Saints and Lions no longer viable

[Ian Dunross]

It's no surprise that Hawthorn's administration is first rate given the on field results.

Name a Premiership winning side that was poorly run off field.

Get it right off field and the on field will generally follow.

The Lions and Saints have both turned a corner in the last 12 months each with new key off-field personnel.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Let us hope saints and lions fans will remember us supporting their right to stay in the comp the next time someone questions whether the giants should be there or not.

People remember s**t like that.

I still remember the blues and Kangas were the only two clubs who were happy for the league to let us die during save our skins. Last thing I will ever do is contribute a cent to either club when their turn comes

 

[Gigantor]

People remember s**t like that.

I still remember the blues and Kangas were the only two clubs who were happy for the league to let us die during save our skins. Last thing I will ever do is contribute a cent to either club when their turn comes

A pattern is emerging.

I've noticed the past two years that Carlton and North fans were the ones most willing to dance on the grave of another footy club (perhaps prematurely).

 

[telsor]

A pattern is emerging.

I've noticed the past two years that Carlton and North fans were the ones most willing to dance on the grave of another footy club (perhaps prematurely).

When North were desperately trying to avoid going to the GC, they were begging everyone for help, and a lot of help came through for them from other clubs supporters.

As soon as they were safe, it was '* you, we did it all ourselves'.

That's when they lost me.

 

[Belnakor]

Name a Premiership winning side that was poorly run off field.

Hawks 1991..

 

[JD-Roo]

People remember s**t like that.

I still remember the blues and Kangas were the only two clubs who were happy for the league to let us die during save our skins. Last thing I will ever do is contribute a cent to either club when their turn comes

A pattern is emerging.

I've noticed the past two years that Carlton and North fans were the ones most willing to dance on the grave of another footy club (perhaps prematurely).

Any fan that wants that, not just North fans, are dickheads. I watched the demise of Fitzroy and remember not only how it burned those Lions friends I have, but how it burns as a footy follower as well.

I know people can generalise and then be set in their ways, but for what it's worth, please don't tar all North fans with this brush as there are so many that WOULDN'T wish what happened to Fitzroy or came so damn close to happening to us, upon anybody else.

 

[garlic munchers]

They already can (effectively) negotiate stadium deals on your behalf.

The AFL says where you play....You can make the greatest deal ever with the new Perth stadium, but if the AFL makes a deal to have you playing at Subi for the next 20 years, guess where the fixture will have you playing?

Rubbish, we will play some finals so they will have to play us at the new stadium sometime in the next 20 yrs (unlike the bunch of pussies you support).

Sorry, a bit snaky as I just lost $80 on your mob tonight.

 

[Last of the Roys]

There has been a fair amount of bullshit posted in this thread, and very few quality posts. I therefore can't be bothered explaining to a Bay 13 type crowd why the Lions are in the situation they are in.

Seems less me Plumpton dropped the ball on Etihad whilst McMahon at Essendon didn't.

As for Brisbane it has been membership that has been the problem - even when a success they couldn't get more than 25000 members

But really, why do people post s**t that they know next to nothing about???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Lions

1997 = 16,679 members
1998 = 16,108
1999 = 16,931
2000 = 20,295
2001 = 18,330
2002 = 22,288
2003 = 25,578
2004 = 30,941
2005 = 30,027
2006 = 26,459
2007 = 23,027
2008 = 23,079
2009 = 26,324
2010 = 29,014
2011 = 20,792
2012 = 20,762
2013 = 24,130
2014 = 23,930
2015 so far = 24,742 (it will get above 25,000 this year for the 7th time in the past 13 years)

 

[telsor]

Rubbish, we will play some finals so they will have to play us at the new stadium sometime in the next 20 yrs (unlike the bunch of pussies you support).

Sorry, a bit snaky as I just lost $80 on your mob tonight.

Sorry about your $80, but the AFL makes the fixture, including where you play.

Clearly they wont do something as dumb as making you play as Subi when the new stadium is there, but the point is that they could.

 

[HowYouDoin]

Seems less me Plumpton dropped the ball on Etihad whilst McMahon at Essendon didn't.

As for Brisbane it has been membership that has been the problem - even when a success they couldn't get more than 25000 members

what on earth are you taking about?

We went way over 25 thousand during the early 2000's

In fact, in our heydays we were rightfully considered one of the big 4 clubs.

 

[Sector 7G]

No choice.

The AFL have the final say on such contracts and refused to allow us to negotiate with the G, so it was Docklands or nothing.

Hence the shitty deal.

The AFL could however negotiated the deals collectively rather than letting EFC get a better deal than the other tenants.
Would have nothing to do with who was running the AFL at the time.

Would also help if the AFL wasn't getting the stadium for free after 25 years with the tenants effectively buy the stadium for the other 13 teams.

 

[fabulousphil]

There has been a fair amount of bullshit posted in this thread, and very few quality posts. I therefore can't be bothered explaining to a Bay 13 type crowd why the Lions are in the situation they are in.



But really, why do people post s**t that they know next to nothing about???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Lions

1997 = 16,679 members
1998 = 16,108
1999 = 16,931
2000 = 20,295
2001 = 18,330
2002 = 22,288
2003 = 25,578
2004 = 30,941
2005 = 30,027
2006 = 26,459
2007 = 23,027
2008 = 23,079
2009 = 26,324
2010 = 29,014
2011 = 20,792
2012 = 20,762
2013 = 24,130
2014 = 23,930
2015 so far = 24,742 (it will get above 25,000 this year for the 7th time in the past 13 years)

Pretty clear the support is there, a few wins and a feeling of building will see 30k crowds return to the Gabba.

