Unpopular AFL Opinions

[Mr Magic]

I think it is time to let North Melbourne go.

They simply will never be strong enough.

Call time and give Tassie the license

Nobody likes to say it or hear it but more support for North is flogging a dead horse metaphorically if not literally.

I think of other clubs facing the chop over the years and frankly I cannot see enough will from stakeholders to forge the hope to ever get them to rise up as a formidable force.

Even when North where contenders in the 1990's their supporter base was not strong enough

From starting Friday nights north are forever struggling, so they must be struggling for a reason, just not going to happen, it is simply not feasible.

They should have done a South Melbourne or Fitzroy when they had the chance. They are weaker than Fitzroy wehen they where cut by the looks of it

 

[Roylion]

They are weaker than Fitzroy wehen they where cut by the looks of it

Where do you get this rubbish from?

North Melbourne are debt free, profitable, have record membership in 2022 and since 2018 have had $17 million pumped into their Arden Street base by the Victorian government.

 

[Mr Magic]

Where do you get this rubbish from?

North Melbourne are debt free, profitable, have record membership in 2022 and since 2018 have had $17 million pumped into their Arden Street base by the Victorian government.

Relying on government does not make you viable.

How much money do they get from AFL HQ?

How is their revenue sourced?

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Relying on government does not make you viable.

How much money do they get from AFL HQ?

How is their revenue sourced?

Do you really not understand the way AFL distributions and equalisation works?

 

[Roylion]

Relying on government does not make you viable.

Get's you an AFL quality home base for training and administration purposes though. Something Fitzroy never had.

How much money do they get from AFL HQ?

Why don't you look up the AFL annual report.

2021 CLUB DISTRIBUTIONS
Club......Total ($’000)
Adelaide 13,157
Brisbane Lions 21,574
Carlton 15,660
Collingwood 15,019
Essendon 13,319
Fremantle 13,334
Geelong Cats 13,714
Gold Coast Suns 26,317
GWS Giants 23,590
Hawthorn 12,274
Melbourne 18,957
North Melbourne 17,441
Port Adelaide 14,889
Richmond 14,192
St Kilda 21,446
Sydney Swans 14,621
West Coast Eagles 12,678
Western Bulldogs 18,808
Total 300,990

So less than Victorian clubs St Kilda, Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs. Less than interstate clubs Brisbane, Gold Coast and Giants. Still debt free and profitable.

How is their revenue sourced?

Look up the North Melbourne Annual Report. In 2021 North generated $39,268,000 in revenue.

Tell me again how North Melbourne are weaker than Fitzroy when they left the AFL?

 

[Demon13304]

Relying on government does not make you viable.

How much money do they get from AFL HQ?

How is their revenue sourced?

As Roylion has responded;

It's almost as if every single club receives money from the AFL, some more than others, can't have the big clubs without the small clubs

And it's almost as if every clubs have their ups and downs.
I mean did you think Richmond should've been relocated back in 2007 when Geelong scored 200+points and smacked them by 157 points? North have been bad but they haven't had a performance like that.

Also don't think you're brave for posting an "unpopular" opinion like that, a lot of people have said that s**t and it's pretty pathetic that you, along with them, wan't other clubs (except your own of course) to die.

 

[Scotland]

Look up the North Melbourne Annual Report. In 2021 North generated $39,268,000 in revenue.

Tell me again how North Melbourne are weaker than Fitzroy when they left the AFL?

Comparisons to Fitzroy are dumb because Fitzroy's last season was 25 years ago. The weakest club now would look like a financial powerhouse in the 1990s.

Did find this interesting:

AFL Clubs earn more than 1.1 billion in 2019 - Sports Industry AU

Total AFL Club earnings in 2019 were $1.109 billion. This includes AFL distributions of $314.6m. In total across the AFL and its clubs, consolidated revenue was $1.547 billion for 2019. The top earning AFL club in 2019 was the West Coast Eagles with 102m. Richmond came in second with $92...

www.footyindustry.com

The top earning AFL club in 2019 was the West Coast Eagles with 102m. Richmond came in second with $92 million. Three clubs failed to meet the AFLs own $45 million sustainability test (as mentioned a number of times by AFL executives as the benchmark for Tasmanian team stability), including Gold Coast (43m), North and the Bulldogs (44m).

