AFL continue campaign to restructure WA footy

[Eastern Rangers]

In all fairness, why should AFL money go towards paying second rate footballers in the WAFL? The WAFL should be paying it's players what they are capable of generating themselves if they're not doing that at the moment.

Why should dollars go to second rate clubs from the VFL when once powerhouse WAFL clubs die a slow long death? Logic failure.

We are told AFL = VFL. Well the Eagles and Dockers represent West Australian football.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Given that most - if not all - AFL clubs are financial contributors to their VFL affiliates - its the main reason the VFL clubs sought affiliation after all - and given there are 10 clubs paying for it in their football budget, its going to be hard to find out specifically.

Further funding would have been available through AFL Victoria which became a wholly owned subsidary of the AFL last year.

And the license fee for a dedicated VFL team is going to up.

Given the ratio of AFL clubs to WAFL clubs is safe to say we get value for money, especially when you take into account the number of non AFL players playing under the salary cap of each club.

WA football is strong, the AFL clubs are doing well, the AFL clubs get along pretty well with the WAFC and the WAFC has been a smooth operator.

Removing it's ability to generate revenue wont do WA football any good, West Australians should administrate the game in WA and you need money to do it.

 

[wahawk]

Don't forget the AFL wanted to add a levy to already inflated WA ticket prices to help subsidise cheap ticket prices for Victorians.

I'd be pretty nervous about giving ownership of our clubs to an organisation who had the cheek to suggest that.

that is incorrect.

wafc set the price for tickets and that is the sole reason why wa is the most expensive in the league. the afl set a minimum price but its up to wafc to set final price

 

[laminex]

We were going to buy a NM home game for 1 mil. AFL said no.

Moos.

For 1 Mill i would let you do what ever you want........................

 

[Oneiros]

For 1 Mill i would let you do what ever you want........................

You hussy...

 

[laminex]

But in the end I think we can all agree that Victorians are evil and most likely shot JFK as well as set fire to the Hindenburg.

They do make a good coffee though.

Yes our Coffee is great, if you ever make your way to Werribee, Vic. try Moka Coffee shop in Watton St swear to god it will change your life.

Sorry about JFK, but on a side note did you know his dad was a multi millionaire from drug running.

 

[Oneiros]

Yes our Coffee is great, if you ever make your way to Werribee, Vic. try Moka Coffee shop in Watton St swear to god it will change your life.

Sorry about JFK, but on a side note did you know his dad was a multi millionaire from drug running.

Just visited for the first time recently - am definitely open to going back and chasing down as many life-changing coffee experiences as I can find.

To be honest I never knew how JFK escaped as much of the responsibility for the Vietnam War as he did. I guess being shot through the head on national television has its perks.

 

[wahawk]

Yep

The biggest joke is WA supporters pay twice as much for seats at Subiaco than the minnows (with no supporters) pay for MCG and Etihad - and yet also $ are additionally paid to prop those VIC clubs up (so VIC clubs can pretend to be real clubs - they're not - they're spongers on the rest of the comp and even kids footy)

Before this licence situation should even be contemplated the AFL should prove they are wanting a true and fair national comp and put the following in place:

- reduce the number of Melbourne teams to those that can substantially prove they have a long term viable financial life, without any aid whatsoever (atleast 3-4 need to go),
- abolish equalisation policy and ensure through constitution that no unfair treatment based on location can every be undertaken (this is possible)
- assist in funding long term stadium solutions for SA and WA
- somehow provide a guarantee that local footy in WA and SA does not suffer - not from promise of set $ amount, but % of revenues of the WA/SA based clubs
- ensure fair and unbiased scheduling and draw
- guarantee (by constitution) that money spent on grass roots footy is spent on $/kid or player, not biased based on location as it is now to VIC, except for special funding for new developing areas (outside Vic, WA and SA)

