-20140409-zqsqx.html

 

[The Blue Baggers]

collingwood supporters need to remember the mother of all equalisation measures "draft & salary caps" were brought in to stop carlton, hawthorn & essendon dominating the competition .....

collingwood were a basket case in the 80's and 90's and should be thankful for football socialism

 

[telsor]

https://www.google.com.au/

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ing-home-to-junction-oval-20140409-zqsqx.html

If that's the source Kwality used, then he misrepresented it. I was hoping there was another which more closely tallied with his post and was giving him te option of providing his own reference.

 

[Rob]

Kwality has a point here if that article is correct.

St Kilda spent a heap of AFL money establishing a new base at Seaford. They also receive annual handouts from the AFL to prop their P&L (although they're not traditionally a big recipient). Now they want to spend millions more of AFL money (given they don't have any themselves) on a new base at the Junction Oval, as well as either incurring significant annual expenses at Seaford maintaining the lease or an even larger one off expense paying it out.

Meanwhile supporters of the big clubs are told they have to pay more so clubs like St Kilda can compete. Yet they're pissing money up against the wall on yet another training base when they've got a perfectly good one built recently, partly with other clubs' money. Surely if they want to move, then they can't hold their hands out for money.

It's a fair gripe. At least worthy of rational discussion.

 

[1061]

collingwood supporters need to remember the mother of all equalisation measures "draft & salary caps" were brought in to stop carlton, hawthorn & essendon dominating the competition .....

collingwood were a basket case in the 80's and 90's and should be thankful for football socialism

Maybe Mid 80's and Late 90's would be a more accurate representation considering we won the Flag in 1990 and played finals for a few years before and after.

 

[telsor]

Kwality has a point here if that article is correct.

St Kilda spent a heap of AFL money establishing a new base at Seaford. They also receive annual handouts from the AFL to prop their P&L (although they're not traditionally a big recipient). Now they want to spend millions more of AFL money (given they don't have any themselves) on a new base at the Junction Oval, as well as either incurring significant annual expenses at Seaford maintaining the lease or an even larger one off expense paying it out.

Meanwhile supporters of the big clubs are told they have to pay more so clubs like St Kilda can compete. Yet they're pissing money up against the wall on yet another training base when they've got a perfectly good one built recently, partly with other clubs' money. Surely if they want to move, then they can't hold their hands out for money.

It's a fair gripe. At least worthy of rational discussion.

Junction Oval is something of a special case however, not for St Kilda, but to get Cricket off the MCG, ideally meaning the AFL has access for a longer period. Using a club to piggy back some extra money in is merely a means to that end. That the club might gain something out of it is just gravy.

 

[Periphery]

Kwality has a point here if that article is correct.

St Kilda spent a heap of AFL money establishing a new base at Seaford. They also receive annual handouts from the AFL to prop their P&L (although they're not traditionally a big recipient). Now they want to spend millions more of AFL money (given they don't have any themselves) on a new base at the Junction Oval, as well as either incurring significant annual expenses at Seaford maintaining the lease or an even larger one off expense paying it out.

Meanwhile supporters of the big clubs are told they have to pay more so clubs like St Kilda can compete. Yet they're pissing money up against the wall on yet another training base when they've got a perfectly good one built recently, partly with other clubs' money. Surely if they want to move, then they can't hold their hands out for money.

It's a fair gripe. At least worthy of rational discussion.

Except the Saints had absolutely nothing to do with proposing any of it and were approached about it after the initial idea was formed.

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2014-04-10/club-statement-junction-oval-redevelopment

The St Kilda Football Club acknowledges press reports linking the club to a potential redevelopment of the Junction Oval.


The AFL, State Government, MCC and Cricket Victoria have been involved in discussions concerning access to the MCG for football for some time.


We understand that those discussions also impact the potential redevelopment of the Junction Oval and that in very recent times the prospect of a Junction Oval redevelopment incorporating a St Kilda Football Club presence has been canvassed amongst those involved in the discussions.


Whilst not party to those discussions, the St Kilda Football Club has recently been consulted by the AFL in relation to the prospect of incorporating a Saints presence into the potential redevelopment as part of their broader objectives linking elite and community football facilities in Victoria. 


The St Kilda Football Club has a heartland strategy which aims to promote strong engagement between the club, its supporters and Melbourne’s bayside communities. We have a professional training and administration base at Linen House Centre in Seaford, an ongoing presence at Moorabbin and would consider any new opportunities to further combine our rich bayside heritage with future community engagement.

When you consider our whole of bayside strategy, existing quality facilities at Linen House Centre, strong relationships with Frankston and Kingston City Councils and commitments that are in place, it is highly speculative to imply any situation beyond that which has been articulated above.

These developments are new from a St Kilda Football Club point of view, and it is therefore inappropriate to comment further until more details emerge.

 

[Rob]

It's not a criticism of St Kilda, it's a criticism of the AFL. In particular, their blank cheque policy.

Hell, if I was in charge of St Kilda (or any other club for that matter) i'd have my hand out for as much as I could get as well. Why not spend like a bitch if the AFL is signing the cheques?

 

[Periphery]

Your whole post was about how the Saints "want to spend millions more of AFL money" and how they are "pissing money up against the wall on yet another training base" which is total crap in regards to the talk of a Junction Oval redevelopment. Pretty much everything you said was directed at the Saints so if your aim was to criticise the AFL you did it poorly.

