10 clubs in Victoria

[Michael23]

Why cant 10 clubs survive in Victoria? The amount of money that is poured football is enormous..The game has never been as popular as today i beleive...We just had the biggest television deal in the history and clubs are practically on their knees begging for more members..Where is all the money going from AFL?? i must ask myself...Is it going in Jako's pocket..? But someone must explain why 10 teams cant survive after this deal, its more expensive to go to the footy now and merchandise is very expensive..I undestand it must costs the clubs an ernomous of money to run but i feel the salary cap is killing the clubs..There are many AFL players getting paid large sums of money for little contribution on the field..eg Peter Everitt and Fraser Gehrig...i m not pivking on them but hey there were the only ones that came straight to my mind..Im sure there is many more...

 

[ptw]

1. They do not allow games to be broadcast live against the gate....limiting the TV exposure clubs can get...unless of course you are from interstate in which case you are always on telly either in your home state or in Victoria

2. The rule which says that the 'home' team keeps the gate receipts. This makes the rich clubs richer and leads in inequities in the draw which just exaserbates the problem.

Both of these rules were put in place to protect clubs, but come from the '80's where money was derived from gate receipts not TV.

Get rid of them and you have a chance.

ptw

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by ptw:
2. The rule which says that the 'home' team keeps the gate receipts. ptw

Oh yea!!!!!!! I really would love to see half my membership money go to the other AFL clubs

We all become AFL supporters instead of supporting our clubs eh!!!Great idea

[This message has been edited by Frodo (edited 30 April 2001).]

 

[WCE2000]

I don't see any reason why 10 clubs can't survive.

If we started the competition now, we woudln't have 10 Vic clubs, but it has become tradtion and history - which is one of the reasons i feel the AFL is still so popular.

In the whole history, only 2 clubs have ever gone, one of which was only around for 7 years.

The worst thing the AFL could do would be to go on a ratiolization bender, and cut it back to 6 Victorian teams.

The backlash from the supporters would be so enormous and would de irrepriable damage to the AFL - look at what happened to League since they have cut teams out of the competition.

 

[gocatsgo]

Exactly PTW, that's why Geelong want live against the gate, but the last two weeks have been disastrous firstly with the weather and yesterday with the teams performance.

Clubs like Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond all play each other twice (or mostly do) thus attracting big crowds and all the proceeds go to the clubs. Why do you think sides like Geelong play home games in Melbourne against bigger drawing clubs, to get the money out of the crowd attendances. Melbourne clubs who don't draw big in Melbourne are forced to play interstate to make the most of televised exposure. This season, Hawthorn, Bulldogs, Melbourne and of course North are all playing home games interstate. StKilda is the only supposed non big club that is playing all its home games in Melbourne, Geelong are playing 4 in Melbourne and 7 in Geelong. Why is it that Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood and Richmond don't play home games interstate? because they get a draw bias to attract big crowds.

They won't admit it, but it is these clubs that are killing off other Victorian teams. Publicly they advocate support for 10 Vic teams, but privately they gobble up all the money that should be spread between the 10 clubs

Other reasons why 10 Vic clubs will struggle to survive is that with 10 clubs it is difficult to find long term sponsors, even Essendon changed their sponsor this season, North have had 5 in 10 years, Bulldogs similar. In fact Geelong is the only team that have had the same major sponsor for the entire history of the club.

Add to that, if a club hasn't been successful, who would want to sponsor them when there is a club like Essendon or Carlton who are traditionally powerful waiting in the wings. Who would want to be a part of a club like Geelong, Melbourne, StKilda, Bulldogs who haven't succeeded in the past and realistically probably won't a great deal in the future. Why get on board the Titanic when there is a lifeboat around the corner?

The final reason is the rule of having to pay 95% of the salary cap to your players. Amazingly The players at Fremantle and Collingwood are on basically the same wage as the players from Essendon and Carlton.

Colligwood I use because they have Buckley and list of young players who are still developing. Incredibly some of these young Collingwood players like Tarrant, Lockyer, O'Bree, Prestigiacomo, are getting the same wage as Mecuri, Lloyd, Misiti and Fletcher. Hardly in the same category of player are they yet they are probably the players ranked 2-5 after obviously Buckley and Hird at the respected clubs.

Players need to develop into star players, look at Aussie Jones as an example, played 1 decent season - All Australian, suddenly he was offered an approx $300,000 a year contract for 3 seasons and hasn't done a thing since. How do we know that young players won't go the same way when the big bucks are thrown their way. Managers have a lot to answer for, they are only concerned about the players short term gain, not their long term interest or credibility.

There are a lot of problems that need sorting out in the coming months if clubs are to survive long term then these need rapid fixing.

