- Nov 8, 2000
- AFL Club
- Other Teams
- Peel Thunder
The "poor stadium deal" and "inequities in the fixture" has been completely debunked. Clubs get no changes in funding based on the fixture, otherwise it would vary wildly year to year. The Bulldogs for instance, who have had commercially positive fixtures for the last few years, remain one of the largest recipients of AFL funding. Funny, my club hasn't had a Friday night game since Adam was a boy (and rightfully so given on field results), yet is one of the lowest funding beneficiaries. Clearly the fixture is not relevant.No, I don't "know it"
You are the one trying to assert something that is directly at odds with a publicly stated policy.
You don't have any basis to do so beyond "naaaah go on.............the AFL just does hand outs willy nilly, everyone knows that"
The competitive balance policy and associated funding model was agreed by the 18 clubs after substantial negotiation
Your "yeah....naaaaah.....yeah nah" up against....
Likewise, when the AFL took over Docklands we were all told how great the stadium deal was going to be for tenants. The effect on AFL distributions? Zero. Docklands tenant clubs did not roundly get their funding cut.
Everything else is based on financial factors.
Given we know what goes to each club, it's pretty easy to draw the conclusion that it's based on financial necessity. Amounts paid by the league go up and down based broadly on how shitty their financials are. Look at Brisbane and St Kilda as 2 extreme examples - both clubs that have drawn huge amounts in funding from the AFL at the same time as their financial situation deteriorated badly. Nothing else changed.
Now I know that correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but what other possible conditions could there be? Have you got an example of a club's funding getting directly affected by another factor?
I'm not suggesting the model is wrong. Only that it's based on large amounts of money coming in. If that stops, then the model will break.is it really? You haven't really made any sort of a case. Just assertion again
The model the AFL has adopted is going gang busters. Absolutely gang busters. Surely that puts the onus of proof on someone asserting otherwise?
On the stadiums issue, do you think it's reasonable that the AFL arrange the stadiums for some clubs but not others? And based almost exclusively on geography? Given the AFL isn't the one that hosts games, it's difficult to see why every single stadium deal in the country isn't between the club and the stadium operator. The AFL, other than setting minimum standards for stadiums and ensuring they comply, has no business being involved. They certainly shouldn't be owning a stadium when they don't host games (except finals, and ironically the stadium they own is probably the least likely regular venue to host a final).