If the AFL was willing to do these things they would be showing they do want a true national comp, and not just a money/control grab to ensure the propping up of the multitude of irrelevant VIC clubs.

you are very naive.

as i posted above, afl do not set final price. blame that on wafc

if you want a true and fair comp, you can't just make vic clubs prove they have a long term viable financial life. So we'll say goodbye to not only 3 or 4 vic clubs but also port, probably suns, lions, gws and maybe syd and freo (remember, you want clubs to substantially prove they can survive,thats why i added the last 2) That would leave us with 8 clubs. 6 from vic, 1 from wa, sa and none in nsw or qld.
Your league is looking good now 'freo2012'

If you abolish the equalisation policy, we will lose another 2 or 3 teams in vic. Now your league has 3 from vic 1 from wa and 1 from sa

Assist in funding stadiums, they are in sa and said they would in wa, problem in wa is that neither political party (when in office) could make a decision on whether to build it or not and then where to build it.

you contradict yourself with your next point, you don't want a promise of set $ amount, but a % of revenues of the wa/sa based clubs. but then you want money spent on $/kid

you want a fair draw, in 'your league' we have 5 teams, so it'll be easy to have a fair draw. Play each other 4 times, 2 home 2 away, followed by a final 5. play each other all year, finish last and still make the finals. Or have a final 4 and kick the last team out of the comp.

Seriously, west aussies need to get over their obsession with the vics. That is the biggest joke

 

[RobV]

As a non supporter of WCE or Freo even I don't want their licences to be handed over to the AFL. WCE and Freo fund the WAFC which then fund the WAFL and in my opinion the WAFL would be worse off under the AFL as it wouldn't get the priroty service that is does from the WAFC.

WA footy is fine and doesn't need to be messed with while it continues to do good. WAFL footy is as good as it has been since the eagles entered the AFL and it is only get stronger.

Another thing is the WAFL doesn't always adopt all AFL rule changes which I see as a good thing, I like that independence for our state league.

 

[UpForGrabs]

Sooo... lemme get this right.

A South African company was willing to pay $25 million for a 49% stake in the West Coast Eagles back in 2001... and the AFL expects us to just hand over the full licenses (i.e 100%) for nothing (i.e $0 million) in 2012?

Now, I was never too great at maths... but that could be the most idiotic thing I've heard in a long time. Even worse than the dude who thought that 'Battleship' would make a good film.

 

[Oneiros]

Sooo... lemme get this right.

A South African company was willing to pay $25 million for a 49% stake in the West Coast Eagles back in 2001... and the AFL expects us to just hand over the full licenses (i.e 100%) for nothing (i.e $0 million) in 2012?

Now, I was never too great at maths... but that could be the most idiotic thing I've heard in a long time. Even worse than the dude who thought that 'Battleship' would make a good film.

Wonder what the price-tag on the Eagles would be now. Most teams go for between 2 and 4 times their turnover...

 

[UpForGrabs]

Wonder what the price-tag on the Eagles would be now. Most teams go for between 2 and 4 times their turnover...

You've got a membership base that is full to capacity. You've got the 'In The Wings' members who will become full members once the new stadium is ready, and you've got corporate sponsors clamouring to have their names associated with the club and on the boards around the ground.

I would think that you'd start the bidding at $100 million and work your way up from there.

 

[The_Wookie]

Sooo... lemme get this right.

A South African company was willing to pay $25 million for a 49% stake in the West Coast Eagles back in 2001... and the AFL expects us to just hand over the full licenses (i.e 100%) for nothing (i.e $0 million) in 2012?

Now, I was never too great at maths... but that could be the most idiotic thing I've heard in a long time. Even worse than the dude who thought that 'Battleship' would make a good film.

What makes you think a change in the ownership structure at west coast would have been approved by an AFL commission that was hell bent on removing all traces of private ownership from the game?

 

[UpForGrabs]

What makes you think a change in the ownership structure at west coast would have been approved by an AFL commission that was hell bent on removing all traces of private ownership from the game?