 

[mr h]

i would rather nine clubs in vic

maggies can go to nz or fiji or somewhere

 

[WCE2000]

Originally posted by gocatsgo:
The final reason is the rule of having to pay 95% of the salary cap to your players.

I was unaware of this rule, but this is a shocking rule. This is redicolous.

But even more redicolous, as you said, how can Freo being playing their bunch of pretenders the same as Essendon are playing their bunch of stars. That doesn't add up.

 

[JLC]

Ten clubs in Victoria ??

There is only ONE club and thats Collingwood
There are nine other imposters.

End of story

APA

 

[Crows.ok]

The question is, do the footy public actually want 10 clubs in Victoria?

Ask about half the public who follow the footy in Australia, and they will probably tell you something akin to "NO, 10 clubs in Victoria is a few too many. I'd rather see a couple of clubs in other places in Australia".

 

[ptw]

Originally posted by Frodo:
Oh yea!!!!!!! I really would love to see half my membership money go to the other AFL clubs

We all become AFL supporters instead of supporting our clubs eh!!!Great idea

[This message has been edited by Frodo (edited 30 April 2001).]

Frodo

I think you will find there is a difference between a gate receipt and a membership.

look it up.

ptw

 

[ptw]

Originally posted by WCE2000:
I was unaware of this rule, but this is a shocking rule. This is redicolous.

I am not so sure. This rule was brought in to stop struggling clubs (financially that is) from only paying their players half of what thy deserve, just to pay the bank. It sort of goes hand in had with the draft...you either have free agency for all and players go to the highest paying clubs, or you have a restricted market with limited opportunity for players to move and where they cannot chose which club they go to. You cannot restrict players to one club and then allow that club to pay whatever they want.

Think of it in terms of your job. If we did not have a minimum wage and your employer could pay you whatever they could get away with, then that would be ok (ish) if you had the choice to say "up yours" and go to the firm down the road who would pay more. But if they could pay you what they felt like AND you could not go anywhere else then that would be unfair.

ptw

 

[CarltonMan]

I'd like to see Carlton Essendon Collingwood Richmond Geelong and Melbourne survive, the rest can go. 4 teams cull them and merge the talent.

People will hate me for saying that....

 

[Blues_Brat]

Originally posted by CarltonMan:
I'd like to see Carlton Essendon Collingwood Richmond Geelong and Melbourne survive, the rest can go. 4 teams cull them and merge the talent.

People will hate me for saying that....

Seems to be the logical choice. The others have struggled for too long.

Of the ones on the outer only Hawthorn have a claim due to their onfield success. But if numbers of supporters were the criteria. The Hawks would be gone.

 

[Chicago1]

Originally posted by JLC:
Ten clubs in Victoria ??

There is only ONE club and thats Collingwood
There are nine other imposters.

End of story

APA

Yeah, and THAT club can always play with itself!!!

------------------
"Sons of the West, red, white and blue..."
"Oh say, can you see..."
"California dreamin'..."
THE TRINITY OF SONGS

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by gocatsgo:
Why is it that Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood and Richmond don't play home games interstate?

Because their home is in Victoria.

 

[kaz68]

Originally posted by Blues_Brat:

Of the ones on the outer only Hawthorn have a claim due to their onfield success. But if numbers of supporters were the criteria. The Hawks would be gone.

Had a look at membership figures in the last four years have you ?? Obviously not if you make that stupid comment.
I will leave it up to the supporters of the other randomly culled clubs to abuse the hell out of you.
Kaz


------------------
http://www.kaz68.homestead.com/heaven.html

 

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

Originally posted by Blues_Brat:
But if numbers of supporters were the criteria. The Hawks would be gone.

DCFC's Fabulous Footy Trivia

DID YOU KNOW that Hawthorn have had more members than Carlton for the last five years? This is despite Hawthorn finishing below Carlton on the ladder in four of those five seasons.

Now remember kiddies, push the clutch in before you try and engage your brain.

 

[McKenna for PM]

Originally posted by WCE2000:
I was unaware of this rule, but this is a shocking rule. This is redicolous.

But even more redicolous, as you said, how can Freo being playing their bunch of pretenders the same as Essendon are playing their bunch of stars. That doesn't add up.

I'm not sure that I fully understand your gripes with this rule. It seems to me to be a good way of allowing struggling clubs access to top players. Without it, the poor clubs would continually be forced to give up top players they have nurtured in order to stay in the black.

But that brings up another point. How can the AFL reward players of a high calibre if clubs can't do it due to salary cap restrictions? Maybe a set group can be bestowed with a top players' bonus that is from the AFL rather than their club and follows them to whatever footy club they move to. Actually that's probably not such a good idea.

