Moved Thread AFL tips $25m into the Suns for 2017!!!

Remove this Banner Ad

Having an actual or ostensible fiduciary obligation re the good of the game on the one hand, and seeking to maximize profits by bending over to cash cows such as TV media on the other, is what the lawyers call a conflict of interest.

The AFL is hopelessly conflicted. Tas is an example.

To the cynical and hypocritical bloviating AFL hucksters Tasmania is just collateral damage - a footy heartland sacrificed on the Ponzi-scheme altar of robbing Peter to pay Paul [or now, possibly, Pauline]. Grow the game, baby.

And Paul in the rugby league heart of Q can't believe his good luck in being a $30M AFL trust fund baby.

Conflict of interest? No way, says the AFL. Hey, listen, we gotta hit our TV revenue KPIs for our bonuses. Oops, no, wait...

I think you need to do some more research if you're going to suggest it's a legal issue.

not for profit organisations like the AFL need to make money in order to pay for what they pay for, so having at least some of their focus on "seeking to maximize profits by bending over to cash cows" isn't a conflict, it's a necessary function.

What you want is for them to change their focus when it comes to spending money and so long as they have an arguable case for how they spend it (and they do), that would be pretty hard to get a court to do anything about.
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,916
36,084
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Having an actual or ostensible fiduciary obligation re the good of the game on the one hand, and seeking to maximize profits by bending over to cash cows such as TV media on the other, is what the lawyers call a conflict of interest.

Ok lets get a couple of things clear.

Total AFL Commission Revenue in 2016 was $569 million (of which $516 million originates with the AFL competition), actual cash revenue was $547 million (of which $489m originates with the AFL competition).

The AFL outright owns - AFL Queensland, AFL Tasmania, AFL Canberra, AFL NSW/ACT, AFL Sydney, AFL NT, AFL Victoria, and operates the NEAFL, TAC Cup (mens & womens), VFL, and VFLW. Those subsidaries + any income from its shares in Champion Data (of which it owns 49%) generated $53 million in total revenue - in 2016 the AFL returned $41.9m in direct development grants, and another $3 million from its facilities development fund.

Just to clarify - $53 million in, 44.9m out. Does it cost $8 million to run these other organisations?

For example, the last independent reports from the following organisations - before they became AFL subsidaries.
  • In 2010, AFL Victoria reported $18 million in expenses alone, and 18 million revenue - but $6 million from the AFL to get there.
  • In 2013 Football Tasmania reported 4 million in revenue, 4 million in expenses, including $500,000 from the Tas Gov and the "bulk of its revenue from AFL Grants".
  • In 2013, AFL NT reported 10 million in revenue and expenses, but doesnt specificy where the money comes from (and it doubled in 2014 with funding for the Thunder)
 
Aug 14, 2011
44,794
16,852
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
I think you need to do some more research if you're going to suggest it's a legal issue.

not for profit organisations like the AFL need to make money in order to pay for what they pay for, so having at least some of their focus on "seeking to maximize profits by bending over to cash cows" isn't a conflict, it's a necessary function.

What you want is for them to change their focus when it comes to spending money and so long as they have an arguable case for how they spend it (and they do), that would be pretty hard to get a court to do anything about.

wouldnt be my choice of words but spot on.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ok lets get a couple of things clear.

Total AFL Commission Revenue in 2016 was $569 million (of which $516 million originates with the AFL competition), actual cash revenue was $547 million (of which $489m originates with the AFL competition).

The AFL outright owns - AFL Queensland, AFL Tasmania, AFL Canberra, AFL NSW/ACT, AFL Sydney, AFL NT, AFL Victoria, and operates the NEAFL, TAC Cup (mens & womens), VFL, and VFLW. Those subsidaries + any income from its shares in Champion Data (of which it owns 49%) generated $53 million in total revenue - in 2016 the AFL returned $41.9m in direct development grants, and another $3 million from its facilities development fund.

Just to clarify - $53 million in, 44.9m out. Does it cost $8 million to run these other organisations?

