AFL commission

[Lach72]

Looks like Richard Goyder's been out on the commission.

Interesting to see where this gets us/WA

 

[leeloo]

Looks like Richard Goyder's been out on the commission.

Interesting to see where this gets us/WA

Not sure if this is what you are talking about?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/124144/default.aspx

But we get SFA!

Oops, I see that you mean this one!

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/10342464/freo-director-joins-afl-commission/

Freo director joins AFL Commission

Westfarmers managing director and Fremantle Dockers board member Richard Goyder has been appointed to the AFL Commission following the reitrement of two long-standing directors.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/10342464/freo-director-joins-afl-commission/

 

[Arcassius]

sad that he has to step down from the dockers though

 

[Proud Bogan]

sad that he has to step down from the dockers though

He does?

 

[Lach72]

He does?

As Mr Goyder was not a member-elected club director, any new board member will only have to be ratified by the WA Football Commission and will not be decided on by the members.

This would suggest so

 

[Proud Bogan]

This would suggest so

I'm not saying that you're wrong. But my reading of that is his appointment needs to ratified by the WAFC, not necessarily leaving the club board.

Maybe wrong though. Reading this just after a pissy lunch.

 

[Proud Bogan]

Edit: Just had another go at reading it and got it this time.

Damn that rice wine at midday.

 

[Arcassius]

They edited the article (I read it 5 minutes after it was posted) - originally it stated that Goyder would have to step down in his role at the Dockers in order to take up the one at the AFL.


Anyhow - from the FFC article

Harris said Goyder’s appointment to the AFL Commission would see him relinquish his role as a Fremantle board member.

“We will be looking to recruit a new director with the same level of experience as Richard,” he said.

 

[yakka man]

AFL Equalization Packages

- A minimum EQUAL distribution of $3.25m to all clubs over 2012-16, totalling $58.5m.

- A further $48m will be distributed DISEQUALLY over 2012-14 and be invested into specific initiatives for a selected number of clubs. Apart from facility projects, these additional funding commitments are only made for 2012 to 2014.

- A further $37m has been budgeted to be invested over 2015 and 2016 in a DISEQUAL fashion but is not currently allocated to specific clubs. This allows the AFL to review the effectiveness of the investments made over 2012 to 2014 and the status of equalisation and financial health across the clubs to make the necessary investment decisions for 2015 and 2016

In the link there is a table of what each club will receive. What are everyones' thoughts?

 

[estibador]

My thoughts are why are we on the 2nd bottom rung of disequal funding (to be used on facility projects amongst other things) when it's generally acknowledged we have out of date facilities compared to most of the clubs who are getting more than us.

I mean for f**ks sake, Richmond have brand new facilities that would make NASA green with envy, yet they're allocated nearly 5 times as much as us in this section.

 

[Rob]

My thoughts are why are we on the 2nd bottom rung of disequal funding (to be used on facility projects amongst other things) when it's generally acknowledged we have out of date facilities compared to most of the clubs who are getting more than us.

I mean for f**ks sake, Richmond have brand new facilities that would make NASA green with envy, yet they're allocated nearly 5 times as much as us in this section.

Because we're not based in Melbourne. Such a disadvantage would qualify us for millions extra in funding. Even Collingwood gets handouts on this basis. It will be interesting what sort of stance the WA media take on this. My guess is that it's all too complex for them and they'll ignore it.

It is thoroughly reasonable that Goyder resign from our board though. Being on both the Commission and the board of an AFL club is a huge conflict of interest.

 

[estibador]

Because we're not based in Melbourne. Such a disadvantage would qualify us for millions extra in funding.

Indeed. I don't have the same hatred for AD as most on the main board seem to, but it's been disappointing to watch the AFL slowly roll back to being a VFL-centric organisation during his reign in comparison to Wayne Jackson's more progressive era.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I think adelaide supporters are going to be more angry at the announcement, considering they lost money this year.

And i dont see why the bulldogs get twice as much as Port Adelaide?

 

[estibador]

Yeah if Port's financial woes are anywhere near as dramatic as we were lead to believe during the year it's incongruous that there could be 5 Victorian clubs who need more money than them - including one of the so-called Big 4 who happen to have brand new state of the art facilities.

Another example of the good old VFL mentality alive and well.

 

[Proud Bogan]

Yeah if Port's financial woes are anywhere near as dramatic as we were lead to believe during the year it's incongruous that there could be 5 Victorian clubs who need more money than them - including one of the so-called Big 4 who happen to have brand new state of the art facilities.

Another example of the good old VFL mentality alive and well.

Not defending them at all, but didn't Port get a special financial assistance package earlier this year that is outside of this??

 

[Admiral Byng]

I had a brief look at the .pdf file on the AFL website which explains it a bit further:

http://mm.afl.com.au/portals/0/2011/finals/club_funding_presentation_260911.pdf

The gist of it is that there are two categories which determine the amount of money each club gets: making clubs financially viable and secondly making clubs more competitive.

The major part of the first category is stadium deals. Refer to graph on page 8 of the .pdf - apparently we get 77% of stadium revenue at Subi while Bulldogs, North and Saints get only 36% at Etihad. This does create a large imbalance in the revenue streams of clubs with poor stadium deals. The other component is the level of debt the club has, there are some grants which the AFL will pay directly to banks to reduce debt.

The second major part is facilities, admin, training and coaching etc. According to page 7 some clubs already received grants from the AFL to upgrade their facilities in the 2007-2011 period so they don't get a second dip.

So for us, we have a good stadium deal and revenue base so we get no extra there. We get an extra $1 million for upgrading training and admin facilities, these being of lesser standard than what other clubs enjoy.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Not defending them at all, but didn't Port get a special financial assistance package earlier this year that is outside of this??

3/4 of that game from the SANFL if memory serves me correctly, and the 1m they got is already included in the 3+ mill they get

 

[Rob]

I had a brief look at the .pdf file on the AFL website which explains it a bit further:

http://mm.afl.com.au/portals/0/2011/finals/club_funding_presentation_260911.pdf

The gist of it is that there are two categories which determine the amount of money each club gets: making clubs financially viable and secondly making clubs more competitive.

The major part of the first category is stadium deals. Refer to graph on page 8 of the .pdf - apparently we get 77% of stadium revenue at Subi while Bulldogs, North and Saints get only 36% at Etihad. This does create a large imbalance in the revenue streams of clubs with poor stadium deals.

Given we pay $50 a ticket and they pay $20, I would have thought that the reasoning for why their returns aren't as good are blatantly obvious.

Essentially the money we pay is funding Victorian cheap tickets. We'd probably be a lot better off paying Victorian prices, proclaiming what a terrible stadium deal we have and holding our hand out for millions.

 

[Clay Davis]

I would have thought the money paid funds the WAFL boondoggle.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Given we pay $50 a ticket and they pay $20, I would have thought that the reasoning for why their returns aren't as good are blatantly obvious.

Essentially the money we pay is funding Victorian cheap tickets. We'd probably be a lot better off paying Victorian prices, proclaiming what a terrible stadium deal we have and holding our hand out for millions.

I haven't worked through all the details, I'm just trying to understand the basics of how it works. I'm not in a position to defend or attack it.

 

[Rubber Pants]

I haven't worked through all the details, I'm just trying to understand the basics of how it works. I'm not in a position to defend or attack it.

I appreciate your efforts and look forward to seeing what you find out.

 

[Admiral Byng]

There's a thread on the main board, where those people who know everything are posting.