How do North (or anyone else) make a profit while not meeting the AFL's 'sustainability test' for revenue? Just seems like creative accounting to me.

 

[Mr Magic]

Comparisons to Fitzroy are dumb because Fitzroy's last season was 25 years ago. The weakest club now would look like a financial powerhouse in the 1990s.

Did find this interesting:

AFL Clubs earn more than 1.1 billion in 2019 - Sports Industry AU

Total AFL Club earnings in 2019 were $1.109 billion. This includes AFL distributions of $314.6m. In total across the AFL and its clubs, consolidated revenue was $1.547 billion for 2019. The top earning AFL club in 2019 was the West Coast Eagles with 102m. Richmond came in second with $92...

www.footyindustry.com

The top earning AFL club in 2019 was the West Coast Eagles with 102m. Richmond came in second with $92 million. Three clubs failed to meet the AFLs own $45 million sustainability test (as mentioned a number of times by AFL executives as the benchmark for Tasmanian team stability), including Gold Coast (43m), North and the Bulldogs (44m).

How do North (or anyone else) make a profit while not meeting the AFL's 'sustainability test' for revenue? Just seems like creative accounting to me.

The argument would be most of the distributions from the AFL come from TV rights if not all.

How much of the TV rights is generated from North? A small amount and yet North get a fair whack. I get it part of equalisation but if Fitzroy was around they would get a fair bit from AFL HQ to

So where saying 17.4 of the 39 million is from AFL HQ. Curious how the other 22 million odd is made up from

The other thing is too many teams devalues the product arguably reducing the viewing quality and demand on TV and other social media outlets

If there was only 12 teams there would be less pressure to reconfigure North

 

[Roylion]

Comparisons to Fitzroy are dumb because Fitzroy's last season was 25 years ago. The weakest club now would look like a financial powerhouse in the 1990s.

Did find this interesting:

AFL Clubs earn more than 1.1 billion in 2019 - Sports Industry AU

Total AFL Club earnings in 2019 were $1.109 billion. This includes AFL distributions of $314.6m. In total across the AFL and its clubs, consolidated revenue was $1.547 billion for 2019. The top earning AFL club in 2019 was the West Coast Eagles with 102m. Richmond came in second with $92...

www.footyindustry.com

The top earning AFL club in 2019 was the West Coast Eagles with 102m. Richmond came in second with $92 million. Three clubs failed to meet the AFLs own $45 million sustainability test (as mentioned a number of times by AFL executives as the benchmark for Tasmanian team stability), including Gold Coast (43m), North and the Bulldogs (44m).

How do North (or anyone else) make a profit while not meeting the AFL's 'sustainability test' for revenue? Just seems like creative accounting to me.

Perhaps you should go over the report and identify the creative accounting items. Ask independent auditor Grant Thornton to take another look at it.

They did say the first time that...

"In our opinion, the accompanying financial report of the Company is in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001, including:

a) giving a true and fair view of the Company’s financial position as at 31 October 2021 and of its performance for the year ended on that date

b) complying with Australian Accounting Standards - Reduced Disclosure Requirements and the Corporations Regulations 2001."


North's annual report is here and another report from footy industry is here.

 

[Roylion]

So where saying 17.4 of the 39 million is from AFL HQ. Curious how the other 22 million odd is made up from

Read North's 2021 financial report.

 

[Mr Magic]

Read North's 2021 financial report.

why?

I would like to see a report of TV audiences of matches over the 2021 season. That would be more informative in terms of revenue generation

 

[Roylion]

why?

Because it will satisfy your curiousity.

 

[Mr Magic]

Because it will satisfy your curiousity.

Do I write like an idiot?

I just need to know I am not interested in watching North playing circle work

 

[Roylion]

Do I write like an idiot?

It was you who asked "So where saying 17.4 of the 39 million is from AFL HQ. Curious how the other 22 million odd is made up from".

The financial report is where your answer will be found. Details all of North's revenue in 2021 is there.

I just need to know I am not interested in watching North playing circle work

This is nonsensical. You asked a question. I told you where to find the answer. Seems to me you're not interested in finding the answer but just want to repeat more mistruths.

