Expansion 3rd Western Australian club

[Kwality]

I'm calling crap on this. I tried getting Freo v Pies tickets before the season last year and they were all sold out inc all GA tickets. The only tickets available were $130 on the resale market. Ended up having to buy a Dockers membership to get a ticket to the game!

so did you want seats together ?

 

[Rob]

I'm calling crap on this. I tried getting Freo v Pies tickets before the season last year and they were all sold out inc all GA tickets. The only tickets available were $130 on the resale market. Ended up having to buy a Dockers membership to get a ticket to the game!

No game sold out before the season because they don't release all the tickets then. They only released about a thousand a game then, with the rest released from 2 weeks before, with member resales and corporate returns getting released when they become available.

 

[mianfei]

It will change in time, we will be probably long gone but there is no chance in hell there will be 10 clubs in the national league in Victoria in 50 years. As money takes the game over completely, salary caps are gone, private ownership will happen. The League will change considerably over the next 50 years. Everything will be about money, handouts will be gone, equalization gone.
It will be sad to see it go that way but its as sure as death and taxes.

Have you not read Stefan Szymański’s ‘Tilting the Playing Field: Why a Sports League Planner Would Choose Less, not More, Competitive Balance’?? If you have, you will realise why keeping as many teams in Melbourne and possible, rather than rationalising the competition, actually leads to the greatest profit. The VFL knew that in the 1930s – when they propped up Hawthorn and North Melbourne, who were utterly unviable on and off the field.

Who is at most risk out of North, Footscray, St Kilda? I can't see Melbourne being let go due to its history.

I’m not sure as theings stand at the close of 2016 – but it’s uncertain any of those would have survived beyond 1995 – and Fitzroy and now-secure Hawthorn not beyond 1980 – if the VFL had not introduced country zoning in the late 1960s and as a replacement the draft and salary cap in the 1980s.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Have you not read Stefan Szymański’s ‘Tilting the Playing Field: Why a Sports League Planner Would Choose Less, not More, Competitive Balance’?? If you have, you will realise why keeping as many teams in Melbourne and possible, rather than rationalising the competition, actually leads to the greatest profit. The VFL knew that in the 1930s – when they propped up Hawthorn and North Melbourne, who were utterly unviable on and off the field.I’m not sure as theings stand at the close of 2016 – but it’s uncertain any of those would have survived beyond 1995 – and Fitzroy and now-secure Hawthorn not beyond 1980 – if the VFL had not introduced country zoning in the late 1960s and as a replacement the draft and salary cap in the 1980s.

I am not saying you are wrong I just don't think it will work like that when money becomes the be all and end all which is the path being taken. It will just be time before a Collingwood or a West coast says we have no interest in propping other clubs up or contributing to equal measures. It would be terrible but most sports are already there and we will go there as well. I probably won't be around to see it thank God.

 

[Slax]

I am not saying you are wrong I just don't think it will work like that when money becomes the be all and end all which is the path being taken. It will just be time before a Collingwood or a West coast says we have no interest in propping other clubs up or contributing to equal measures. It would be terrible but most sports are already there and we will go there as well. I probably won't be around to see it thank God.

West Coast and Collingwood can say whatever they like, but if they actually try then the AFL can wave a much bigger stick called the fixture.

For example Collingwood play the other big Melbourne clubs away, they then get crap time slots and extra games at Etihad where there fans don't turn up. With West Coast it is lower drawing sides at home and multiple 6 day breaks. Remember the AFL holds the licence rights so in the end the clubs have very little power to stop the AFL Commission doing what they want.

The bigger problem to expansion is that there simply isn't the talent in the competition to say that they could have another team.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

West Coast and Collingwood can say whatever they like, but if they actually try then the AFL can wave a much bigger stick called the fixture.

For example Collingwood play the other big Melbourne clubs away, they then get crap time slots and extra games at Etihad where there fans don't turn up. With West Coast it is lower drawing sides at home and multiple 6 day breaks. Remember the AFL holds the licence rights so in the end the clubs have very little power to stop the AFL Commission doing what they want.

The bigger problem to expansion is that there simply isn't the talent in the competition to say that they could have another team.

You are talking now I am talking many years down the track. Look how much things have changed the last 30 years, go forward 30 years and if you think it will be as it is now you are naive. This game has already gone to many places most never wanted it to go to. Salary caps, Equalization etc will all just be things of the early part of the century in a few decades time.

 

[Slax]

You are talking now I am talking many years down the track. Look how much things have changed the last 30 years, go forward 30 years and if you think it will be as it is now you are naive. This game has already gone to many places most never wanted it to go to. Salary caps, Equalization etc will all just be things of the early part of the century in a few decades time.

I don't see the talent issue changing, for the ground that AFL is making in non-AFL states, they are losing ground in their own backyard as far as participation goes. To bring in two new teams you are looking at find over 80 players, given the talent isn't there for 18 even half decent sides.

