Moved Thread AFL To Bail Out The Dees?

[The_Wookie]

They are pretty keen to have North play 7 games in Tassie every year

The AFL were not happy at all that we didn't walk out of Tassie for them

There's talk around at the moment, that there's too many teams in the competition - will we always have too big a gap between top 4 and bottom 4? I'm not saying I agree with it but it's quite possible there'll be a push in the future to bring it back to 16 teams

As a supporter you need to do what you can to help your club be competitive

Theres been talk about this since 1986 when the SANFL made a 14 team competition a condition of its entry.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I don't think you fully appreciate the precarious nature of Melbournes current position. Maybe 1990 was too long ago for you to remember?

The club is stuffed and in dire need of a short term overhaul and repair. It is more viable to fix it up rather than trash it altogether. End of story.

You're surely not going to reason that these kinds of interventions undermine the integrity of the competition?

My club get's as shafted as any other due to the AFL's manipulation of the competition and I support the Melbourne assistance package, as I would support a Richmond assistance package, or a package for any other established club. I know it may be hard to comprehend in this day and age, but some things really are more important than money.

Getting a little condescending their snake Any RFC supporter who contributed still has strong memories of 1990, and we knew the FTF was needed to avoid our club falling into another massive hole (debt was going nowhere in a hurry, facilities were rank, footy spend was s**t).

I don't think the Dees are completely stuffed though. On field, no doubt, but as I've been saying, their off field KPI's ain't at deaths door. They can take on some debt, their attendances haven't collapsed (kangas and dogs would love their numbers), they get a blockbuster home game each year, and now have a very good deal for their home games at the MCG.

I think everyone is panicking on the short term problems, but they can be overcome.

Whats next? If the AFL fine EFC $2m, and in 2014 the dons attendances plummet on the depleted side thanks to suspensions, do the AFL give them $3m to pay out Hird and cover the fine too?

 

[ziad]

The AFL have a history of keeping clubs in a malleable position for purposes of manipulation. Who knows what 'marketing' opportunities may be on the horizon?

Melbourne are now the AFL's house franchise. Banked and fattened until needed for - merger or relocation

They are now oficially owned.

Wonder who the AFL will appoint as coach?

 

[Snake_Baker]

News flash: I am not Andrew Demetriou

That is patently obvious. if you were you wouldn't have posted the same old tired basless crap in your previous post.

You need to open your eyes and see how the current AFL administration see things.

In the AFLs eyes, $$$ is more important than integrity

I disagree with a lot of ways the AFL think and act, but I'm not going to pretend they don't think it

What you are asking me to do is to "open my eyes" and see how YOU see things.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has declared his support for 10 clubs in Victoria and reminded all 16 clubs that the Victorian teams have been subsidising the competition for years.

On the eve of the first all-Victorian grand final since 2000, Demetriou has pointed out that the most recent $750 million broadcast rights deal was underpinned by the massive interest in the game generated from Victoria.

Demetriou, who has pledged to attract a fairer deal for all the MCG and Telstra Dome home teams, also reminded the wealthier and non-Victorian clubs that the annual AFL special assistance fund of $6 million ploughed into poorer Melbourne teams was a small price to pay.

Demetriou's stand took place at Monday's meeting of the 16 club presidents, at which the AFL revealed its strategy to remove the additional special distribution (ASD) to poorer clubs such as Melbourne, North Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs and replace it with fairer stadium deals.

But the AFL chief executive and his commission moved to quash any disquiet about clubs surviving on welfare by pointing out that the traditional AFL states Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia provided the interest that generated the richest broadcast deal in Australian sport.

While the next commission meeting, scheduled for next month, was initially expected to reach a decision on ASD funding beyond 2009, the AFL now plans to push the MCG and Telstra Dome to lower the costs of their prohibitive ground agreements with a view to allowing the clubs to survive independently.

"It was terrific news for the clubs, I must say," Geelong president Frank Costa said last night. "We were all very encouraged by the AFL's viewpoint.

"I know how hard clubs like the Western Bulldogs work and how innovative some of their ideas are but when they can't make money out of a 30,000 crowd at Telstra Dome and we can make good money out of a 24,000 crowd at the ground we are lucky enough to own, then the equalisation policy needs to be improved."

Telstra Dome's deal with the AFL reverts to a 30-game minimum in 2014, with the stadium this year hosting 46 home-and-away fixtures, while charging Melbourne Victory significantly less than most AFL tenant clubs upon which it relies for revenue.

The MCG, which hosted its agreed minimum 45 games in 2008, will finish the season with total attendances of some 2.85 million but has a contractual minimum attendance agreement of 1.7 million. The MCG has managed to significantly reduce its debt on the back of its big AFL attendances.

