It's clearly implied that the funding would go to support West Australian football in general, which means to support the amateur and junior clubs, not necessarily pay players within those competitions
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do the South Australian teams pay a royalty to the SANFL?
It's clearly implied that the funding would go to support West Australian football in general, which means to support the amateur and junior clubs, not necessarily pay players within those competitions
Coronavirus shutdown: AFL eyes off Bank of West Coast for rescue bid
Mark Duffield and Jon RalphThe West Australian
Wednesday, 25 March 2020 5:00AM
The AFL faces a potential legal battle with WA football if it attempts to use West Coast’s $45 million cash reserve to help guarantee a financial bailout of the code worth up to $500 million.
It has been suggested that the league could use the reserves of the Eagles ($45 million), Richmond ($24.5 million) and Collingwood ($30 million with a $17 million future fund) as part of the surety for a package they are seeking from the Victorian State Government or the NAB Bank to offset the financial devastation of the coronavirus pandemic.
The league — which has already told clubs to cut their 2020 wages bill by up to 80 per cent, cut their own bill by the same amount and demanded a 70 to 80 per cent pay cut from players — would scrap annual distributions to clubs and replace them with a scaled-down liquidity package as part of the proposal. It is also possible that the league’s stadium, Marvel, would be part of the bailout’s surety.
Clubs have been told their football department soft cap would be cut by 30 per cent by next year to about $7 million in a bid to increase the viability of the code and all 18 clubs.
But business sources which The West Australian spoke with last night said any attempt to use West Coast’s cash reserves would create a legal minefield. The Eagles are 100 per cent owned by the WA Football Commission which also owns their AFL licence.
One source said Eagles board members could be putting themselves in an “invidious” position legally if they agreed to use funds from a viable financial entity to guarantee the bailout of clubs which may not prove financially viable.
The crisis has forced West Coast, despite its cashed-up status, to take austerity measures.
A significant number of West Coast staff were told this week they would lose their jobs. Others have been urged to take leave without pay until football resumes.
Fremantle are likely to announce the extent of staff and pay cuts in the next few days.
North Melbourne chief executive Ben Amarfio claimed clubs were banding together to ensure they had enough collateral for a bailout.
“The AFL has asked all clubs for transparency over their cash flow but also their reserves,” he said.
“It won’t be stealing their money, it will basically act as a surety for the massive loan the industry will have to take.
“The AFL has told us already we will all get a liquidity package.
“The old distribution is gone and replaced by a new distribution which will be a very small amount of money and we will have to make do with that small amount of money on the skeleton staff we have.”
Meanwhile, Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett warned the AFL season could be cancelled and all 850 players stood down if they refused to accept the league’s demand for an immediate 80 per cent pay cut.
Players are holding firm to their offer of a 50 per cent wages reduction until the fate of the 2020 season becomes clearer.
A tentative restart date has been set for May 31.
Talks between AFL boss Gillon McLachlan, who has volunteered to take a 20 per cent pay cut, and AFL Players’ Association boss Paul Marsh yesterday failed to resolve the stand-off.
“I understand their concern but this is about survival between now and when the competition starts again,” Kennett, a member of the AFL’s emergency war cabinet, said.
“And if an impasse cannot be resolved, one of the alternatives is the players don’t get paid at all until, and if, the season opens again.
“No one is trying to mislead or gain here. We are simply trying to survive.”
I would be very strong on benifits to WCE if any cash is used to help the VFL. The time for sharey-sharey is over while bludgers act like parasites.Interesting article in the West around our cash reserves.
If we put up significant funds to ensure the continuation of the league, I hope we use it as leverage to ensure a fairer national competition.
If
Idle media nonsense, journos with no idea of the legal relationships.
Interesting article in the West around our cash reserves.
If we put up significant funds to ensure the continuation of the league, I hope we use it as leverage to ensure a fairer national competition.
Do you want to share your insights?
Do they have the right to the money under the terms of the AFL sub licence:
- IPL uses the football assets of the WAFC under a sub-licence arrangement whereby a football team participates in the Australian Football League Competition.
- IPL is to pay the WAFC a royalty each year determined on a basis relating to the results of the Consolidated Entity’s operating activities.
I'm not suggesting the Eagles would unreasonably withhold the money, but IPL is a legal entity & its directors have a responsibility to it.
well he is working they are notI also wonder why Gil thinks he can force the players to take 79% pay cuts while he takes a 20% clip.
One in all in is what it should be - he (and other afl execs) should be mandated to take an identical pay cut to what the players do.
I would be very strong on benifits to WCE if any cash is used to help the VFL. The time for sharey-sharey is over while bludgers act like parasites.
And again ZERO people would mention it everWould be ironic if we had to bail out the AFL again!
Biggest pain I suspect we will feel in an ongoing sense is stricter Footy Department caps for the poor clubs that the rest of the comp have to abide by in the view of ‘fairness’.
Idle media nonsense, journos with no idea of the legal relationships.
I also wonder why Gil thinks he can force the players to take 79% pay cuts while he takes a 20% clip.
One in all in is what it should be - he (and other afl execs) should be mandated to take an identical pay cut to what the players do.
Just shows you the parasite is in it solely for himself.
Very wealthy family the McLachlans ....
are you thick - he is likely to be working beyond imagination to keep the buisness from folding. The players are not working at all. To compare the two is an insight into societies weaknessHe's booted 80% of his staff, so you'd assume he has 80% less work to do. There's really only one issue he needs to deal with anyway, and that's pretty much a waiting game.
Their pay is only cut while they are not working - paid fully up to end of the month including preseason training and mandated 8 week leave..Of course Gil should take the same whack as the players. What rubbish the players aren't working, they have been slogging their guts since just after Christmas. Just because there isn't the environment to put on the show is no more or less their fault that Gil's
Thanks for the clarification mate. They're still working though, they're just training on their own (except for Gov though probably)Their pay is only cut while they are not working - paid fully up to end of the month including preseason training and mandated 8 week leave..
are you thick - he is likely to be working beyond imagination to keep the buisness from folding. The players are not working at all. To compare the two is an insight into societies weakness