So where will the talent come from? There is no magical snap of the fingers and they appear.

A bigger issue is that 10 of 18 clubs are forecasting a loss this season. The trend has been for at least 6 each year, which asks questions about how will they continue to fund the ever increasing costs of running an AFL team.

 

[telsor]

West Coast and Collingwood can say whatever they like, but if they actually try then the AFL can wave a much bigger stick called the fixture.

For example Collingwood play the other big Melbourne clubs away, they then get crap time slots and extra games at Etihad where there fans don't turn up. With West Coast it is lower drawing sides at home and multiple 6 day breaks. Remember the AFL holds the licence rights so in the end the clubs have very little power to stop the AFL Commission doing what they want.

The bigger problem to expansion is that there simply isn't the talent in the competition to say that they could have another team.

Mostly yes, the commission does have a lot of power, but 2 problems..

1) If the big clubs are public about their issues, and subsequent complaints about their fixtures/etc, then it will drive their fans away (and some from other clubs too...exposing the league as being unfair damages the 'brand' of the competition after all), which would cost the league significant $$...Yes, it would hurt the clubs too, but if the pain of the AFLs inequities upon them gets big enough, then it would become viable.

2) More a technical point, but the AFL doesn't hold the license rights for all clubs. The licenses of Vic 'member based' clubs are owned by the clubs, SA clubs are league controlled currently, but are transitioning (was SANFL, will be club owned), while in WA they're owned by the WAFC. While the commission does control a lot, there are definitely things the AFL can't do, and a lot of other things that would prospectively bring interesting law suits if they tried.

 

[telsor]

A bigger issue is that 10 of 18 clubs are forecasting a loss this season. The trend has been for at least 6 each year, which asks questions about how will they continue to fund the ever increasing costs of running an AFL team.

The article that said that indicated the reason for so many was that it was the end of the current TV rights deal, so clubs were ramping up spending in anticipation of the increased income in the coming year(s), so presumably there will be significantly fewer loss making clubs next year.

 

[McCrann]

West Coast and Collingwood can say whatever they like, but if they actually try then the AFL can wave a much bigger stick called the fixture.

For example Collingwood play the other big Melbourne clubs away, they then get crap time slots and extra games at Etihad where there fans don't turn up. With West Coast it is lower drawing sides at home and multiple 6 day breaks. Remember the AFL holds the licence rights so in the end the clubs have very little power to stop the AFL Commission doing what they want.

The bigger problem to expansion is that there simply isn't the talent in the competition to say that they could have another team.

Well maybe, if you reduce the teams to 16 players on the field you immediately free up more than enough players for 2 extra teams. 36 players freed up, 32 of them to be on-field players essentially.

You could go to 16 players on the field with 20 teams and theoretically have a better standard of on-field play just purely on the numbers.

 

[Slax]

The article that said that indicated the reason for so many was that it was the end of the current TV rights deal, so clubs were ramping up spending in anticipation of the increased income in the coming year(s), so presumably there will be significantly fewer loss making clubs next year.

Looking at it over the past decade there seems to of been an average of about 6 teams making a loss each year. Some of these though are book losses as they write-down assets or for a one off bad year. There is though another lie in the stats and that is the smaller Vic clubs have recorded book profits based on additional assistance from the AFL.

The AFL though needs to keep a tight reign on spending towards the back-end of the currently tv rights deal. If they allow clubs to expect another increase bonanza they could create a problem if it isn't delivered. If gambling advertising gets banned, for which there is a growing call to do so, the tv rights value will take a hit as they lose their number one advertising revenue stream.

 

[Slax]

Well maybe, if you reduce the teams to 16 players on the field you immediately free up more than enough players for 2 extra teams. 36 players freed up, 32 of them to be on-field players essentially.

You could go to 16 players on the field with 20 teams and theoretically have a better standard of on-field play just purely on the numbers.

That is definitely one way to resolve the talent issue in the AFL currently. Reduce lists by 2 players as well and a freeze on the salary cap for a few years to force free agency to work in its desired manner and it will even out the competition at the bottom end of the ladder.

 

[telsor]

Looking at it over the past decade there seems to of been an average of about 6 teams making a loss each year. Some of these though are book losses as they write-down assets or for a one off bad year. There is though another lie in the stats and that is the smaller Vic clubs have recorded book profits based on additional assistance from the AFL.

The AFL though needs to keep a tight reign on spending towards the back-end of the currently tv rights deal. If they allow clubs to expect another increase bonanza they could create a problem if it isn't delivered. If gambling advertising gets banned, for which there is a growing call to do so, the tv rights value will take a hit as they lose their number one advertising revenue stream.

Not sure why you specify smaller Vic clubs, when the northern clubs & Port have all received considerable 'extra' AFL funds.