For example, the last independent reports from the following organisations - before they became AFL subsidaries.
  • In 2010, AFL Victoria reported $18 million in expenses alone, and 18 million revenue - but $6 million from the AFL to get there.
  • In 2013 Football Tasmania reported 4 million in revenue, 4 million in expenses, including $500,000 from the Tas Gov and the "bulk of its revenue from AFL Grants".
  • In 2013, AFL NT reported 10 million in revenue and expenses, but doesnt specificy where the money comes from (and it doubled in 2014 with funding for the Thunder)

A couple of further notes to this...

On the revenue side the AFL reported $10.5M from 'game development'.
The AFL made a fairly substantial loss ($17.777M), and while there were some reasons for that, so its not a huge concern in itself, it still helps show that it's not an endless pot of money. (Net assets were $124M)
In spite of what some seem to think, Broadcasting and AFL media is 'only' around half of the AFL's revenue. (OK, not really relevant to this point but still worth remembering)



BTW. Small error .... 'actual cash revenue' would be $542M (Assuming you're using the 569 total less 27M in contra). Yes, I know, it doesn't really matter, but as I'm sure we've all realised by now, I can be anal/OCD when it comes to numbers.
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,630
17,300
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Ok lets get a couple of things clear.

Total AFL Commission Revenue in 2016 was $569 million (of which $516 million originates with the AFL competition), actual cash revenue was $547 million (of which $489m originates with the AFL competition).

The AFL outright owns - AFL Queensland, AFL Tasmania, AFL Canberra, AFL NSW/ACT, AFL Sydney, AFL NT, AFL Victoria, and operates the NEAFL, TAC Cup (mens & womens), VFL, and VFLW. Those subsidaries + any income from its shares in Champion Data (of which it owns 49%) generated $53 million in total revenue - in 2016 the AFL returned $41.9m in direct development grants, and another $3 million from its facilities development fund.

Just to clarify - $53 million in, 44.9m out. Does it cost $8 million to run these other organisations?

For example, the last independent reports from the following organisations - before they became AFL subsidaries.
  • In 2010, AFL Victoria reported $18 million in expenses alone, and 18 million revenue - but $6 million from the AFL to get there.
  • In 2013 Football Tasmania reported 4 million in revenue, 4 million in expenses, including $500,000 from the Tas Gov and the "bulk of its revenue from AFL Grants".
  • In 2013, AFL NT reported 10 million in revenue and expenses, but doesnt specificy where the money comes from (and it doubled in 2014 with funding for the Thunder)

So AFL NT gets 5x the money AFLTas gets, 1/2 that for running a NEAFL club?

Geez, what does it cost for the AFL to fund the NEAFL overall?
 
So AFL NT gets 5x the money AFLTas gets, 1/2 that for running a NEAFL club?

Geez, what does it cost for the AFL to fund the NEAFL overall?

The whole thing seems a bit confusing....

In 2013, AFL NT reported 10 million in revenue and expenses, but doesnt specificy where the money comes from (and it doubled in 2014 with funding for the Thunder)

So AFL NT had $10M in revenue for 2013 (not all from the AFL, but unclear how much) which doubles in 2014 due to the Thunder. (so $10M more...ie $20M total). Now, it doesn't say the extra $10M for the Thunder came from the AFL, but you'd think a large part of it would have.

Trouble is it just seems unlikely....That's about what AFL clubs were getting as their distribution at the time, and if the other teams in the NEAFL were receiving anything like that, it'd be a major part of the AFLs budget, but nothing in the AFLs annual report comes close...in 2014, game development was $38.9M...even if the whole thing went to the NEAFL (and we know it doesn't), that still wouldn't be enough money.

Not sure what's going on but what I'd have thought was the obvious implications of the statement don't pass the sniff test.
 
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
Occasionally listen to SEN radio, and the debate about whether the dollars are better spent in Tassie or the Gold Coast comes up often.

Invariably, many ring up in favour of Tassie, but their reasons are nearly all emotional. When you have an independent board weighing up the benefits of having a strong presence in the sixth largest city in Australia (and growing), which already has a solid southern presence, then I'm not sure how anyone believes they would ignore that in favour of Tassie.
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,630
17,300
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Occasionally listen to SEN radio, and the debate about whether the dollars are better spent in Tassie or the Gold Coast comes up often.

