Tas wants one club to play 8 games

Remove this Banner Ad

IanW said:
What you see as an extravagant trip, or overpaying a coach, other people see as the things you need to do to stay competitive.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if they can't afford it. But it's pretty easy to show that you don't need to take long overseas trips or pay a million bucks a year for a coach to stay competitive. But even if you do, stiff s**t. Raise more money and pay for it then.
Just don't cry poor and then gold plate your shower heads. It's that spiral of spending that's going to get a lot of clubs in a world of hurt if the AFL economy hits a downturn.

One of the key reasons for Fitzroy's death cycle is because it was poor, it had to sell players and stint on the off-field things, which meant it got bad results, so it didnt have crowds, so it was poor, and so on.
Click to expand...

Dude, Port went to the UAE for 'heat training' and it was hotter in Adelaide during the time they were away. There's a big difference between not being able to do heat training in a cooler climate and not being able to pay your players.
 
Rob said:
It doesn't matter if they can't afford it. But it's pretty easy to show that you don't need to take long overseas trips or pay a million bucks a year for a coach to stay competitive. But even if you do, stiff s**t. Raise more money and pay for it then.
Just don't cry poor and then gold plate your shower heads. It's that spiral of spending that's going to get a lot of clubs in a world of hurt if the AFL economy hits a downturn.



Dude, Port went to the UAE for 'heat training' and it was hotter in Adelaide during the time they were away. There's a big difference between not being able to do heat training in a cooler climate and not being able to pay your players.
Click to expand...


Money --> Success --> More money --> more success --> more money. ( repeat ad nauseum ).

Either we have the same few rich teams being the only ones who are successful, or we try and break the cycle.
 
telsor said:
Money --> Success --> More money --> more success --> more money. ( repeat ad nauseum ).
Click to expand...

And who provides the money? For many clubs, it's the AFL. So what happens when the AFL doesn't have the money?

That's why it's not sustainable.

Either we have the same few rich teams being the only ones who are successful, or we try and break the cycle.
Click to expand...

What cycle? Rich teams aren't the only ones that have had success in the AFL era. In fact there appears to be at most only a minor correlation between money and success. Most premiership winners are middle of the road clubs financially.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Rob said:
And who provides the money? For many clubs, it's the AFL. So what happens when the AFL doesn't have the money?

That's why it's not sustainable.



What cycle? Rich teams aren't the only ones that have had success in the AFL era. In fact there appears to be at most only a minor correlation between money and success. Most premiership winners are middle of the road clubs financially.
Click to expand...

So spending money on things like coaches for mega bucks makes no difference to a clubs chances of success? You must be gutted about the money wasted on Lyon.

How many rich clubs have spent long periods at the bottom of the ladder?
 
telsor said:
So spending money on things like coaches for mega bucks makes no difference to a clubs chances of success? You must be gutted about the money wasted on Lyon.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it makes no difference. But it's clearly not a huge barrier. I'd imagine Hinkley is one of the lowest paid, and i'm sure Port are very happy with him.

But in any case, it's beside the point. What happens next year when any club turn to s**t and wants to fork out big dollars for a coach? They pay more again. It's the cycle you mentioned, but it's driven by the AFL. It ends up costing everyone more money, and for what? It's not like this cycle of spending is actually improving the game significantly. Whether Roos is on a million a year doesn't make him a better coach compared to if he was on half a million.

How many rich clubs have spent long periods at the bottom of the ladder?
Click to expand...

Assuming you mean the AFL era.....1. Carlton. For reasons i'm sure we're all aware of. How many poor clubs have? 1. Melbourne. And it's because their drafting was s**t.
 
Rob said:
I didn't say it makes no difference. But it's clearly not a huge barrier. I'd imagine Hinkley is one of the lowest paid, and i'm sure Port are very happy with him.