Nothing at all makes me think that. And I'm not sure where you took the opinion that I thought it did.

What I was pointing out was that 11 years ago, a South African side wanted to buy a slice of the West Coast Eagles. $25 million for 49%, and yet 11 years later the AFL wants the WAFC to hand that license over for nothing. That's the oddity that I was pointing out... none of it had anything to do with whether or not the AFL would have approved the deal.

 

[The_Wookie]

Nothing at all makes me think that. And I'm not sure where you took the opinion that I thought it did.

What I was pointing out was that 11 years ago, a South African side wanted to buy a slice of the West Coast Eagles. $25 million for 49%, and yet 11 years later the AFL wants the WAFC to hand that license over for nothing. That's the oddity that I was pointing out... none of it had anything to do with whether or not the AFL would have approved the deal.

Its a factor in determining the value of a license. IF you cant sell it, and you cant transfer it - as the WAFL/SANFL would be unable to, then what real value is there to the license itself? Theres a reason why most clubs ascribe zero value to their licenses in annual reports.

 

[laminex]

You've got a membership base that is full to capacity. You've got the 'In The Wings' members who will become full members once the new stadium is ready, and you've got corporate sponsors clamouring to have their names associated with the club and on the boards around the ground.

I would think that you'd start the bidding at $100 million and work your way up from there.

What is the net, it is not hard to turn over a lot of money.

 

[Oneiros]

What makes you think a change in the ownership structure at west coast would have been approved by an AFL commission that was hell bent on removing all traces of private ownership from the game?

Given the importance of the licenses to the WAFC, it would be a fair point to suggest that the AFL needs to consider the need to pay market rate - which was, apparently, $25m for a non-controlling stake in one of the licenses over a decade ago - as compensation to the WAFC. I just can't see how it would be a good and proper thing for the WAFC to relinquish the licenses without a mix of concrete, binding undertakings and the cold hard to compensate.

 

[UpForGrabs]

Its a factor in determining the value of a license. IF you cant sell it, and you cant transfer it - as the WAFL/SANFL would be unable to, then what real value is there to the license itself? Theres a reason why most clubs ascribe zero value to their licenses in annual reports.

So you can't sell it... you can't transfer it... but you can relinquish it?

Yay AFL!

 

[Oneiros]

What is the net, it is not hard to turn over a lot of money.

$50m pa turnover on the Eagles, apprx $40m on Freo, I believe, but between the two I think they're generating $6-8m clear, half of which goes to the WAFC, half of which they pocket.

Edit: If I recall correctly, this is separate to the money each team pays flat for ground rental (itself another couple mil each that goes to the WAFC).

This is part of what makes reading the WAFC financial report such a loopy exercise.

 

[The_Wookie]

Given the importance of the licenses to the WAFC, it would be a fair point to suggest that the AFL needs to consider the need to pay market rate - which was, apparently, $25m for a non-controlling stake in one of the licenses over a decade ago - as compensation to the WAFC. I just can't see how it would be a good and proper thing for the WAFC to relinquish the licenses without a mix of concrete, binding undertakings and the cold hard to compensate.

There is no market rate for an AFL license. They are exclusively granted and provided by the AFL Commission, the price for which has not varied since 1987. Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Fremantle - all paid the same rate. I doubt Gold Coast and GWS paid a license fee. The only time the license fee was less than 4 million was when Port negotiated it down to 1.5 million as part of the 1990 bid. The SANFL however ended up paying 4 million for each of the Adelaide and Port licenses - but in installments unlike the Eagles who paid up front.

It can be relinquished - which the AFL is trying to do through negotiation. Or it can be removed through gross misconduct (as was threatened to do with South and was done with Fitzroy), but the second scenario requires a vote by the clubs.

 

[LT Smash]

I certainly would.

