Rumour AFL asks WAFC to commit 65 mill to competition over 3 years

[StCicatriz]

By all reports the AFL has expressed concern about North throughout this year, and Gil has previously given St Kilda a clip for the financial position they find themselves.

At the beginning of this pandemic, Gil stated that there will be 18 clubs coming out the other side of this pandemic and into 2021 season. He stopped short of guaranteeing their medium of long term future.

North have one year left in Tassie, by all reports, Tasmania has no desire to continue that deal with North Melbourne beyond 2021.

That will leave a 3 million dollar hole in Norths budget. A budget that already has holes in it from downturns in membership, attendance etc with COVID crisis.

The point in time that you think is "not too far away" is probably 12-18 months from now.

And why do they have a 3 million hole in their budget?

What's the biggest loss they have posted? Ever?

 

[eastfreo75]

Ohhh so you want to ignore the event that would ordinarily kill off your club

But you want the clubs that struggle due to paying off the asset that ensured your club survived to be killed off because they were running losses and took too much from the AFL? Despite the fact they continue to be solvent. Something freo dont have right now without the docklands asset?

The reason the Saints and North struggle because you both get small crowds.

2019 AFL Crowds and Match Attendances

2019 AFL match attendances. Includes current and historical data and statistics by team.

www.footywire.com

2019 AFL Crowds and Match Attendances

2019 AFL match attendances. Includes current and historical data and statistics by team.

www.footywire.com

Why should the AFL fund teams with small fans bases?

Tasmania ask for a team of their own but get told that the AFL won't fund them.

Yet, they gave the Saints $17m last year.

 

[eastfreo75]

That WCE and Freo did not contribute one cent to.

Whilst you were collecting 75c in the dollar at subi. Clubs here were writing cheques for bringing 35k people through the door and not making a cent off the game.

But sure buddy keep minimising it.

You realise that the WAFC take a cut from both Fremantle and West Coast.

West Coast cut is bigger and that monies fund grassroot football.

ST KILDA GIVE NIL TO GRASSROOTS FOOTBALL IN VICTORIA.

 

[LoungeLizard]

The reason the Saints and North struggle because you both get small crowds.

2019 AFL Crowds and Match Attendances

2019 AFL match attendances. Includes current and historical data and statistics by team.

www.footywire.com

2019 AFL Crowds and Match Attendances

2019 AFL match attendances. Includes current and historical data and statistics by team.

www.footywire.com

Why should the AFL fund teams with small fans bases?

Tasmania ask for a team of their own but get told that the AFL won't fund them.

Yet, they gave the Saints $17m last year.

Here you go again.

Ok, let's be fair.

This is the worst of times the AFL has ever had to face, 8 clubs have told the AFL they will be ok without a handout, do you think it would be fair if those 8 clubs said we don't want you to fund the others, we may need that cash soon?

 

[Kwality]

WA fans want.

1. AFL to provide the same funding per capita to WA as Vic.
2. West Coast the powerhouse shouldn’t be funding grassroots football.
3. Fremantle should get the same funding as the Bigger Victorian do. Small Victorian Clubs should get less funding.
4. Fremantle shouldn’t be disadvantaged fixture wise because smaller Victorian teams can’t support themselves.

Dont agree, the WAFC model is far better for footy than the AFL model.

AFL clubs should contribute to local footy, e.g the Swans Academy kicked off by its sponsor QBE, not the AFL. Local footy knows its patch not some suit sitting in an ivory tower in the Melbourne CBD. The WAFC model has zoned WA to the 2nd tier WAFL, unlike the dogs breakfast that is the 2nd tier anywhere the AFL run 2nd tier that has zero consistency year on year, decade on decade

Freo are going fine, they will continue to build.

The AFL should spend less time & effort ($s) trying to be ''a cheap knock off ' of American footy to what end?

Time the AFL had a dose of salts, just as WA footy had in the early 90s.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Dont agree, the WAFC model is far better for footy than the AFL model.

