BringBackTorps
Club Legend
- Jan 5, 2017
- 2,963
- 1,827
- AFL Club
- GWS
I am very happy that the AFL, as the keeper of the code, subsidises the northern states financially, and allows them to have academies (Riverina recruitment had dropped off considerably until recent years, unlike the glory years up until the 90's. And we are now getting superior recruitment from other areas of NSW, and throughout Qld. Having club branded academies in the north was crucial to the academies' appeal, club input, promotion, & success. The north dont have the elite TAC Cup)
We need to have the 53% of the population in the north heavily involved in AF -or the code in the traditional areas will suffer in the long term.
My questions relate to, however, a fair and equitable Return On Investment for the 12 VFL clubs of the 50's.
Waverly in the mid 50's was mainly outer suburban orchards, and the land was bought VERY cheaply by the 12 VFL clubs ONLY ie no non- Vic clubs. When it was sold in the 90's, that same land had been rezoned and increased astronomically, perhaps 200 times (back of an envellope calculation). Fitzroy (& Sth Melb./ Syd.) could say they were"robbed"of their 1/12 th of the eventual rezoned & greatly increased value of Waverly land.
When Docklands land was purchased & created in the mid 90's (by virtue only of Waverly's existence), it wasn't prime real estate( railway sheds, industrial use etc; and it was surrounded by unattractive vistas, albeit on the waterfront). Now it has successfully been developed as prime AAA high rise office towers (rezoned also), and very expensive high rise apartments. Some estimates now of Docklands stadium land value is about $1.2 -1.5 billion.
It could be argued that by WA & SA clubs paying "small" license fees (about $4,000,000 each?), they have shared inordinately in this MASSIVE financial windfall of having a 1/18th share of the value of Docklands ie the WA & SA Return On Investment has benefited them enormously, even though it was the 12 VFL clubs ONLY that bought Waverly land in the 50's. WA & SA have "piggy-backed" on this financial windfall.
Should, therefore, the AFL introduce its own "super profits"tax, above a predetermined profit amount whenever it might occur, on the four WA & SA clubs -to claw back this property value windfall? And these taxes raised be used soley for the addition of new clubs, whenever that might be, in the north and in Tasmania?
We need to have the 53% of the population in the north heavily involved in AF -or the code in the traditional areas will suffer in the long term.
My questions relate to, however, a fair and equitable Return On Investment for the 12 VFL clubs of the 50's.
Waverly in the mid 50's was mainly outer suburban orchards, and the land was bought VERY cheaply by the 12 VFL clubs ONLY ie no non- Vic clubs. When it was sold in the 90's, that same land had been rezoned and increased astronomically, perhaps 200 times (back of an envellope calculation). Fitzroy (& Sth Melb./ Syd.) could say they were"robbed"of their 1/12 th of the eventual rezoned & greatly increased value of Waverly land.
When Docklands land was purchased & created in the mid 90's (by virtue only of Waverly's existence), it wasn't prime real estate( railway sheds, industrial use etc; and it was surrounded by unattractive vistas, albeit on the waterfront). Now it has successfully been developed as prime AAA high rise office towers (rezoned also), and very expensive high rise apartments. Some estimates now of Docklands stadium land value is about $1.2 -1.5 billion.
It could be argued that by WA & SA clubs paying "small" license fees (about $4,000,000 each?), they have shared inordinately in this MASSIVE financial windfall of having a 1/18th share of the value of Docklands ie the WA & SA Return On Investment has benefited them enormously, even though it was the 12 VFL clubs ONLY that bought Waverly land in the 50's. WA & SA have "piggy-backed" on this financial windfall.
Should, therefore, the AFL introduce its own "super profits"tax, above a predetermined profit amount whenever it might occur, on the four WA & SA clubs -to claw back this property value windfall? And these taxes raised be used soley for the addition of new clubs, whenever that might be, in the north and in Tasmania?