They will rape and pillage the clubs profits and it will hurt not just the two AFL sides but the WAFL and grassroots footy in WA as well.

The AFL can go and get nicked. WC had overly strenuous entry conditions placed on it and after some initial hardship has come on in leaps and bounds. The team like Freo must stay in the hands of the state. The people of WA built them, supported them and ultimately paid for them.

Presumably you would have no issue with a caveat being placed on the licenses so that WAFC is not allowed to sell the Eagles or Dockers to a South African consortium.

 

[Oneiros]

There is no market rate for an AFL license. They are exclusively granted and provided by the AFL Commission, the price for which has not varied since 1987. Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Fremantle - all paid the same rate. I doubt Gold Coast and GWS paid a license fee. The only time the license fee was less than 4 million was when Port negotiated it down to 1.5 million as part of the 1990 bid. The SANFL however ended up paying 4 million for each of the Adelaide and Port licenses - but in installments unlike the Eagles who paid up front.

It can be relinquished - which the AFL is trying to do through negotiation. Or it can be removed through gross misconduct (as was threatened to do with South and was done with Fitzroy), but the second scenario requires a vote by the clubs.

You seem to have the idea that "Negotiation" is simply the art of getting what you want by talking the other person to death, rather than negotiation being the process of matching costs and benefits in a transaction, going by your response. Without considering any nominal value to the license themselves, you are still asking them to remove from their control an asset that generates, between royalties and rent, approximately 10m in net revenue per year, very reliably.

Any negotiation that does not provide a just and equitable compensation for the loss of that asset is not really negotiation - it's harassment.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Nothing at all makes me think that. And I'm not sure where you took the opinion that I thought it did.

What I was pointing out was that 11 years ago, a South African side wanted to buy a slice of the West Coast Eagles. $25 million for 49%, and yet 11 years later the AFL wants the WAFC to hand that license over for nothing. That's the oddity that I was pointing out... none of it had anything to do with whether or not the AFL would have approved the deal.

A bit misguided there.

You need to look at what value the owners currently extract from the license, and what ongoing compensation the AFL would offer for them to surrender the license. No-one’s suggesting they’d simply hand over something that earns them a lot of money, and receive nothing in return. That doesn’t make any sense.

Another point – the proposal is widely being represented here as “handing over the ownership of the club to the AFL”. The club would be owned and operated by its members. It’s not currently.

 

[The_Wookie]

You seem to have the idea that "Negotiation" is simply the art of getting what you want by talking the other person to death, rather than negotiation being the process of matching costs and benefits in a transaction, going by your response. Without considering any nominal value to the license themselves, you are still asking them to remove from their control an asset that generates, between royalties and rent, approximately 10m in net revenue per year, very reliably.

Any negotiation that does not provide a just and equitable compensation for the loss of that asset is not really negotiation - it's harassment.

Not what Im suggesting at all. If it happens it must still be on terms that are fair to all. We're on agreement on this issue.

Rent is a non issue, the WAFL will lose the rent in any case if the new Perth stadium is built. Royalties can continue to be paid out of profits. This is done in Brisbane to some extent without being owned by the QAFL (its member owned, the only non victorian club to be so at this point).

 

[Oneiros]

Not what Im suggesting at all. If it happens it must still be on terms that are fair to all. We're on agreement on this issue.

Rent is a non issue, the WAFL will lose the rent in any case if the new Perth stadium is built. Royalties can continue to be paid out of profits. This is done in Brisbane to some extent without being owned by the QAFL (its member owned, the only non victorian club to be so at this point).

The WAFL never got the rent - the WAFC did. It is important to remember the distinction when dealing with WA as opposed to SA. And the current ownership structures being suggested make me believe that the same arrangement will be enacted for the new stadium. Without the licenses, however, the politics of that decision changes significantly, so it could very well cost them on two hands.

It's admittedly hard to make concrete predictions - the intertwining of state resources in the matter makes straight answers hard to come by.