AFL clubs should contribute to local footy, e.g the Swans Academy kicked off by its sponsor QBE, not the AFL. Local footy knows its patch not some suit sitting in an ivory tower in the Melbourne CBD. The WAFC model has zoned WA to the 2nd tier WAFL, unlike the dogs breakfast that is the 2nd tier anywhere the AFL run 2nd tier that has zero consistency year on year, decade on decade

Freo are going fine, they will continue to build.

The AFL should spend less time & effort ($s) trying to be ''a cheap knock off ' of American footy to what end?

Time the AFL had a dose of salts

Kwality, here i was thinking you knew a bit about footy.

Do you know where most recruits in Australia come from?

 

[Aramis]

Lol you better believe that if that 500mil credit is gone and the AFL needs a lifeline that a lot of our tax dollars will be used to keep it going before it dies... don't get mad, that's just reality.

 

[FreeTK]

And why do they have a 3 million hole in their budget?

What's the biggest loss they have posted? Ever?

They have a 3 million dollar black hole in their budget from the revenue they are not getting from Tasmania.

That is revenue that props up the club and the only thing that facilitates them making any kind of profit. They didn't get it this year, and next year is the last year of a deal that by all reports Tasmania is not interested in renewing beyond 2021.

That gap in revenue is the hole that will need to be filled, on top of all the revenue lost to due to COVID, this year and moving forward.

That WCE and Freo did not contribute one cent to.

Whilst you were collecting 75c in the dollar at subi. Clubs here were writing cheques for bringing 35k people through the door and not making a cent off the game.

But sure buddy keep minimising it.

That was a deal that the Victorian clubs allowed the AFL to negotiate on their behalf.

I don't know how you can whinge to us about daddy cutting you a bad deal.

It really just sounds like envy.

When West Coast and Fremantle had to negotiate their user agreement with WA Gov/Venues West for playing at Optus, you can bet they weren't going to be bent over the same way St Kilda and North were. They negotiated a user agreement that allowed both clubs to generate significant revenue from the games played there. West Coast made 30 million last year based on home games, a combination of hospitality, memberships, gate receipts etc.

That's what real clubs do.

Instead, North and St Kilda just passively accept the bad deal that is given to them by the AFL, and in the process, allow themselves to be stripped of the dignity of being able to stand on their own two feet, because they know they can't. They're relegated to an eternity of having to live on the life support that is the AFL dividend.

Incredibly, their supporters try to confect arguments that they sacrificed their own financial independence, to pay off the stadium and in doing so saved the league, when the truth is they had no alternative but to do what the AFL told them to, given their very existence is beholden to those who pull the purse strings.

 

[StCicatriz]

The reason the Saints and North struggle because you both get small crowds.

2019 AFL Crowds and Match Attendances

2019 AFL match attendances. Includes current and historical data and statistics by team.

www.footywire.com

2019 AFL Crowds and Match Attendances

2019 AFL match attendances. Includes current and historical data and statistics by team.

www.footywire.com

Why should the AFL fund teams with small fans bases?

Tasmania ask for a team of their own but get told that the AFL won't fund them.

Yet, they gave the Saints $17m last year.

Yeah thats not the reason. How do you explain the difference in financials here then? https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/attendances?year=2009&t=R&h=H&s=T

 

[FreeTK]

Kwality, here i was thinking you knew a bit about footy.

Do you know where most recruits in Australia come from?

Victorian provides about 50% of draft recruits and Victoria requires 55% of recruits in order to fill lists for 10 clubs that reside there.

Net negative.

There is currently enough WA born talent in the league to fill lists for 3 clubs.

WA has 2 clubs.

Net positive.

 

[StCicatriz]

You realise that the WAFC take a cut from both Fremantle and West Coast.

West Coast cut is bigger and that monies fund grassroot football.

ST KILDA GIVE NIL TO GRASSROOTS FOOTBALL IN VICTORIA.

Don't we? Haven't heard of the arrangements with the bay side Junior football region?

 

[Farang83150]

It's always a giggle to hear st kilda supporters say they saved the league

 

[StCicatriz]

They have a 3 million dollar black hole in their budget from the revenue they are not getting from Tasmania.

