The Haves And Have Nots.

[DivideandMultiply]

A unique situation.



Top 4 in footy dept expenditure.



With the same salary cap as everyone else?



Based on a start up list much the same as West Coast and Adelaide..



On the contrary, equal football department budgets serve to further highlight poor management.

Not at the moment they don't.

Threads like this would not exists otherwise. The idea of capped football department spending serves as a massive deflection from how clubs like Melbourne or Richmond have been poorly managed and transfers responsibility from the clubs to the AFL.

Hawthorn is not a unique situation, much like Fremantle they are an example to other clubs on how to turn off field fortunes around. You can attribute their success to various factors, but what remains is they were basketcases who through good management changed their off field fortunes.

You are either an ideologue, or simply concerned about NM at the expense of what is good for the game.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Reading through the thread there seem to be about a dozen top four clubs who all have an unfair advantage over the rest of the competition

 

[HFF]

Then you should have absolutely no problem with the equalisation and capping of football department expenditure.

Football needs more people like you.

Thanks for putting the game ahead of your own short sighted interests.

Equalisation is rubbish. This is a competition, not a charity. The AFL supports the clubs that need help enough through special allowances. There's no need to punish those that can stand on their own two feet by placing a ceiling on them because the "weaker" sides are having a whinge.

As for football department spending/capping, that too is a joke. If you want the best, you have to pay. That's everyday economics. Live within your means.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Equalisation isnt completely rubbish....without some form of socialist policies the richer clubs will definitely dominate....

but the draft salary cap and income redistribution policies the AFL have are more than enough to keep every team competitive over the medium term. We dont want to go back to the 70's and 80's where 4-5 teams dominated and the rest were also rans.

 

[HFF]

^^^ I pointed out that there were already existing measures and policies to help those who need the assistance.

Sharing the gate takings is the biggest joke proposal I've ever heard though. That is complete rubbish. That's just a case of the small clubs riding on the coat tails of the bigger clubs and being given everything on a platter.

As has been pointed out, there are numerous examples that have been given as to how you can turn your fortunes around with good management.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I wasnt saying "Sharing" the gate takings equally. Thats just crazy talk.

But there is a bit of tax taken off the top already to be spent on welfare and I dont have any problem with that. But its survival money only.....no handouts other than basic life support. If you want to send your players to Arizona, dont ask for handouts to fund it.

 

[Teffy]

Actually, putting a cap on football department spending would be contrary to the interests of the game.

Put your bias aside and look at the issue honestly.

What?

The game has become rubbish since it became inundated with beep test robots.

I suggest you get out a few of your old mans DVD's son.

The golden era of football is OVER!

 

[Teffy]

I wasnt saying "Sharing" the gate takings equally. Thats just crazy talk.

But there is a bit of tax taken off the top already to be spent on welfare and I dont have any problem with that. But its survival money only.....no handouts other than basic life support. If you want to send your players to Arizona, dont ask for handouts to fund it.

You really would be happy to win cheapened premierships year after year wouldn't you?

Then again, the same thing happened in the 20's and 30's under the Coulter Law. The rich clubs took the best and the poor clubs got the rest..

 

[refresh]

the have nots will have to sell more home games interstate and use the Hawthorn model. Proof that minnows can compete.

out of interest, are Carlton still selling games?

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

^^^ I pointed out that there were already existing measures and policies to help those who need the assistance.

Sharing the gate takings is the biggest joke proposal I've ever heard though. That is complete rubbish. That's just a case of the small clubs riding on the coat tails of the bigger clubs and being given everything on a platter.

As has been pointed out, there are numerous examples that have been given as to how you can turn your fortunes around with good management.

Hawthorn were an exception. It's almost impossible these days to go from the position we were in 1996 to being on our knees, having a handful of members and about to merge, to being one of the power clubs in the competition, with excpetional membership numbers, massive wealth and a rock solid future in the space of 12 years.

That's the exception not the norm. For every Hawthorn, who did it by themselves and stood on their own two feet. There are the Richmonds, North Melbournes, Carltons, Port Adelaides, Melbournes & Western Bulldogs of the world, many who wouldn't exist as we speak, if not for outside intervention and large loans form the AFL.

Kennett said today in the article below, basically over half the competition are fundamentally in administration. It's not a good look for the game and it's not good for the future of the compeition.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/kennett-warns-afl-in-farewell-20110807-1ihpc.html

 

[Teffy]

Hawthorn were an exception. It's almost impossible these days to go from the position we were in 1996 to being on our knees, having a handful of members and about to merge, to being one of the power clubs in the with excpetional membership numbers, massive wealth and a rock solid future in the space of 12 years.

That's the exception not the norm. For every Hawthorn, who did it by themselves and stood on their own two feet. There the Richmonds, North Melbournes, Carltons, Port Adelaides, Melbournes & Western Bulldogs of the world, many who wouldn't exist as we speak, if not for outside intervention and large loans form the AFL.