 

[Mordecai]

I agree with you mate - spend your money on the pokies instead and that way all the money will stay with the club and you have a good time as well

 

[Rob]

Your whole post was about how the Saints "want to spend millions more of AFL money" and how they are "pissing money up against the wall on yet another training base" which is total crap in regards to the talk of a Junction Oval redevelopment. Pretty much everything you said was directed at the Saints so if your aim was to criticise the AFL you did it poorly.

My point was to discuss the issue of the AFL encouraging irresponsible spending by clubs that can't afford it. Got nothing against clubs that want to do that, but when it's funded by the AFL, that's a different story.

Really, should the AFL be funding yet another move by a club after they also funded a new facility (which remains perfectly adequate) a short time ago?

 

[telsor]

My point was to discuss the issue of the AFL encouraging irresponsible spending by clubs that can't afford it. Got nothing against clubs that want to do that, but when it's funded by the AFL, that's a different story.

Really, should the AFL be funding yet another move by a club after they also funded a new facility (which remains perfectly adequate) a short time ago?

The AFL wants to fund Cricket moving away from the MCG, and figures a club might as well get some of the benefits. It's not about 'funding a club'.

 

[Kwality]

The AFL wants to fund Cricket moving away from the MCG, and figures a club might as well get some of the benefits. It's not about 'funding a club'.

More likely the AFL recognise that they need a club to tap Government money under the guise of community - Minister for Sport Damian Drum talked about multi use of resources & community involvement on the radio. No way are the AFL going to fund Cricket to move away from the G.

Interesting comment in the Fairfax Press Friday from the Hawks El presidents Andrew Newbould:
Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold, whose club has called for accountability of clubs that want significant additional funding in equalisation, said he did not have a problem with clubs using their own money to pay out coaches.
''I'm unconcerned if clubs spend their own revenue and chose to waste it by poor decisions. I have a legitimate interest if they make poor decisions and waste money that Hawthorn has contributed into a central pool.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-in-payouts-20140410-zqt81.html#ixzz2yYjrvqBr

 

[Rob]

The AFL wants to fund Cricket moving away from the MCG, and figures a club might as well get some of the benefits. It's not about 'funding a club'.

I don't understand. What has building an all year training facility for St Kilda got to do with cricket? Surely they'll have their own facilities at the Junction Oval. From reading the article St Kilda will have a completely different oval anyway.
What you seem to be saying is 'If the AFL is spending a bit of money, they may as well spend a lot'

 

[brisbane13]

Swings and roundabouts, my magpie-loving comrade. Swings and roundabouts.

Wasn't too long ago (pre-Eddie days) that your club was struggling financially. Who knows what the future holds for any club. Today's powerhouses could be tomorrow's paupers and the equalisation money may be needed to help pay off some of your club's debts.

not a chance , a large sum of their money comes from pokes like hawthorn,
eddie has done wonders for the club promoting them on TV at every chance possible, attracting sponsors then combining them with TV shows for double the coverage.
as a supporter of Essendon i support the equalization tax. but where clubs should be taxed is in the poke revenue, not the money they earn through football related revenue

 

[telsor]

I don't understand. What has building an all year training facility for St Kilda got to do with cricket? Surely they'll have their own facilities at the Junction Oval. From reading the article St Kilda will have a completely different oval anyway.
What you seem to be saying is 'If the AFL is spending a bit of money, they may as well spend a lot'

St Kilda already has an 'all year facility' at Seaford. They're building a facility for Cricket that will be good enough to get them to move games there from the MCG, ideally including the Sheffield shield final (if Vic hosts it), which is the reason the AFL can't get access to the MCG prior to the end of March. The training facility, and St Kilda's use of it is merely the means towards achieving that goal.

St Kilda would be the secondary tennant here, not even allowed to train on the oval but instead forced onto the park next door. Frankly, I'm more curious about what they get out of it.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

St Kilda already has an 'all year facility' at Seaford. They're building a facility for Cricket that will be good enough to get them to move games there from the MCG, ideally including the Sheffield shield final (if Vic hosts it), which is the reason the AFL can't get access to the MCG prior to the end of March. The training facility, and St Kilda's use of it is merely the means towards achieving that goal.

St Kilda would be the secondary tennant here, not even allowed to train on the oval but instead forced onto the park next door. Frankly, I'm more curious about what they get out of it.

They hinted on aw yesterday that someone may be lined up to takeover the Seaford facility, inferring the saints would be leaving it completely. No hint on any detail of the new party though

 

[telsor]

They hinted on aw yesterday that someone may be lined up to takeover the Seaford facility, inferring the saints would be leaving it completely. No hint on any detail of the new party though

How big/expandable is Seaford?

Hawthorn is supposedly looking for a new home having outgrown Waverley (not too sure I believe that rumour). Not sure about Melbourne's situation, but they seem to have been looking for a base for ages.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

How big/expandable is Seaford?

Hawthorn is supposedly looking for a new home having outgrown Waverley (not too sure I believe that rumour). Not sure about Melbourne's situation, but they seem to have been looking for a base for ages.

No idea, but I (rightly or wrongly) assumed it may be non-AFL

Have the Hawks hinted where they are looking? As for the Dees, if they were willing to go on the peninsula wouldn't they stick with Casey?

 

[1061]

No idea, but I (rightly or wrongly) assumed it may be non-AFL

Have the Hawks hinted where they are looking? As for the Dees, if they were willing to go on the peninsula wouldn't they stick with Casey?

Melbourne would be better off hijacking the Junction Oval.

I'm thinking more the Melb Tigers might be looking at it or maybe one of the A league Soccer Clubs.