Moved Thread AFL To Bail Out The Dees?

[The_Wookie]

The is no such thing as a free lunch. The AFL write the rules for all clubs and control the primary revenue stream (Media Rights). Now the AFL have their man running Melbourne and will fund them through their man to ensure the money is is well spent.

The power is with the AFL. Melbourne now have none. They have not been able to sustain a competative club.

Your emotive reference to state leagues is as expected from an emotive VFL follower. The stark reality is there there are 6 clubs in the AFL who are financially independant and they alone will compete for 80% of future GF's. Any state league involvement is transitory and does not impact revenue generarion beyond media rights and brand strength.
Melbourne are a hired peloton member, needed for the AFL show but not a contender.

Melbourne remain as in control of their own destiny as they ever have until the members decide otherwise. Melbourne are not now, nor have they ever been an arm of the AFL unless there was a members meeting recently that somehow got zero media coverage that decided it. The AFL can and has injected funds to struggling clubs before - hell it even gave millions to the SANFL AND an additional credit facility because the SANFl cant afford it - effectiviely giving Port Adelaide $6 million. Port Adelaide are much better off administratively for it.

I wasnt emotive at all when referring to the probablity of West Coast being AFl owned. I found it ironic given the AFL has no power over Melbourne, where it will likely soon have it over West Coast. Those discussions are already under way and well documented in the media. One could also add that your approach to melbourne is typical of some non victorian club supporters who believe that Melbourne is a waste of space.

 

[The_Wookie]

I think both our clubs learned a lot from those experiences though. The Blues are a much more financially prudent side now than back in the Elliott days, and we finally figured out our off-field turn around couldn't be dependent upon on field success.

Dees basically get the AFL to pay their fine, pay for a new coaching panel, and at what cost?

They also get their clubs senior administrators - the people responsible for that mismanagement terminated at the urging of the AFL as a condition of funding. This will end up in the club taking a new direction and hopefully better administration - see Port Adelaide after the AFl gave them 6 million (partly via the SANFL) and the appointment of a competent president.

Port Adelaide should be the precedent your looking at here as its show real AFL intent.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

They also get their clubs senior administrators - the people responsible for that mismanagement terminated at the urging of the AFL as a condition of funding. This will end up in the club taking a new direction and hopefully better administration - see Port Adelaide after the AFl gave them 6 million (partly via the SANFL) and the appointment of a competent president.

Port Adelaide should be the precedent your looking at here as its show real AFL intent.

I have no issue with fresh management, esp with AFL direction to help, I just don't think they need the money.

In three years will we be looking at a debt free, well funded MFC, choc full of talent thanks to a raft of first round/pp picks, while the likes of the Dogs and North are still working their guts out to pay off their debts?

I just think if it wasn't "Melbourne" it wouldn't be happening

 

[The_Wookie]

I have no issue with fresh management, esp with AFL direction to help, I just don't think they need the money.

In three years will we be looking at a debt free, well funded MFC, choc full of talent thanks to a raft of first round/pp picks, while the likes of the Dogs and North are still working their guts out to pay off their debts?

I just think if it wasn't "Melbourne" it wouldn't be happening

We can always wait and see what level of assistance is being offered. Nothing has been confirmed by the league yet. We dont know if its a loan - as carlton got - or a grant, as port adelaide got. At this point in preceedings Im fairly sure the AFL would help out any club that could be helped if the need was dire.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

We can always wait and see what level of assistance is being offered. Nothing has been confirmed by the league yet. We dont know if its a loan - as carlton got - or a grant, as port adelaide got. At this point in preceedings Im fairly sure the AFL would help out any club that could be helped if the need was dire.

If its a loan (even interest free), I have no issue with that. reporting to date though seems to indicate its a grant

 

[MaddAdam]

In three years will we be looking at a debt free, well funded MFC, choc full of talent thanks to a raft of first round/pp picks, while the likes of the Dogs and North are still working their guts out to pay off their debts?

2008 wants its post back.

 

[Pessimistic]

In 1996, Melbourne were offered the opportunity to recruit Dunstall and others and be able to turn up in round 1 at their home ground cheering for Melbourne - the team wearing the red and blue jumper that looked pretty much like the one they have always had

Its OK because as long as they hold the name melbourne they have to be saved, or so I was told back then

 

[El_Scorcho]

I don't really have any issues with the financial assistance. They obviously need help getting back on their feet, and provided the people who have woefully mismanaged the club are gone, i'm happy for the new board and ceo to be given a real chance to turn things around.

However any sort of priority pick i'd be completely against.

a) It's not the answer to their issues. They have enough young talent to build a competitive list without the need for it. They need a well run club.

b) We weren't afforded the same luxury after our years of hardship, and we had to deal with the expansion drafts in that time. We've turned the onfield ship around by selecting the right coaches and the right players with the picks we did have.

 

[Slax]

this from Brisbane who have made sustained multimillion dollar losses for three years straight, and required 1.6 million in emergency ASD funding last year. ok then.

Brisbane has been managed terribly in recent years, mostly due to Michael Bowers and the boards lack of balls to sack him. Andrew Ireland when CEO set up a coterie group of extremely high powered businessman, the were given access to the coaching staff, and had the game plans explained to them. During this time it was the most exclusive business club in Brisbane with them preferring to go to Lions games than the Broncos.

By 2004-05 Bowers had wound down the group to the extent that those involved were losing interest and their money started to dry up. The board failed to act until 2010, by then more than enough damage had been done and the club was a financial wreak.

The only difference between Brisbane and the Dees is that Melbourne have been doing this for a lot longer. They were broke in the early 80s, almost merging with Fitzroy in 1986, organised a bailout to clear debt in the early 90s and then went back into the financial mire. Again had to get bailed out by supporters and in a couple of years since then have once again blown the money are are heavily back into the red.