Invariably, many ring up in favour of Tassie, but their reasons are nearly all emotional. When you have an independent board weighing up the benefits of having a strong presence in the sixth largest city in Australia (and growing), which already has a solid southern presence, then I'm not sure how anyone believes they would ignore that in favour of Tassie.

Maybe people look at things like the situation in SEQ where the original support for Brisbane now appears split with GC. So how much has AFL support actually grown in SEQ?
 
Maybe people look at things like the situation in SEQ where the original support for Brisbane now appears split with GC. So how much has AFL support actually grown in SEQ?
It's virtually impossible to understand SEQ support, because neither team has made finals in the time in they've been in the competition. Suffice to say that if one or both clubs were successful, crowds would be a lot more. We don't have the ability to compare the GC era Brisbane crowds with that of finals/non finals. But what we do know that when they are successful, they get crowds, for example, in 2005, every single Gabba home crowd has at least 29500 people watching. It's also not ridiculous to suggest that if you flipped GWS and Sydney's success with that of Brisbane and Gold Coast over the last 3 years, the SEQ crowds would be larger than that of the Sydney teams despite the region having a smaller population than Sydney. Brisbane sports crowds are incredibly fickle. There's a reason that the NRL slant the deck toward the Broncos because they want them to be perpetually successful so they don't lose crowds with consecutive crap football.

What we do know, however, that a) participation has increased in the region significantly, and b) tying the academies to the region and using the two clubs as a way to restructure footy in the region through the NEAFL has seen an increase of draftees from the region - and not just academy players but a marked increase in Queensland-based mature agers being drafted - for example 5 Queensland Mature Agers were drafted in the 2015 rookie draft.
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,916
36,084
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
The Thunder is pretty heavily sponsored. Its the only club that was specifically created for the NEAFL, all other clubs were pre- existing.

I should add that this includes various underage academies as well. A Thunder type development for Tasmania is probably ideal if they cant get an AFL side.
  • It has considerable Government and local business support, as well as AFL funding.
  • It has a mens side in the NEAFL
  • It has a womens side in the VFLW
  • It has academy programs for U16 & U18s in both male and female. These are done via 4 regional academy areas that play a state carnival.
-
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

deltablues

Cancelled
Jul 16, 2013
1,891
1,950
Rapid City, South Dakota
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Sturt, Green Bay Packers
I think you need to do some more research if you're going to suggest it's a legal issue.

not for profit organisations like the AFL need to make money in order to pay for what they pay for, so having at least some of their focus on "seeking to maximize profits by bending over to cash cows" isn't a conflict, it's a necessary function.

What you want is for them to change their focus when it comes to spending money and so long as they have an arguable case for how they spend it (and they do), that would be pretty hard to get a court to do anything about.
I think you need to improve your reading comprehension - my opening para describes a classic conflict of interest.

You, as always on this debate, tend to focus too narrowly on the accounting side (which, as an edit, I appreciate reading).
 
Last edited:
I think you need to improve your reading comprehension - my opening para describes a classic conflict of interest.

You, as always on this debate, tend to focus too narrowly on the accounting side (which, as an edit, I appreciate reading).

Your opening para only describes a conflict of interest if you get to define what is 'for the good of the game'. If that definition is as the AFL would say it is (a definition that includes a significant focus on expanding the game in new markets), then it isn't. Most lawyers would be smart enough not to make such a claim.
 

deltablues

Cancelled
Jul 16, 2013
1,891
1,950
Rapid City, South Dakota
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Sturt, Green Bay Packers
Your opening para only describes a conflict of interest if you get to define what is 'for the good of the game'. If that definition is as the AFL would say it is (a definition that includes a significant focus on expanding the game in new markets), then it isn't. Most lawyers would be smart enough not to make such a claim.

Re the bolded - your argument is a self-serving statement based on 'if' - and you'd expect the AFL to say that, though, wouldn't you.