Also remember that 'profit' for AFL clubs isn't like profit for a company...it's more a measure of budgetting than the goal. More relaistically, the financial goal of an AFL club is to spend as much as possible while still making a small profit. If a club expects to bring in $40M (whatever the source of that revenue, including extra AFL money) and then they'll budget to spend something like $39.5M, that would be prudent management, but if things go badly by more than 500K (either due to lower revenue or higher expenses), then they make a loss.

 

[Kwality]

....

Also remember that 'profit' for AFL clubs isn't like profit for a company...If a club expects to bring in $40M (whatever the source of that revenue, including extra AFL money) and ... they .. budget to spend .. $39.5M, ... if things go badly... then they make a loss.

& sooner or later someone has to fund that shortfall, as the Saints footballers of yesteryear found out, they were not paid then & never were paid by their club or the VFL.

 

[Slax]

Not sure why you specify smaller Vic clubs, when the northern clubs & Port have all received considerable 'extra' AFL funds.

Also remember that 'profit' for AFL clubs isn't like profit for a company...it's more a measure of budgetting than the goal. More relaistically, the financial goal of an AFL club is to spend as much as possible while still making a small profit. If a club expects to bring in $40M (whatever the source of that revenue, including extra AFL money) and then they'll budget to spend something like $39.5M, that would be prudent management, but if things go badly by more than 500K (either due to lower revenue or higher expenses), then they make a loss.

The Northern state clubs will live off AFL assistance for decades to come. Whilst Sydney are doing alright now, the AFL knows only too well what happens if they were to slip out of the 8 for a few consecutive season they'll be heavily in the red like the other 3 are now, hence why they had CoLA.

Correct AFL clubs are run as a not-for-profit enterprise. This does allow for profit some years and losses in others, but the club should not be building up retained profits, which is why Geelong have decided to build up their stadium.

But the other side is there are three Victorian Clubs that have received substantially more AFL cash over the last 5 years than Brisbane.

 

[madmug]

The Northern state clubs will live off AFL assistance for decades to come.


But the other side is there are three Victorian Clubs that have received substantially more AFL cash over the last 5 years than Brisbane.

Welcome to the 'Economic' play book of the socialist republic of the AFL.
Rule 1) AFL decisions are first & foremost political in nature.
Rule 2) refer to rule 1)

 

[telsor]

& sooner or later someone has to fund that shortfall, as the Saints footballers of yesteryear found out, they were not paid then & never were paid by their club or the VFL.

Can't happen any more...AFLPA made sure of that.

 

[telsor]

The Northern state clubs will live off AFL assistance for decades to come. Whilst Sydney are doing alright now, the AFL knows only too well what happens if they were to slip out of the 8 for a few consecutive season they'll be heavily in the red like the other 3 are now, hence why they had CoLA.

Correct AFL clubs are run as a not-for-profit enterprise. This does allow for profit some years and losses in others, but the club should not be building up retained profits, which is why Geelong have decided to build up their stadium.

But the other side is there are three Victorian Clubs that have received substantially more AFL cash over the last 5 years than Brisbane.

The Vic clubs also contribute more to the AFL coffers. (AFL members, buying Docklands for the league, etc), so in true net terms, I doubt Vic clubs have had more over any period.

 

[Kwality]

The Vic clubs also contribute more to the AFL coffers. (AFL members, buying Docklands for the league, etc), so in true net terms, I doubt Vic clubs have had more over any period.

Interesting allocation of AFL funds to cover your claims ... missed the link did I? Not a motherhood claim?

 

[telsor]

Interesting allocation of AFL funds to cover your claims ... missed the link did I? Not a motherhood claim?

What are you questioning?

 

[DERIBERATE]

I am not saying you are wrong I just don't think it will work like that when money becomes the be all and end all which is the path being taken. It will just be time before a Collingwood or a West coast says we have no interest in propping other clubs up or contributing to equal measures. It would be terrible but most sports are already there and we will go there as well. I probably won't be around to see it thank God.

The English Premier League has had 4 different champions in the last 10 completed seasons.

If one of Geelong, Hawthorn or Sydney win the grand final in a few weeks... the AFL will have had 4 different premiers in the last 10 years.

Says a lot about that "terrible" world without equalisation, does it not?

 

[BulldogJake]

The English Premier League has had 4 different champions in the last 10 completed seasons.

If one of Geelong, Hawthorn or Sydney win the grand final in a few weeks... the AFL will have had 4 different premiers in the last 10 years.

Says a lot about that "terrible" world without equalisation, does it not?

Well let's hope it plays in the doggies hands then aye

 

[Kwality]

What are you questioning?

(AFL members, buying Docklands for the league, etc)

 

[telsor]

(AFL members, buying Docklands for the league, etc)

You don't think Vic clubs pay a significant cost for those things?

 

[thegreig]

It got voted down but still interesting...
http://www.communitynews.com.au/wes...fl-side-to-save-subiaco-oval-from-developers/