If football club directors were held as accountable as those of publicly listed companies half of them would be up in front of the courts for gross mismanagement.

 

[The_Wookie]

Brisbane has been managed terribly in recent years, mostly due to Michael Bowers and the boards lack of balls to sack him. Andrew Ireland when CEO set up a coterie group of extremely high powered businessman, the were given access to the coaching staff, and had the game plans explained to them. During this time it was the most exclusive business club in Brisbane with them preferring to go to Lions games than the Broncos.

By 2004-05 Bowers had wound down the group to the extent that those involved were losing interest and their money started to dry up. The board failed to act until 2010, by then more than enough damage had been done and the club was a financial wreak.

The only difference between Brisbane and the Dees is that Melbourne have been doing this for a lot longer. They were broke in the early 80s, almost merging with Fitzroy in 1986, organised a bailout to clear debt in the early 90s and then went back into the financial mire. Again had to get bailed out by supporters and in a couple of years since then have once again blown the money are are heavily back into the red.

If football club directors were held as accountable as those of publicly listed companies half of them would be up in front of the courts for gross mismanagement.

Hmm Im not sure if this should be counted as trolling mate. Brisbane had some awful management and had its license handed back to the AFL several times in the late 80s early 90s. In the last 5 years its delivered three 2 million dollar losses, a 1 million dollar loss, and a 270k loss, and is the least profitable of all clubs that submit public reports.

 

[ziad]

I wasnt emotive at all when referring to the probablity of West Coast being AFl owned. I found it ironic given the AFL has no power over Melbourne, where it will likely soon have it over West Coast. Those discussions are already under way and well documented in the media. One could also add that your approach to melbourne is typical of some non victorian club supporters who believe that Melbourne is a waste of space.

No power. Please. The AFL is moving toa model of consistant governance across all clubs. Those with substancial independant revenue will be more selective in how low they bow to the AFL. The peloton will not. Melbourne are joining the peloton.

 

[Lionheart182]

Hmm Im not sure if this should be counted as trolling mate. Brisbane had some awful management and had its license handed back to the AFL several times in the late 80s early 90s. In the last 5 years its delivered three 2 million dollar losses, a 1 million dollar loss, and a 270k loss, and is the least profitable of all clubs that submit public reports.

There are reasons for this - very limited exposure due to the market, lack of corporate interest combined with poor on field results from a relatively young team with an expansion club down the road being handed draft picks and money on a platter. All this plus we have been horribly mismanaged for the past decade.

What are Melbournes reasons? They have history, a large enough supporter base and the most significant name in the competition. Basically they have the elements to succeed but have not done so, I don't think you could argue the same for Brisbane.

 

[Artaxx]

correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they load up on their footy department spend? We cant field a stand alone VFL team like everyone else, probably operate with half the footy admin staff than most, pay less of the cap etc and Melbourne get fined for tanking and then just get more money?
I'm sure the Dogs and Port and others do the same.

So we are basically being punished for being competitive? How does that work?

 

[bomberclifford]

It seems like only yesterday that Melbourne were the team to watch this year.
So many pundits, so few eggs.

There always has to be a team at the bottom but, unfortunately for the Demons, they've been there for a long while and have seen other clubs do their time, recruit well and head back into contention. Something is broke and needs fixing and it is up to the AFL to make sure it happens.

However, it would be ludicrous if a team that was fined $500k for attempting to lose games in order to gain a priority pick, ends up receiving a priority pick on top of emergency funding less than 12 months later.

Fair enough, waive the fine, provide extra funding, top up the board etc, but in no way should they be 'rewarded' with another priority pick.

 

[LouisCK]

There always has to be a team at the bottom but, unfortunately for the Demons, they've been there for a long while and have seen other clubs do their time, recruit well and head back into contention.

I actually don't think this has happened. Really since we went full shitty, in 2007, only Richmond have really improved a great deal out of the other bottom dwellers at the time.

 

[Slax]

Hmm Im not sure if this should be counted as trolling mate. Brisbane had some awful management and had its license handed back to the AFL several times in the late 80s early 90s. In the last 5 years its delivered three 2 million dollar losses, a 1 million dollar loss, and a 270k loss, and is the least profitable of all clubs that submit public reports.

Would've loved to of seen them shut down in the late 80s early 90s then I could possibly be still watching Fitzroy.

The club has some massive fixed overheads with the Gabba that mean that for msot games we are losing money.

 

[Kwality]

Until the AFL are willing to bring in a new club from Tassie and force two Melbourne based clubs to merge they will have to keep bailing out every club that gets into financial trouble, be they Melbourne based or someone like Port, GWS, Brisbane or GC.

Tough love, let the VFL clubs go.

Tas is deserving, long & loyal Aussie Rules state, been used & disregarded for way too long !

 

[Biggy_Boy]

I actually don't think this has happened. Really since we went full shitty, in 2007, only Richmond have really improved a great deal out of the other bottom dwellers at the time.

The bottom four in 2007 were Richmond, Carlton, Melbourne, and WBD - Richmond are starting to get it together now, Carlton improved and played in a few finals series before hitting another slump last year, and WBD went on to play consecutive prelims for three years after before dropping back down to the bottom rung. So two have had periods where they've been decent and played in finals, while the other should be there this year.

If we move on to 2008, Melbourne, WCE, Fremantle, and Port - WCE have obviously played in the last few finals, Freo started to get better around 2010 and have stepped up again under Lyon, and Port seem to be slowly working their way towards becoming decent now.

The same could be said of the bottom four of 2009, Melbourne, North, Port, and Freo. North may not have reached any lofty heights either, but they've certainly improved and played finals last year.