Kennett said today in the article below, basically over half the competition are fundamentally in administration. It's not a good look for the game and it's not good for the future of the compeition.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/kennett-warns-afl-in-farewell-20110807-1ihpc.html

The AFL are probably stupid enough to think we would all buy Collingwood, Essendon and Geelong memberships if the struggling clubs were forced to the wall.

Heeeelllloooooooooo Soccer.

 

[McOrist]

You really would be happy to win cheapened premierships year after year wouldn't you?

Then again, the same thing happened in the 20's and 30's under the Coulter Law. The rich clubs took the best and the poor clubs got the rest..

...also reminds me of what happened in the 70's when cashed up dentists and car salesmen bought a couple of flags.

 

[Falchoon]

Free agency is still restricted by the salary cap

coaching promises post career are not

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

...also reminds me of what happened in the 70's when cashed up dentists and car salesmen bought a couple of flags.

with a bit of help from free agency

 

[Teffy]

...also reminds me of what happened in the 70's when cashed up dentists and car salesmen bought a couple of flags.

This what is commonly referred to as a "deflection".

This rule applied to every club including far richer clubs than North. BTW, drop the "couple". Davis, Wade and Rantall only played in the 75 flag. The rule was closed a year later.


I'll tell you what, I'm happy to concede Collingwood the 2010 flag, we'll call it square and now even up footy department spending.

Fair enough?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

coaching promises post career are not

It would be irrational to appoint a coach on that basis alone

 

[HFF]

You really would be happy to win cheapened premierships year after year wouldn't you?

Then again, the same thing happened in the 20's and 30's under the Coulter Law. The rich clubs took the best and the poor clubs got the rest..

Cheapened premierships?

Last time I checked, they have become harder to win- hence why you rarely ever see B2B or three-peats in the modern game anymore.

Stop having a whinge because your football club can't "grind out results", as your coach so eloquently put it this morning.

 

[SirJimi05]

Free agency is still restricted by the salary cap

Don't let simple facts and good old common sense get in the way.

 

[Teffy]

Cheapened premierships?

Last time I checked, they have become harder to win- hence why you rarely ever see B2B or three-peats in the modern game anymore.

Geelong are in line to win their 3rd premiership in 4 seasons.

Geelong are top 3 in FD expenditure.

Stop having a whinge because your football club can't "grind out results", as your coach so eloquently put it this morning.

This is the difference that $10,000,000 makes.

 

[McOrist]

This what is commonly referred to as a "deflection".

This rule applied to every club including far richer clubs than North. BTW, drop the "couple". Davis, Wade and Rantall only played in the 75 flag. The rule was closed a year later.


I'll tell you what, I'm happy to concede Collingwood the 2010 flag, we'll call it square and now even up footy department spending.

Fair enough?

You don't have to concede it. We've already won it.

But thanks anyway.

 

[MaddAdam]

The AFL will introduce a footy dept spend equalisation measure soon.

Most likely it will be some form of soft cap: for every $ over a set figure teams want to spend, they will have to pay $1 or $2 into a fund that will then be distributed among the clubs that pay the cap or below.

Anyway, the facilities argument etc is a bit overblown. There's a minimum level all teams have to have and all do now.

North was in a far worse position than we are now about 5 years ago with Arden St craphole and not even having enough money to have rookies.

Also, I can very easily see the AFL funding standalone seconds teams for all the clubs. That is a very big advantage at the moment, more so than pretty much anything else.

Finally, Arizona et al is a bit overblown.

Brad Scott (who was at Collingwood and has a degree in sports science so knows a bit about these things) said the reason he took the North list to Utah wasn't because of any physical benefit that altitude gives, but so the younger players could see how truly elite athletes - the worlds best cross country skiers and biathletes - train and live in order to achieve that high performance lifestyle.

 

[Teffy]

You don't have to concede it. We've already won it.

But thanks anyway.

Good.

Put it next to the 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1935 and 1936 cups.

It belongs on the same paper lined shelf.

 

[MaddAdam]

This is the difference that $10,000,000 makes.

No mate, the difference is we're playing a super young midfield against bigger, stronger, older opponents.

Brad Scott himself said he could have put Rawlings and Firrito in the middle against Carlton and probably 'ground out' the win but he thought it better for Ziebs et al to get the experience.

 

[yibbida]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...urne-do-it-cheap/story-e6frf3e3-1226049597339

or

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/hawks-flag-came-at-a-price/story-e6frg7mf-1225710556623

Geelong have also had massive figures for football department spending recently.

While the Pies' spending rose in most areas within the club's football department, their players earned $1.12 million more than in 2009 for a 2010 total of $10.7 million.

Collingwood players were paid more than their counterparts at all other clubs, as fellow grand finalists St Kilda's inflated total player payments of $11.5 million is understood to include anomalies, such as a one-off cash payment to sacked midfielder Andrew Lovett.

Someone want to explain how this can be?

 

[HFF]

Good.

Put it next to the 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1935 and 1936 cups.

It belongs on the same paper lined shelf.

Alot of salty tears going on here.