But I suppose top players do earn more in sponsorship dollars......

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by gocatsgo:
They won't admit it, but it is these clubs that are killing off other Victorian teams. Publicly they advocate support for 10 Vic teams, but privately they gobble up all the money that should be spread between the 10 clubs

So you want these clubs to subsidise yours?
You want home games against them because you know their supporters will turn up & pay at the gate, but when the boot's on the other foot (ie it's an away game) where are your supporters? Do they contribute equally in return? No! The reason these clubs make more money is that they have more supporters, which equates to more members and bigger crowds.

You also claimed that they never played home games interstate (I assume that's a typo).
Since 1995 Essendon have played 25 homes games against Non-vic clubs. Geelong have played 28 (at the same time Essendon have played 25 h&a games outside Victoria whilst Geelong have played 23). 3 games in six years is not a huge difference (any more than 2 is).

I hope that all 10 Victorian teams survive, but to lay the blame at the feet of four clubs and claim the the draw is the cause of the other clubs problems is shortsighted & naive. I would hope that the board's of those clubs recognise that they need to do more than simply call for more home games against the "big 4". The supporters of those clubs need to buy memberships & turn up to the footy. That's what will help them survive as it leads to bigger crowds at their teams games which in turn leads to greater interest & exposure which in turn leads to corporate sponsorship. And that's where the real money is.


[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 01 May 2001).]

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by kaz68:
Had a look at membership figures in the last four years have you ??

What??

You should know that dogs, cats, mice and pet goats don't count!!

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

instead of worrying about the big 4 from vic the big 4 from interstate west coast,port,crows,sydney are the ones all vic clubs have to be worried about.even the top 4 in vic are up against it when it comes to the support these interstate sides attract let alone there conditions off the feild which are way ahead of ant vic club.
its ok to have a go at the big 4 from vic because of their supporter base but u should ask yaself where are all the suporters from the other 6?
to be viable these days all vic clubs need all the members they can get just to keep up with the interstaters so plz dont have ago at rich,coll.ess,carl and even hawthorn for there huge followings have a go at your non members who no doubt have the "she.ll be right mate"attitude go after them
cheers!

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by ptw:

Frodo

I think you will find there is a difference between a gate receipt and a membership.

look it up.

ptw

Time for learning!

Eagles have 38,000 members. Membership includes your seat for every home game. Gate receipts would therefore be almost nil.
How is it done otherwise to generate significant gate receipts?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by ptw:
2. The rule which says that the 'home' team keeps the gate receipts. This makes the rich clubs richer and leads in inequities in the draw which just exaserbates the problem.

Both of these rules were put in place to protect clubs, but come from the '80's where money was derived from gate receipts not TV.

Actually, this rule was only introduced last year. Prior to that the gate receipt money was split between the copmpeting clubs, with a portion put into the equalisation fund.

 

[gocatsgo]

Dave, you look at membership figures, Essendon have about 34,000, give or take a few, Collingwood have about 30,000. Every other Victorian club including Carlton and Richmond have between 20,000 and 28,000 members, apart form the Bulldogs and I'm not too sure about Melbourne.

Membership for once isn't the problem, the problem is draw bias. Why should Essendon play Collingwood twice every year? Why do Carlton play Collingwood twice every year. Since 1995, Geelong have played Collingwood once every year since 1996.

We all know that Collingwood have struggled since 1994, so why should teams such as Essendon and Carlton get an almost guaranteed extra victory. I'm not having a go at Collingwood, because it is the truth, they have been down for a number of years. The reason is because even when they are down, they still draw crowds. Good on them I say, but other clubs shouldn't reap the benefits. The same will happen in the future when Essendon start to struggle, teams will still want to play them twice because they will draw a crowd.

With 6 games taken up by the 'big 4',(3 home and 3 away) it only leaves 4 other clubs with the opportunity to play them twice. Invariably 2 of these are interstate which leaves only 2 of the remaining 7 Victorian teams to get them at home or away. North have been successful over the last few years, so they often get one of these spots. So we are left with 6 teams for only 1 game against bigger drawing clubs. Simply not fare. Some of these clubs are lucky enough to draw them at home, but you will never see Essendon play at Optus Oval. You might however see Essendon play an away game at Colonial when the MCG is vacant - Geelong and StKilda last season are examples, thus detracting from potential crowds.

To fix the problem, either we get rid of a few clubs or we make the season 30 games and get rid of the Ansett Cup. I'd like to see the latter, but I am affraid the former may win in the long run.

 

[Blues_Brat]

Originally posted by Same Old's:
Because their home is in Victoria.

And they're not stupid enough to slap their fans in the face by making them travel to another city to see a "home" game.