SANFL/WAFL clubs joining AFL

[piesnz]

22 teams mid to long term is a good number if we can have a 22 round season including each team's bye. Those great 80s that people pine over had 12 teams in a city of less than 3 million. 22 teams from a talent pool of more like 14 million if we exclude NSW/Qld isn't too much of a stretch.
Composite of a couple of SA clubs
Ditto from WA
NT team in Darwin with a few games in Alice
Tas team split between Hobart and Launceston.

 

[Colonial]

Currently, those 'old vic clubs' are in a much better condition than GC & GWS (and probably Brisbane).

You would think so after a 150 year headstart

 

[telsor]

You put a fine point on clubs that have been around for 100+ years & expect/need a subsidy because, they may be icons of a state based competition but can not be relevant in the national comp 25 years on ... when?

No, I'm putting a point on dumping clubs that are more financially viable than those that you think deserve support.

If the bulldogs (for example), are given equal support (financial, fixture & ground) to ALL other clubs fail to be economically viable, then I'm fine with dumping them. I do however object to putting hurdles in front of some clubs (but not others) and judging them for failing to get over them.

 

[telsor]

You would think so after a 150 year headstart

So you support the idea of getting rid of clubs BECAUSE they have more history?

 

[Kwality]

No, I'm putting a point on dumping clubs that are more financially viable than those that you think deserve support.

If the bulldogs (for example), are given equal support (financial, fixture & ground) to ALL other clubs fail to be economically viable, then I'm fine with dumping them. I do however object to putting hurdles in front of some clubs (but not others) and judging them for failing to get over them.

Clubs are either financially viable or they are not.

 

[telsor]

Clubs are either financially viable or they are not.

Yes and no...

On an absolute level, yes, you're right, but as with any large organisation, there is a certain level of flexibility.

Club A makes a $1Million loss regularly...not viable, right?

But what if they pay minimum salary cap, and cripple their coaching dept & recruiting by employing the cheapest available...result is probably a pretty crappy on field result, but hey, they make a profit, so that makes them viable, right?

Or alternatively, they're making a loss because of a situation which is likely to change in the foreseeable future (e.g. a crappy ground deal)...Sure, they're making a loss now, so could be considered 'non-viable', but the future is more promising (in corporate terms, any number of startups or restructuring companies would fit this paradigm as well), so as long as they have the means/support to get through to when things get better, they're 'viable'.

Put the 2 together, and most 'poor vic clubs' could cut their programs to make themselves able manage to survive until the stadium deal improves (thus 'viable'), but would you really want 10 years of 3-4 clubs being uncompetitive just to satisfy your definition of 'viable', or would you rather they get some support?


Additionally, how does your 'viability' definition fit with NSW & QLD clubs?

 

[Rob]

So you support the idea of getting rid of clubs BECAUSE they have more history?

East Fremantle have history as well. Lots of it.

Doesn't mean they deserve to be, or belong in the AFL.

 

[Kwality]

Yes and no...

On an absolute level, yes, you're right, but as with any large organisation, there is a certain level of flexibility.

Club A makes a $1Million loss regularly...not viable, right?

But what if they pay minimum salary cap, and cripple their coaching dept & recruiting by employing the cheapest available...result is probably a pretty crappy on field result, but hey, they make a profit, so that makes them viable, right?

Or alternatively, they're making a loss because of a situation which is likely to change in the foreseeable future (e.g. a crappy ground deal)...Sure, they're making a loss now, so could be considered 'non-viable', but the future is more promising (in corporate terms, any number of startups or restructuring companies would fit this paradigm as well), so as long as they have the means/support to get through to when things get better, they're 'viable'.

Put the 2 together, and most 'poor vic clubs' could cut their programs to make themselves able manage to survive until the stadium deal improves (thus 'viable'), but would you really want 10 years of 3-4 clubs being uncompetitive just to satisfy your definition of 'viable', or would you rather they get some support?


Additionally, how does your 'viability' definition fit with NSW & QLD clubs?