But in any case, it's beside the point. What happens next year when any club turn to s**t and wants to fork out big dollars for a coach? They pay more again. It's the cycle you mentioned, but it's driven by the AFL. It ends up costing everyone more money, and for what? It's not like this cycle of spending is actually improving the game significantly. Whether Roos is on a million a year doesn't make him a better coach compared to if he was on half a million.
Click to expand...


So put a cap on football dept spending...For all clubs. If, as you say, it doesn't matter much, then surely nobody can object, right? Just spend smarter...Hinkley rather than Lyon, etc.
 
telsor said:
So put a cap on football dept spending...For all clubs. If, as you say, it doesn't matter much, then surely nobody can object, right? Just spend smarter...Hinkley rather than Lyon, etc.
Click to expand...

As long as you don't remove the incentive for clubs to innovate and improve, then by all means.

It's incredibly hard to police though. Even just the definition of football department spending is tough. Are the AFL going to go around making sure the guy that runs the team store doesn't go out on the field and put out the witches hats? Do you include capital spending? Is it going to be amounts paid or market value? You reckon enforcing the salary cap is hard - this would be 10 times harder than that.
 
telsor said:
So put a cap on football dept spending...For all clubs. If, as you say, it doesn't matter much, then surely nobody can object, right? Just spend smarter...Hinkley rather than Lyon, etc.
Click to expand...

If the AFL can put a cap on player salary to the point of forcing clubs to pay a minimum salary cap, then clubs taking AFL funding for financial shortfalls (as Port, Melbourne and Brisbane currently are) not related to the Docklands deal or shortfalls in the fixture - these are AFL issues - should be forced to have a cap on spending. Extravagances like overseas trips which are of arguable benefit and expensive coaches and staff should be on hold until the club is financially more stable.

I actually think policies like that would require just as much innovation as those used by financially better off clubs.
 
Rob, you talk of a possible downturn of AFL revenue and I think this is what the AFL had in mind when assistance packages were given out to areas where the AFL audit identified a min spend in these areas ie membership dept, in the hope they become self sustaining, if indeed the spigot is closed off.
 
The_Wookie said:
If the AFL can put a cap on player salary to the point of forcing clubs to pay a minimum salary cap, then clubs taking AFL funding for financial shortfalls (as Port, Melbourne and Brisbane currently are) not related to the Docklands deal or shortfalls in the fixture - these are AFL issues - should be forced to have a cap on spending. Extravagances like overseas trips which are of arguable benefit and expensive coaches and staff should be on hold until the club is financially more stable.

I actually think policies like that would require just as much innovation as those used by financially better off clubs.
Click to expand...

Startling to see an acknowledgement of the AFL involvement in the Docklands deal, normally denied - the AFL could renegotiate the deals at Docklands so that one club does not profit at the expense of others, but the AFL choses to maintain the status quo.
 
theflea said:
Rob, you talk of a possible downturn of AFL revenue and I think this is what the AFL had in mind when assistance packages were given out to areas where the AFL audit identified a min spend in these areas ie membership dept, in the hope they become self sustaining, if indeed the spigot is closed off.
Click to expand...

Which, lets face it, really doesn't address the problem in most cases. Some of the smaller clubs in Melbourne already pride themselves on being able to convert more supporters to members than most other clubs in the league. How much more blood from a stone do you want to draw out?
 
Kwality said:
Startling to see an acknowledgement of the AFL involvement in the Docklands deal, normally denied - the AFL could renegotiate the deals at Docklands so that one club does not profit at the expense of others, but the AFL choses to maintain the status quo.
Click to expand...

So to be clear...You think the AFL *should* be involve in ground negotiations to ensure the results are fair for all?
 
Rob said:
I.....
Dude, Port went to the UAE for 'heat training' and it was hotter in Adelaide during the time they were away. There's a big difference between not being able to do heat training in a cooler climate and not being able to pay your players.
Click to expand...