North are debt-free, profitable in 2021, have record membership in 2022 and have had $17 million pumped into their Melbourne base in the last four years. It seems that doesn't fit your narrative, but that still doesn't alter that they are the facts.

 

[Soggy2112]

It was you who asked "So where saying 17.4 of the 39 million is from AFL HQ. Curious how the other 22 million odd is made up from".

The financial report is where your answer will be found. Details all of North's revenue in 2021 is there.

Translating what they’re saying: “I know that if I read the report I will be proven incorrect so I won’t and can continue to pretend to be right”.

There are legitimate discussions about if 18 teams is viable for maintaining the quality and profitability of the league as a whole, but in terms of arguing that North aren’t financially solid and therefore need to be booted is just clearly false.

 

[Engimal v3]

Comparisons to Fitzroy are dumb because Fitzroy's last season was 25 years ago. The weakest club now would look like a financial powerhouse in the 1990s.

Did find this interesting:

AFL Clubs earn more than 1.1 billion in 2019 - Sports Industry AU

Total AFL Club earnings in 2019 were $1.109 billion. This includes AFL distributions of $314.6m. In total across the AFL and its clubs, consolidated revenue was $1.547 billion for 2019. The top earning AFL club in 2019 was the West Coast Eagles with 102m. Richmond came in second with $92...

www.footyindustry.com

The top earning AFL club in 2019 was the West Coast Eagles with 102m. Richmond came in second with $92 million. Three clubs failed to meet the AFLs own $45 million sustainability test (as mentioned a number of times by AFL executives as the benchmark for Tasmanian team stability), including Gold Coast (43m), North and the Bulldogs (44m).

How do North (or anyone else) make a profit while not meeting the AFL's 'sustainability test' for revenue? Just seems like creative accounting to me.

I'm not sure what the $45million is based on, but The_Wookie posted a different perspective a few weeks ago that I thought explained club sustainability quite well:

It could be argued that some clubs rights are more valuable than others. If individual clubs went to market on their own, that might be very interesting indeed.

Total AFL Broadcast and media cash income since 2011 has come in at 3.291 billion. The average value per club comes in at 183.422m over the last 11 years. We're told that all AFL clubs are viable due to their being covered by the broadcast rights.

Several clubs have exceeded that 183m distribution target. Gold Coast 195.9m, GWS 193.07m, St Kilda 189.44m. Brisbane are just under at 182.247m, Bulldogs further back at 175m. North way back on 163m.

Distributions are only about 2/3rds of the rights revenue, so i guess the statement that all clubs are covered is correct in that regard.

While the Suns and Giants will have taken lots of revenue and that might be acceptable to the clubs, St Kilda is receiving double the additional revenue over the base of say your Pies/Blues/Bombers & Tigers, and more than 3 times that of West Coast./Adelaide/Freo/Hawks & Cats - and this is where some clubs are arcing up.

 

[Mr Magic]

I'm not sure what the $45million is based on, but The_Wookie posted a different perspective a few weeks ago that I thought explained club sustainability quite well:

I don't have Stan. I am some of the tennis but other than that, not worth it for me.

I have Kayo and Fox with Fox getting dropped because the footy standard has dropped off and the umpire interference makes it harder to follow. Plus, North just to weak.


I mean the argument against North is not so much about North rather a consistent weak team of 18 where the competition can hardly hold 18 teams. North in another universe could be Hawthorn, Richmond, St Kilda, Bulldogs or whoever. It is the age old problem about the Melbourne teams and how much you can squeeze from so many clubs in one city

So just say North get a priority. Assuming, the do not lose these draft picks or screw up the development making the comp even weaker from bad development, that means the other clubs are further back and get weaker. So one way or the other the comp gets weaker unless kids are all playing footy and there is a influx of talent through super drafts etc,, from the supply side

I do not live in Melbourne or Victoria so I can fire off this stuff without any locational suburb bias

 

[Muddiemoose]

I don't have Stan. I am some of the tennis but other than that, not worth it for me.

I have Kayo and Fox with Fox getting dropped because the footy standard has dropped off and the umpire interference makes it harder to follow. Plus, North just to weak.