I am referring to clubs that have both budgeted for & made losses year in, year out. As for the dud stadium deals in Melbourne ... the AFL choose not to apply a bandaid for the next decade.

NSW & Q are developing markets versus established clubs.

 

[Colonial]

So you support the idea of getting rid of clubs BECAUSE they have more history?

Not at all. Im against getting rid of clubs.
But if your going to compare them the make it a fair comparison.

 

[telsor]

Not at all. Im against getting rid of clubs.
But if your going to compare them the make it a fair comparison.

Great, lets factor in things like ground deals and fixturing then.

 

[telsor]

I am referring to clubs that have both budgeted for & made losses year in, year out. As for the dud stadium deals in Melbourne ... the AFL choose not to apply a bandaid for the next decade.

So because the Vic clubs are paying a massive additional tax to the AFL (buying a stadium for it), they should be punished?

 

[eastfreo75]

So because the Vic clubs are paying a massive additional tax to the AFL (buying a stadium for it), they should be punished?

west coast and fremantle pay more money to the WAFC then a Vic club pays to the docklands.

 

[telsor]

west coast and fremantle pay more money to the WAFC then a Vic club pays to the docklands.

The Vic clubs are, in effect, paying it to West Coast and Freo (who will each get a 1/18th share).

Doesn't really matter though, the point is that the lack of viability of these clubs has a clear reason.

It also means the AFL wont get rid of these clubs, because without them, they'd struggle to meet their contractual obligations to the ground.

 

[Kwality]

The Vic clubs are, in effect, paying it to West Coast and Freo (who will each get a 1/18th share).

Doesn't really matter though, the point is that the lack of viability of these clubs has a clear reason.

It also means the AFL wont get rid of these clubs, because without them, they'd struggle to meet their contractual obligations to the ground.

The Fairfax Press might have the AFL right
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...icks=true&nk=0cd4905fd3bb1da0852a459e97593bf6

At some point you cant pile stuff up (the Melbourne stadium deals fiasco) on stuff up (the FIXturing debacle) to bandaid problems.

 

[Colonial]

Great, lets factor in things like ground deals and fixturing then.

Agree whole heartedly. As well as travel etc. Its all about balance.

 

[telsor]

The Fairfax Press might have the AFL right
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...icks=true&nk=0cd4905fd3bb1da0852a459e97593bf6

At some point you cant pile stuff up (the Melbourne stadium deals fiasco) on stuff up (the FIXturing debacle) to bandaid problems.

Simple version is that with similar ground deals, and fixtures, most of the struggling Vic clubs would be OK. Sure, perhaps not all, but it's pretty hard to work that out until such problems are dealt with.

As I've said before, I'm not against Vic clubs getting cut from the comp, AFTER they've had a fair go. That's clearly not the case now, so they stay and yes, they collect support.

 

[telsor]

Agree whole heartedly. As well as travel etc. Its all about balance.

Only way travel can be truly equalised without completely corrupting the fixture (shifting games so as to giving home advantage to teams who would otherwise travel further over a season) is to have each team get in a plane and fly around in circles for X hours to even things up.

Frankly, whatever could be done would be a big solution for a small problem (small problem based on how I can't think of any other sport that considers this a major issue, even though they travel far more).

 

[Colonial]

Only way travel can be truly equalised without completely corrupting the fixture (shifting games so as to giving home advantage to teams who would otherwise travel further over a season) is to have each team get in a plane and fly around in circles for X hours to even things up.

Frankly, whatever could be done would be a big solution for a small problem (small problem based on how I can't think of any other sport that considers this a major issue, even though they travel far more).

I agree there is no way. But it is a point that when you want things equal has to also be taken into account

 

[Kwality]

Simple version is that with similar ground deals, and fixtures, most of the struggling Vic clubs would be OK. Sure, perhaps not all, but it's pretty hard to work that out until such problems are dealt with.

As I've said before, I'm not against Vic clubs getting cut from the comp, AFTER they've had a fair go. That's clearly not the case now, so they stay and yes, they collect support.