No it wasn't. 2 of the 9 days were hotter in Adelaide whilst the boys were in Dubai. It bloody rained here one or two of those 9 days. But Adelaide doesn't have 65% humidity in November/December.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RussellEbertHandball said:
No it wasn't. 2 of the 9 days were hotter in Adelaide whilst the boys were in Dubai. It bloody rained here one or two of those 9 days. But Adelaide doesn't have 65% humidity in November/December.
Click to expand...

To be fair, everyone could have done their heat training this week in Adelaide or Melbourne or last week in Perth. 40 degrees all bloody week...
 
The_Wookie said:
To be fair, everyone could have done their heat training this week in Adelaide or Melbourne or last week in Perth. 40 degrees all bloody week...
Click to expand...


But late November straight after the draft isn't January weather. Camps are done in November - December for all that team bonding stuff with new draftees and new recruits.

Having spent my childhood to mid 20's working on farms, market gardens, orchards, vineyards etc in Adelaide and surrounds, November and December have plenty of cool days and rainy days to * up agricultural products. You usually want to be finished by early January because unless you have a big La Nina season, there isn't even a puff of cloud for 2 or 3 weeks from mid January.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
But late November straight after the draft isn't January weather. Camps are done in November - December for all that team bonding stuff with new draftees and new recruits.

Having spent my childhood to mid 20's working on farms, market gardens, orchards, vineyards etc in Adelaide and surrounds, November and December have plenty of cool days and rainy days to **** up agricultural products. You usually want to be finished by early January because unless you have a big La Nina season, there isn't even a puff of cloud for 2 or 3 weeks from mid January.
Click to expand...

t'was a joke REB
 
They can be based at either end, that's not the issue. Commonsense says you keep them together. The main thing is that a clearly mandated policy of how many games are played at each end of the state is constructed and stuck to. The Devils biggest shooting in the foot occurred when they started shifting games to the south based upon slightly larger Hobart attendances (we're talking 5000 v 4000, close figures, not 5000 v 1000), and once the north felt like they'd been slapped in the face, that was the beginning of the end, a loss of support they would never get back. Give the slightest notion of spurious favouritism, and the support dies. Alternatively, set it in concrete, and the public tends to accept it. The fully southernised Tasmanian Tigers and Hobart Hurricanes prove this to a certain extent, although domestic cricket is nowhere near the crowd driven force that footy is. This is why the AFL must drive the team...it can't be left to parochial interests, especially politicians...total separation of powers...
 
Kwality said:
Startling to see an acknowledgement of the AFL involvement in the Docklands deal, normally denied - the AFL could renegotiate the deals at Docklands so that one club does not profit at the expense of others, but the AFL choses to maintain the status quo.
Click to expand...

The AFL didnt negotiate Essendons deal at Etihad, or Carltons - and thus could not renegotiate them - or the original deals for most clubs. For North/Saints/Dogs their deals expired and were replaced by generic ones negotiated by the AFL in 2009. Carltons original deal expires this year, Essendons deal expires in 2025.

Essendon and Carlton were actively persued by Docklands. Essendon ended up being the founding tenant and got the best deal. Literally, first in, best dressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The 747
Ticket release for games
Replies
0
Views
283
The 747
The 747
The_Wookie
The AFL is set to spend $1 billion across the next decade in an effort to fast-track more people signing up to play footy.
Replies
15
Views
1K
Macca180
Macca180
The_Wookie
Roy Morgan 2023: Swans still number one with 1.334m supporters, Port best at converting to members
Replies
21
Views
2K
Grand Uncle Horace
Grand Uncle Horace
D
  • Sticky
Official Club Stuff 2024 Club Membership Updates
2 3 4 5
Replies
112
Views
10K
Fletched
Fletched
The_Wookie
Pridham: it’s inevitable that the Sydney Swans will be the biggest sporting club in Australia
Replies
3
Views
701
The King!
The King!
The_Wookie
Tasmania: From License reveal to set up - what we know
Replies
17
Views
1K
____
____
The_Wookie
State of the Game 2023: AFL/NRL Attendance, Members, Social Media and Television
Replies
1
Views
1K
The_Wookie
The_Wookie

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top