If the local Lions academy can pump out some quality locals the bandwagon will build, any Heeneys on the horizon ?.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

The AFL could however negotiated the deals collectively rather than letting EFC get a better deal than the other tenants.
Would have nothing to do with who was running the AFL at the time.

Would also help if the AFL wasn't getting the stadium for free after 25 years with the tenants effectively buy the stadium for the other 13 teams.

here we go again with this bullshit, same crap gets exaggerated time and time again, we are now at the point where club presidents claim they make no money from 40,000 people attending a game.

guess what, if the deals really were that inequitable if clubs truly couldn't make money off of it then no one would have signed the deal. instead the clubs would have took it to court and complained, it would have went through mediation at if that didn't work a judge would have decided the deal.

there were avenues available to go down, was eithad had deal great certainly not. but it wasn't the worst, far from it. the deal was signed because clubs didn't plan ahead and now every year this myth grows more and more out of hand.

i've seen the figures rise from 15K to 20K to 25K to 30K and this year the massive leap to 40K. thats more then enough grounds to challenge the rent in court, because its clearly unsustainable and as the clubs are "forced tenants" if they can demonstrate its sending them broke then arbitration will be on their side.

the truth is a lot more complex yes etihad is a s**t deal, but its not the world ending plague vic clubs are pretending it is. The only ones paying for etihad are the ones using it, you can't get a brand new purpose built stadium for free.

 

[Periphery]

The only ones paying for etihad are the ones using it, you can't get a brand new purpose built stadium for free.

Yet the whole league will benefit from it when the AFL owns it. Seems fair.

Also, please show me anything credible that shows a breakeven figure at Etihad below 25k. I have never seen it below 30k but I'm giving you some benefit of the doubt.

 

[The_Wookie]

Yet the whole league will benefit from it when the AFL owns it. Seems fair.

Also, please show me anything credible that shows a breakeven figure at Etihad below 25k. I have never seen it below 30k but I'm giving you some benefit of the doubt.

Ill tell you now that the losses are based on gate reciepts, and not on the payments recieved for signage and pourage, and dont include membership income. No one truly is making a loss - they are making a loss on matchday income as costs are traditionally taken from the gate. When north writes a cheque its based solely on the principle that its gate reciepts havent reached a point where it meets the cost of the stadium for the day, as well as the 100,000 per match guiaranteed by the Etihad contract with the AFL.

 

[Colonial]

Yet the whole league will benefit from it when the AFL owns it. Seems fair..

How will we benefit from it? We dont play home games there so wont get any sweetheart deals.

Wasnt a dig. Serious question.

 

[Periphery]

How will we benefit from it? We dont play home games there so wont get any sweetheart deals.

Wasnt a dig. Serious question.

Because the income the stadium generates for the AFL will probably be used to benefit the whole league and not just the tenants.

 

[Colonial]

Because the income the stadium generates for the AFL will probably be used to benefit the whole league and not just the tenants.

Id say it will get lost in funds that go to juniors, payments to clubs etc etc etc.

But wont the clubs playing out of the joint probably be getting the best deals in the league?

 

[Periphery]

Id say it will get lost in funds that go to juniors, payments to clubs etc etc etc.

But wont the clubs playing out of the joint probably be getting the best deals in the league?

How are payments to clubs and using funds to help grow the game not helping every club?

Maybe the tenant clubs will get good deals, but that's hardly a guarantee. Not only will I believe it when I see it, but they are going to have to be pretty good deals to make up for the 15 years of comparatively crap deals the Dogs, Saints and Roos have had.

 

[Kwality]

Yet the whole league will benefit from it when the AFL owns it. Seems fair.

Also, please show me anything credible that shows a breakeven figure at Etihad below 25k. I have never seen it below 30k but I'm giving you some benefit of the doubt.

How will all clubs benefit? Cant see more bums on seats?

 

[Periphery]

How will all clubs benefit? Cant see more bums on seats?

Really? You can't see how all clubs will benefit from the AFL getting an asset worth $1B+ for cheap?

 

[Tulip]

Just like blaming the expansion clubs is wrong, Melbourne and the Saints weren't exactly killing it before us.

In saying that no club should be forced into a merger or moved unless they wish it. Ive seen it happen and wouldn't wish it on another. Though sometimes the death riding of my club tests those wishes.

All GC and GWS did was keep the status quo going a bit longer. As we're seeing this year, after a couple of uncompromised drafts, what comes up must inevitably come down.

 

[Kwality]

Really? You can't see how all clubs will benefit from the AFL getting an asset worth $1B+ for cheap?

IF there is any benefit, IF, it will accrue to the AFL alone, who can dole it out as they wish? Is your windfall going to mean the Eagles dont pay money into the equalisation fund, be serious!
I get that some believe the host clubs will play for nothing or close to.
In reality clubs that need fans of the away club shelling out to make a profit are in denial.

Now if the AFL were to sell Docklands for redevelopment ...

 

[Periphery]

IF there is any benefit, IF, it will accrue to the AFL alone, who can dole it out as they wish? Is your windfall going to mean the Eagles dont pay money into the equalisation fund, be serious!
I get that some believe the host clubs will play for nothing or close to.
In reality clubs that need fans of the away club shelling out to make a profit are in denial.

Now if the AFL were to sell Docklands for redevelopment ...

So the AFL making more money somehow doesn't benefit the teams in the league. Right.

 

[Kwality]

So the AFL making more money somehow doesn't benefit the teams in the league. Right.

Big IF you choose to ignore ... you cant stage an AFL game for $zilch.