I mean the argument against North is not so much about North rather a consistent weak team of 18 where the competition can hardly hold 18 teams. North in another universe could be Hawthorn, Richmond, St Kilda, Bulldogs or whoever. It is the age old problem about the Melbourne teams and how much you can squeeze from so many clubs in one city

So just say North get a priority. Assuming, the do not lose these draft picks or screw up the development making the comp even weaker from bad development, that means the other clubs are further back and get weaker. So one way or the other the comp gets weaker unless kids are all playing footy and there is a influx of talent through super drafts etc,, from the supply side

But didn’t you say earlier that Tasmania should be given a licence?

So even if your proposal of North getting scuttled goes ahead with Tasmania getting a new licence would just defeat the purpose and not solve any of these issues you just mentioned

 

[Mr Magic]

But didn’t you say earlier that Tasmania should be given a licence?

So even if your proposal of North getting scuttled goes ahead with Tasmania getting a new licence would just defeat the purpose and not solve any of these issues you just mentioned

Look I think the North Melbourne club should do a South Melbourne and be a North Kangaroos representing North Tassie and North Melbourne. They can call themselves a gig club. Play between Launceston and Melbourne

Tasmania can have their own team called the Tassie Devils. So tassie gets one and a half teams,


That would mean St Kilda, Bulldogs, Melbourne, Richmond, Hawthorn or another Melbourne team will have to dissappear

The truth is the clubs do not exist anyway because does AFL HQ holds all the rights over them do they not?

I think the league can't handle 19 teams because the talent is too diluted

I think GWS should move to Canberra. Western Sydney has no business case. There is no money there. If GWS plays one game in six in Western Sydney they might get a bigger crowd

 

[Muddiemoose]

Look I think the North Melbourne club should do a South Melbourne and be a North Kangaroos representing North Tassie and North Melbourne. They can call themselves a gig club. Play between Launceston and Melbourne

Tasmania can have their own team called the Tassie Devils. So tassie gets one and a half teams,


That would mean St Kilda, Bulldogs, Melbourne, Richmond, Hawthorn or another Melbourne team will have to dissappear

The truth is the clubs do not exist anyway because does AFL HQ holds all the rights over them do they not?

I think the league can't handle 19 teams because the talent is too diluted

I think GWS should move to Canberra. Western Sydney has no business case. There is no money there

Now that would be an unpopular afl opinion

 

[Mr Magic]

Now that would be an unpopular afl opinion

I think people need to understand it is about the social media presence, and TV/broadcast profile, not so much their location.

I mean I have followed RFC for 45 years, never lived there, and I am a different supporter to location supporters that go to weekly games with their

families

I watch RFC and replay every weekend plus the reserves now on the website and my subscriptions are going to the likes of North?

Richmond could be in tim buck too for all I care however there would be advantages they have punt road facility next to the MCG probably for market diversification not to mention the AFLW etc..

 

[The_Wookie]

I'm not sure what the $45million is based on, but The_Wookie posted a different perspective a few weeks ago that I thought explained club sustainability quite well:

Its from a statement by Mclachlan in 2015.

"The brutal reality right now, the economy and scale and growth mean they financially can't support its own team playing 11 games," he said. "You need $45 million"

Tasmania deserves own AFL team but cannot afford it: AFL boss

“In my view they deserve it. But the brutal reality is with the economy and scale they financially can’t support their own team playing 11 games when you need a return of $45 million.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...n/news-story/c772d872ecc5881c550a3bf32f434335

"The brutal reality right now, the economy and scale of growth mean they financially can't support their own team playing 11 games, you need $45 million," he said.

Tasmania too poor to support an AFL team: CEO Gillon McLachlan

 

[PhatBoy]

The argument would be most of the distributions from the AFL come from TV rights if not all.

How much of the TV rights is generated from North? A small amount and yet North get a fair whack. I get it part of equalisation but if Fitzroy was around they would get a fair bit from AFL HQ to

So where saying 17.4 of the 39 million is from AFL HQ. Curious how the other 22 million odd is made up from

The other thing is too many teams devalues the product arguably reducing the viewing quality and demand on TV and other social media outlets

If there was only 12 teams there would be less pressure to reconfigure North

Remember, when the deal is struck, the tv networks are paying for a package. They aren’t paying for ‘ok we want one game a week that will generate 2 million viewers so we will count that as Collingwood and Essendon, another game that will generate x-amount’ etc etc. they ask for packages: we want 9 games a week, two in these time slots’ etc etc so north and everyone else are part of that package.