Your comment actually proves my point re your mindset on this.

The AFL as the custodian of the game has a fiduciary duty way wider than selling its soul for TV geld - which is what "expanding the game in new markets" is all about. And the Suns - Tas financial support contrast is a clear example of conflict of interest.

But of course this is all academic as the AFL by its conduct has morphed into an entertainment behemoth run by TV interests, and where the phrase '' for the good of the game" would elicit the response - 'Say, what? We gotta hit our KPI's. That's what we say is for the good of the game, mister'.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2, 2010
37,916
36,084
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
The AFL as the custodian of the game has a fiduciary duty way wider than selling its soul for TV geld - which is what "expanding the game in new markets" is all about. And the Suns - Tas financial support contrast is a clear example of conflict of interest.

It is NOT a conflict of interest. It is a contrast of financial support. The AFL has a duty to promote the game - its in its constitution - but that same constitution does not guarantee financial support or funding for anyone, and in any case, the AFL demonstrably hands out more money to state and grassroots footy than it receives back, including some funding for AFL Tasmania.
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,630
17,300
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Re the bolded - your argument is a self-serving statement based on 'if' - and you'd expect the AFL to say that, though, wouldn't you.

Your comment actually proves my point re your mindset on this.

The AFL as the custodian of the game has a fiduciary duty way wider than selling its soul for TV geld - which is what "expanding the game in new markets" is all about. And the Suns - Tas financial support contrast is a clear example of conflict of interest.

But of course this is all academic as the AFL by its conduct has morphed into an entertainment behemoth run by TV interests, and where the phrase '' for the good of the game" would elicit the response - 'Say, what? We gotta hit our KPI's. That's what we say is for the good of the game, mister'.

Yes we've really know for many years which way the AFL was going. Its followed the NFL in many areas of operation. Being a corporate entertainment conglomerate is the sad reality.
The pretence the the AFL cares much about Australian Rules went with the branding of everything as AFL. Their spending patterns & investment patterns just reinforces that view of them.
A bit like business managers, really only interested in bonuses & career matters
 
Re the bolded - your argument is a self-serving statement based on 'if' - and you'd expect the AFL to say that, though, wouldn't you.

Your comment actually proves my point re your mindset on this.

The AFL as the custodian of the game has a fiduciary duty way wider than selling its soul for TV geld - which is what "expanding the game in new markets" is all about. And the Suns - Tas financial support contrast is a clear example of conflict of interest.

But of course this is all academic as the AFL by its conduct has morphed into an entertainment behemoth run by TV interests, and where the phrase '' for the good of the game" would elicit the response - 'Say, what? We gotta hit our KPI's. That's what we say is for the good of the game, mister'.

Just because you don't agree with the way they're doing it (and really, I don't either) doesn't mean it's not a potential way of achieving their goal, and so long as it isn't a completely unreasonable option, no court in the land would hold them liable.
 
Aug 14, 2011
44,794
16,852
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Yes we've really know for many years which way the AFL was going. Its followed the NFL in many areas of operation. Being a corporate entertainment conglomerate is the sad reality.
The pretence the the AFL cares much about Australian Rules went with the branding of everything as AFL. Their spending patterns & investment patterns just reinforces that view of them.
A bit like business managers, really only interested in bonuses & career matters

Therein lies the need for a strong Commission: one that is open to question.
 

deltablues

Cancelled
Jul 16, 2013
1,891
1,950
Rapid City, South Dakota
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Sturt, Green Bay Packers
Just because you don't agree with the way they're doing it (and really, I don't either) doesn't mean it's not a potential way of achieving their goal,, and so long as it isn't a completely unreasonable option, no court in the land would hold them liable.

If you have ever been involved in litigation you might realize that your bolded is a very, uh, bold statement. A fiduciary duty has a high benchmark, but I'm not going to argue legal points here.

And sure, the AFL is achieving its "goal", turning a Nelsonian eye to the consequential collateral damage such "goal" has incurred in a heartland state such as Tas, and which conflict of interest is nicely demonstrated by the Latin phrase res ipsa loquitur.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Back