That is revenue that props up the club and the only thing that facilitates them making any kind of profit. They didn't get it this year, and next year is the last year of a deal that by all reports Tasmania is not interested in renewing beyond 2021.

That gap in revenue is the hole that will need to be filled, on top of all the revenue lost to due to COVID, this year and moving forward.



That was a deal that the Victorian clubs allowed the AFL to negotiate on their behalf.

I don't know how you can whinge to us about daddy cutting you a bad deal.

It really just sounds like envy.

When West Coast and Fremantle had to negotiate their user agreement with WA Gov/Venues West for playing at Optus, you can bet they weren't going to be bent over the same way St Kilda and North were. They negotiated a user agreement that allowed both clubs to generate significant revenue from the games played there. West Coast made 30 million last year based on home games, a combination of hospitality, memberships, gate receipts etc.

That's what real clubs do.

Instead, North and St Kilda just passively accept the bad deal that is given to them by the AFL, and in the process, allow themselves to be stripped of the dignity of being able to stand on their own two feet, because they know they can't. They're relegated to an eternity of having to live on the life support that is the AFL dividend.

Incredibly, their supporters try to confect arguments that they sacrificed their own financial independence, to pay off the stadium and in doing so saved the league, when the truth is they had no alternative but to do what the AFL told them to, given their very existence is beholden to those who pull the purse strings.

Right so now its about a bad deal.

No lets talk facts. The docklands tenant clubs paid off a stadium that now means the competition stays afloat.

So if you want clubs to be killed off that do not contribute then let's remove support for those clubs now. Anyone who did not contribute to docklands should not receive afl funding or credit.

Let's see who survives.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Victorian provides about 50% of draft recruits and Victoria requires 55% of recruits in order to fill lists for 10 clubs that reside there.

Net negative.

There is currently enough WA born talent in the league to fill lists for 3 clubs.

WA has 2 clubs.

Net positive.

LMAO.

You called me a noob before, try understand what we are talking about.

 

[StCicatriz]

Victorian provides about 50% of draft recruits and Victoria requires 55% of recruits in order to fill lists for 10 clubs that reside there.

Net negative.

There is currently enough WA born talent in the league to fill lists for 3 clubs.

WA has 2 clubs.

Net positive.

Lol what

Theres more U18 players than there are list spots across all states.

 

[StCicatriz]

They have a 3 million dollar black hole in their budget from the revenue they are not getting from Tasmania.

That is revenue that props up the club and the only thing that facilitates them making any kind of profit. They didn't get it this year, and next year is the last year of a deal that by all reports Tasmania is not interested in renewing beyond 2021.

That gap in revenue is the hole that will need to be filled, on top of all the revenue lost to due to COVID, this year and moving forward.



That was a deal that the Victorian clubs allowed the AFL to negotiate on their behalf.

I don't know how you can whinge to us about daddy cutting you a bad deal.

It really just sounds like envy.

When West Coast and Fremantle had to negotiate their user agreement with WA Gov/Venues West for playing at Optus, you can bet they weren't going to be bent over the same way St Kilda and North were. They negotiated a user agreement that allowed both clubs to generate significant revenue from the games played there. West Coast made 30 million last year based on home games, a combination of hospitality, memberships, gate receipts etc.

That's what real clubs do.

Instead, North and St Kilda just passively accept the bad deal that is given to them by the AFL, and in the process, allow themselves to be stripped of the dignity of being able to stand on their own two feet, because they know they can't. They're relegated to an eternity of having to live on the life support that is the AFL dividend.

Incredibly, their supporters try to confect arguments that they sacrificed their own financial independence, to pay off the stadium and in doing so saved the league, when the truth is they had no alternative but to do what the AFL told them to, given their very existence is beholden to those who pull the purse strings.

How much is the footy dept spend going down by?

 

[eastfreo75]

Here you go again.

Ok, let's be fair.

This is the worst of times the AFL has ever had to face, 8 clubs have told the AFL they will be ok without a handout, do you think it would be fair if those 8 clubs said we don't want you to fund the others, we may need that cash soon?

Lets separate two things.