Andy might have got it right on the way out?

 

[telsor]

I agree there is no way. But it is a point that when you want things equal has to also be taken into account

OK, we can't have perfect equality, but 'close to' will do.

Some clubs getting over twice as much (in % terms) from their stadium returns because they have to pay it off for the rest of the league isn't 'close to'.

 

[Colonial]

OK, we can't have perfect equality, but 'close to' will do.

Some clubs getting over twice as much (in % terms) from their stadium returns because they have to pay it off for the rest of the league isn't 'close to'.

OK, we can't have perfect equality, but 'close to' will do.

Some clubs getting over twice as much (in % terms) from their stadium returns because they have to pay it off for the rest of the league isn't 'close to'.

Thats the point though. As long as it is close to, benefits vic clubs, then its ok. Otherwise if its for expansion clubs its unfair.

 

[telsor]

Thats the point though. As long as it is close to, benefits vic clubs, then its ok. Otherwise if its for expansion clubs its unfair.

Where did I say that?

I only brought up the expansion clubs because of Kwality's strict 'viability' notion.

My point was that if it's OK to support expansion clubs for 20-30 years while they build a market, surely it's reasonable to support Vic clubs for 11 years while they get past an AFL mandated millstone.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Where did I say that?

I only brought up the expansion clubs because of Kwality's strict 'viability' notion.

My point was that if it's OK to support expansion clubs for 20-30 years while they build a market, surely it's reasonable to support Vic clubs for 11 years while they get past an AFL mandated millstone.

The point KW makes though, and many others have made, is who says its gunna be all sunshine and lollipops when then AFL own it?

Sure you lose the premium the owners currently need to attach to ensure a commercial return and meet interest payments, but this is still a very expensive stadium to run

It has a much higher cost due to the need to constantly replace the grass

It has a much higher power cost because of the need for internal lighting due to the shade issues, and the light lamps they have to use to try and minimize the death of the grass

Also the AFL has hardly had a rosy relationship with the A-League and the NRL, yet it needs to get them to use this stadium more, pay more, and not continue the exodus to AAMI

You still have the issue of the Medallion Club, a key revenue source, but one difficult for the AFL to have with AFL members

The bleeding won't be as bad as today, but your kidding yourself if you think Etihad will ever be run as cheaply as other stadium

 

[Kwality]

OK, we can't have perfect equality, but 'close to' will do.

Some clubs getting over twice as much (in % terms) from their stadium returns because they have to pay it off for the rest of the league isn't 'close to'.

Bit narrow in your view? Some clubs are paying off Docklands, but the AFL pays the subsidy, all clubs get a share of the asset. You could be consistent & looking forward you might want to factor in equalisation.
In short telsor, the claim only some clubs are paying off Docklands is propaganda only, great for handwringing - I say again the AFL could resolve the Melbourne stadium deal inequity just as the WAFC sorted out inequity in Perth & it took SA Govt action to fix Adelaide (if indeed it has yet!). Imagine the presidents of the Melbourne clubs trying to agree on what is fair

 

[telsor]

Bit narrow in your view? Some clubs are paying off Docklands, but the AFL pays the subsidy, all clubs get a share of the asset. You could be consistent & looking forward you might want to factor in equalisation.

The AFL's additional payments (subsidy) is less than the 'extra' that is paid to the ground...We can quibble over the amount, but the fact is the clubs playing there (collectively) pay a lot of money to buy the ground for the AFL.

In short telsor, the claim only some clubs are paying off Docklands is propaganda only, great for handwringing - I say again the AFL could resolve the Melbourne stadium deal inequity just as the WAFC sorted out inequity in Perth & it took SA Govt action to fix Adelaide (if indeed it has yet!). Imagine the presidents of the Melbourne clubs trying to agree on what is fair

Yep, the AFL chose to continue 'disequal funding' rather than fork out a couple of hundred million. Probably because it's cheaper to keep leeching off the clubs forced to play there.