Of course different sides generate different amounts of ratings and revenue but that’s not what the tv deal is struck over

 

[Demonalke]

They don't want to be.

My concern is not their wants and desires, they probably want $1mil a year to have Margot Robbie blow them on a beach in Hawaii... find people that will do the job. If they have psych issues, provide them with assistance, don't just give up and say oh no, it's going to be stressful, can't do it. Being an AFL player or coach is stressful yet they find a way to stay employed full time.

Does a full time player just sit around during the week? No, they work on their fitness, watch many videos in review (not just their own game, their teammates games, oppo games, have meetings, work on their skills individually and with their teammates (and a lot more, most of them are dedicated to their craft and need to be to keep up with the demands, this isn't the 90's anymore, part timers won't keep up). If the AFL drew up the contract to basically pay them full time wages and have them sit around during the week or have other full time careers outside of umpiring... like part time employees... then it's on the AFL. (wouldn't surprise me if the screwed the pooch though)

Do the full time coaches just sit around during the week? Full time media managers? Does the full time CEO Gil just sit around on a Tuesday, no he is probably doing something as part of his job role.

One thorough review of their own game is not enough, they need to be thoroughly reviewing all games, together and working as a unit to improve the umpiring standard in AFL football not have every umpire have their own opinion as to what constitutes a free kick. There will always be bad angles and things missed but we are so far off the pace it's a joke really. Every single game you can have the exact same incident and wildly different results, deliberate, HTB, hands in the back, just to name a few and hell this can change quarter by quarter or on different ends of the ground.

If the highest levels of basketball, soccer, rugby union, league, cricket, surely the highest level of Australian Rules Football can to.

This thread is unpopular opinions so I'm not exactly expecting my personal thoughts to line up with the facts on this one, otherwise I would have posted in the "This is just a fact, take it or leave it" thread.

TLDR;
Umpires should be full time employees with a part time job (or hobby or study if they don't care about being paid) outside of their main role, like an AFL player, coach, media manager, umpire boss or CEO, not already have a full time job and do this as their part time gig.

Hell, just try it for a half a decade and see if the standard improves. If it doesn't, the job attracts nobody fit enough physically and mentally or the personal opinion always overrides the 'standard' then ditch it. At least they tried.

 

[Rich01]

As Roylion has responded;

It's almost as if every single club receives money from the AFL, some more than others, can't have the big clubs without the small clubs

And it's almost as if every clubs have their ups and downs.
I mean did you think Richmond should've been relocated back in 2007 when Geelong scored 200+points and smacked them by 157 points? North have been bad but they haven't had a performance like that.

Also don't think you're brave for posting an "unpopular" opinion like that, a lot of people have said that s**t and it's pretty pathetic that you, along with them, wan't other clubs (except your own of course) to die.

Great example.

In 2007 Geelong had some great football dept and admin people overseeing the club and saw success as a result, in and off the field.

In 2007 Richmond had Wallace as coach, Greg Miller heading up our football dept and yes men on the board and administration. There was no quality in key football and admin positions and no strategic plan to support the club and football dept. They were an absolute shambles.

Skip forward to 2010 Richmond had Brendan Gale and Damien Hardwick in key positions and later appointed Blair Hartley and Neil Balme to give stability to the football dept and Peggy as President to ensure resource was given to see the plan carried out.

I’m not sure North have any of the key positions filled with great talent or strategic foresight to succeed long term unfortunately. And the clubs ‘internal review’ is focusing on the football department only, leaving the CEO and his team to continue rudderless.

The talk shouldn’t be whether North die or relocate, or whether it gets a priority pick. It should be about asking what are the five and ten year plans of the club.

Only once that’s been articulated should they be looking at the people as
the President, CEO, Football Manager, Head of Recruitment and Coach and asking whether they are the right people to take the club forward.