What no 2nd oval - got to have two to be fair dinkum given the AFL kicked in to make Essendon the leader in the 2 ovals at the training facility a must?
Why would other clubs be expected to fund such a venture??
Paying your hard earned into your Clubs bottom line only to have it handed over for Equalisation?
- Thread starter 1061
- Start date
- Tagged users None
What no 2nd oval - got to have two to be fair dinkum given the AFL kicked in to make Essendon the leader in the 2 ovals at the training facility a must?
Why would other clubs be expected to fund such a venture??
telsor
Hall of Famer
I asked about Seaford to see if that might be where the Hawks are interested in moving to (and they're rich enough to buy their own 2nd oval, although like all clubs, they'll try to get funding from any source they can).
Personally, I don't think 2 ovals are all that big a deal, but whatever.
I dare say the AFL is in a bit of a bind...It's funded so many facilities, for rich and poor clubs that it can't really say no any more to 'chipping in'. Would be nice if they put a cap on...or just gave all clubs something like a million a year for infrastructure improvements, but the response would be "but last year you gave $10M to club XYZ <whah whah whah>"
Another poor decision by the current AFL administration.
You're probably right, but that's what I thought they did do. Clubs that hadn't been given any assistance for facilities got a million bucks in 'disequal funding' when they allocated it a couple of years back. I remember it well because it was pretty much the only disequal funding the WA teams got.
telsor
Hall of Famer
If we do it won't be what you guys get handed.
telsor
Hall of Famer
What makes you say that?
History has told us Telsor that infrastructure in football in WA has never received funding from the AFL that the Vic Clubs do.
Having said that, maybe that will change in the future, but there will be a price for it, like handing over the licences of the two AFL clubs.
It's just the way it is.
telsor
Hall of Famer
So, you have a different setup over there, and want the benefits that everyone else gets, but not to pay the cost. Gotcha.
You referring to the WA clubs failure to pump money into pokies, relying on footy income? If not, what?
What cost are you talking about?
Caro wandered across the issue in the Fairfax press - max tax take is $500k per club. wont raise much !
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...in-football-20140428-zr0x0.html#ixzz30BQhdHe0
Another example of AFL administration competence:
His greatest recent victory on behalf of Collingwood will become clear over the coming weeks as the league eventually rolls out its new equalisation structure.
While Hawthorn worked diligently to win back lost ground in capping the wealthy clubs’ annual ''Robin Hood'' tax at $500,000, it was McGuire’s fury late in the day at the proposed wealth tax on football department spending that led to that money being capped at an annual rate, saving Collingwood millions.
How can the AFL Commission claim to be independent when it identified equalisation as a top priority and then allow the final model to become so watered down - largely through fear of angering Collingwood and the McGuire media machine?
The smaller clubs are still fuming.
McGuire also sits on the AFL’s working group that identifies potential AFL commissioners. He is one of only two club presidents afforded such a position of power - the other is West Coast’s Alan Cransberg - and it is no surprise that his close friend Jeff Browne’s name is constantly thrown up. Browne has even been touted as a future chairman. This is nothing against McGuire or Browne, who has plenty of strong support elsewhere, but surely McGuire’s influence on the AFL is disproportionate.
The AFL Commission’s failure to stand up without fear or favour to Essendon and various officials last year in the dying stages of the penalty negotiations into the Bombers' supplements scandal, could have been handled better to win over Essendon by bringing in McGuire instead of Australian Sports Commission boss John Wylie. Certainly it was McGuire who ultimately brought Demetriou and Essendon chairman Paul Little together.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...in-football-20140428-zr0x0.html#ixzz30DjQXH9X
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...in-football-20140428-zr0x0.html#ixzz30BQhdHe0
Another example of AFL administration competence:
His greatest recent victory on behalf of Collingwood will become clear over the coming weeks as the league eventually rolls out its new equalisation structure.
While Hawthorn worked diligently to win back lost ground in capping the wealthy clubs’ annual ''Robin Hood'' tax at $500,000, it was McGuire’s fury late in the day at the proposed wealth tax on football department spending that led to that money being capped at an annual rate, saving Collingwood millions.
How can the AFL Commission claim to be independent when it identified equalisation as a top priority and then allow the final model to become so watered down - largely through fear of angering Collingwood and the McGuire media machine?
The smaller clubs are still fuming.
McGuire also sits on the AFL’s working group that identifies potential AFL commissioners. He is one of only two club presidents afforded such a position of power - the other is West Coast’s Alan Cransberg - and it is no surprise that his close friend Jeff Browne’s name is constantly thrown up. Browne has even been touted as a future chairman. This is nothing against McGuire or Browne, who has plenty of strong support elsewhere, but surely McGuire’s influence on the AFL is disproportionate.
The AFL Commission’s failure to stand up without fear or favour to Essendon and various officials last year in the dying stages of the penalty negotiations into the Bombers' supplements scandal, could have been handled better to win over Essendon by bringing in McGuire instead of Australian Sports Commission boss John Wylie. Certainly it was McGuire who ultimately brought Demetriou and Essendon chairman Paul Little together.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...in-football-20140428-zr0x0.html#ixzz30DjQXH9X
Freo2012
Premiership Player
Because the bigger successful Vic clubs are the ones causing the problem - Vic is an over-satuated market when it comes to AFL teams - there are not enough supproters, sponsors etc etc etc for all the Vic clubs to make enough $, there is always 2-3 Vic clubs struggling and requiring major handouts. AFL need to get serious about a sustainable long term national comp and the bigger successful Vic clubs need to see the reality and put pressure on relocating/removing a couple of the Vic clubs - the reason they don't is they want Vic to have majority control over the AFL. Thus they should pay for it and not expect clubs elsewhere to do so.
A few facts about WA footy. WAFC is the ONLY (except for some very minor AFL branding $) organisation that promotes and supports WA footy. Profits from WCE and Freo go to the WAFC to do so. Additionally there is already equalisation payments made by WA supporters - $4 per seat per game (from the alreaady far higher cost to attend games in WA at our sub=par stadium compared to the subsidized lower costs to Vic supporters for their newer stadiums) go to AFL to prop up Vic teams - yet you want more.
Similar threads
- Poll