All for emergency funding for clubs to survive this once in a generation event.

I am sick and tired of the AFL doing things that disadvantage my team because small Victorian teams need assistance.

AFL make business decisions that reduces Fremantle ability to make money like no Friday games but smaller Victorian teams get assistance when they are disadvantage.

I still don't get how the Blues get $15m and Freo get $10m last year.

 

[FreeTK]

Lol what

Theres more U18 players than there are list spots across all states.

Should have been more clear.

50% of players drafted by clubs are Victorian.

 

[eastfreo75]

Don't we? Haven't heard of the arrangements with the bay side Junior football region?

Every team does community work and goes to Schools and local competitions.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Lets separate two things.

All for emergency funding for clubs to survive this once in a generation event.

I am sick and tired of the AFL doing things that disadvantage my team because small Victorian teams need assistance.

AFL make business decisions that reduces Fremantle ability to make money like no Friday games but smaller Victorian teams get assistance when they are disadvantage.

I still don't get how the Blues get $15m and Freo get $10m last year.

Ok, for a start, the AFL DO NOT dictate timeslots, TV does.

Now answer the question i asked, do you think it would be fair if 8 clubs said, no funding?

 

[eastfreo75]

Should have been more clear.

50% of players drafted by clubs are Victorian.

And they have lower rates of making 50 games.

 

[FreeTK]

Right so now its about a bad deal.

No lets talk facts. The docklands tenant clubs paid off a stadium that now means the competition stays afloat.

So if you want clubs to be killed off that do not contribute then let's remove support for those clubs now. Anyone who did not contribute to docklands should not receive afl funding or credit.

Let's see who survives.

All clubs paid off docklands.

The AFL paid off 225m to buy docklands early. That money was generated from the TV rights deal which made the purchase possible.

Marvel tennants played there, on a bad deal (except Essendon) and then were and are compensated via unequal distribution.

You can't have it both ways "St Kilda get the extra 10's of millions in dividend to compensate for the poor stadium agreement and is therefore justified" and "St Kilda/North paid off the stadium".

Logically, if AFL is compensating North and St Kilda through the dividend, that is money NOT paying off the stadium, as it goes straight back into the club.

Which one is it?

 

[eastfreo75]

Ok, for a start, the AFL DO NOT dictate timeslots, TV does.

Now answer the question i asked, do you think it would be fair if 8 clubs said, no funding?

Never said no funding.

Am talking about extra funding that other teams don't get.

Sure TV dictate the timeslots but the AFL make the fixtures.

Fremantle shouldn't get Friday nights due to being boring, not a contender and don't rate well. Maybe, Melbourne, Carlton and North Melbourne should get the same treatment.

I have no problem with Collingwood or Richmond getting a lot of Friday games as they rate better and they are in contention for a flag.

Its a massive joke that we start the season with Richmond playing a rubbish Blues side every year.

The point is the AFL should be give Fremantle more money because of the time slots as they do with St Kilda, Melbourne, North Melbourne, and Footscray. Not sure the Blues get more money.

 

[Kwality]

Kwality, here i was thinking you knew a bit about footy.

Do you know where most recruits in Australia come from?

Indeed I do, funny thing about population.
Know much about business models?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Never said no funding.

Am talking about extra funding that other teams don't get.

Sure TV dictate the timeslots but the AFL make the fixtures.

Fremantle shouldn't get Friday nights due to being boring, not a contender and don't rate well. Maybe, Melbourne, Carlton and North Melbourne should get the same treatment.

I have no problem with Collingwood or Richmond getting a lot of Friday games as they rate better and they are in contention for a flag.

Its a massive joke that we start the season with Richmond playing a rubbish Blues side every year.

The point is the AFL should be give Fremantle more money because of the time slots as they do with St Kilda, Melbourne, North Melbourne, and Footscray. Not sure the Blues get more money.

Ok fair enough, my bad, i worded it wrong.

It should say, extra funding during this pandemic.

On the timeslots, they are dictated by 7, the fixture is dictated by what 7 want and where they want it, it's a business, if i was paying billions of $$ i would want a say also.