The AFL has continued to float the possibility of building another stadium to add weaponry to its bargaining position but in the first instance will also point out to both Melbourne stadium bosses, Stephen Gough and Ian Collins, that the extra games emanating from a nine-team competition will not be played at grounds that charge AFL clubs more than any other football code in the country.

Monday's meeting also left club presidents in no doubt regarding the AFL's push into Western Sydney.

Although Demetriou and his board did not back away from the daunting challenges posed by the 2012 launch of the 18th club, the AFL insisted that poor Sydney crowds and the Swans' struggle in Sydney this year had not weakened its resolve.

This stance has just been 100% ratified by the AFL's current assistance for the Melbourne Football Club.

Educate yourself. Think rationally and not emotionally. I won't be bothering to indulge your ignorant fantasies again..

 

[The_Wookie]

Melbourne are now the AFL's house franchise. Banked and fattened until needed for - merger or relocation

They are now oficially owned.

Wonder who the AFL will appoint as coach?

Point of order. Unless they recently redrafted their constitution, this is flat out wrong. Unlike other clubs who are wholly owned subsidaries of a state league, and will be - in the not too distant future - literally AFL house franchises.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I don't think you fully appreciate the precarious nature of Melbournes current position. Maybe 1990 was too long ago for you to remember?

The club is stuffed and in dire need of a short term overhaul and repair. It is more viable to fix it up rather than trash it altogether. End of story.

You're surely not going to reason that these kinds of interventions undermine the integrity of the competition?

They're clear of debt. AFL pays out Neeld to make way for an experienced coach and scraps the tanking fine, maybe gives them a more commercially viable fixture, then hands responsibility over to supporters to buy memberships and turn up to games.

They had a fall and just need to be picked up and dusted off and sent on their way.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Whats next? If the AFL fine EFC $2m, and in 2014 the dons attendances plummet on the depleted side thanks to suspensions, do the AFL give them $3m to pay out Hird and cover the fine too?

This is absurd and you know it.

If essendon were to amazingly end up in a position where the club became non viable then they would be entitled to every assistance possible.

 

[The_Wookie]

They're clear of debt. AFL pays out Neeld to make way for an experienced coach and scraps the tanking fine, maybe gives them a more commercially viable fixture, then hands responsibility over to supporters to buy memberships and turn up to games.

They had a fall and just need to be picked up and dusted off and sent on their way.

exactly. well and succinctly put.

 

[MightyHawks]

There's talk"

"Pretty keen"

"Too many teams"

You can deal with your baseless conspiracy theories all by yourself. This crap has been addressed a million times previously anyway.

Head in the sand sorry mate.

You can say whatever you like - but there's nothing in the AFL constitution to say that clubs cannot be merged/relocated/evicted from the competition

The Victorian clubs have lost the power of VETO over future AFL decisions

It would be a shame to lose teams from the competition and I not in favour of it happening - but if supporters of North/Dogs/Demons/Saints think their long term future is 100% assured, no matter who is running the AFL then think again.

Since 1996, there's about 10 people who are Hawthorn members and go to the footy regularly with me that I've had a good hand in converting them to members

If I went for the Demons I'd be running Auskick clinics and after school care programs spreading the word about the Mighty Dees

Of the teams that are routinely brought up as being under threat, Melbourne unfortunately is under the "long term" pump the most as they have an ageing supporter base.

Your mob on the other hand has a large % of supporters who joined in the chorus in the Barassi era or the Carey era

It's absolutely vital that Melbourne get back on track within the next 10 years before all the people who were alive in 1964 have retired

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Define normal distributions. Theres the basic distribution, then theres the addditional revenue from Other payments to clubs



In this latter category, the Bulldogs netted 4.22 million from the AFL in 2011 (1.2 million more than Melbourne and only beaten by the 4.8 million paid to Port Adelaide and 4.29 million to Collingwood). The Bulldogs netted 4.7 million - nearly 1.7 million more than melbourne - in 2010.

Fair call on the first, I consider it the usual dividend payments plus any bonuses they give all club that year - but excluding any special distributions they have to compensate for poor deals/crowds/fixtures/facilities etc.

Even at $1.7m more, this is understandable for the dogs - new facilities being build, shocking stadium deal, small supporter base in a low income area, and an underfunded footy dept. The money is used to try and bring the dogs to equity with the other teams.

The Dees $3m isn't for this though, its to pay a fine, and to pay for early termination of high cost contracts. This isn't about maintaining equity, its about avoiding the impact of poor management decisions.

Your club wore the cost of those, so did mine, and plenty of others. I don't get why the Dees get a leave pass

 

[LeverPuller]

Your club wore the cost of those, so did mine, and plenty of others. I don't get why the Dees get a leave pass

It's money now or money later. The AFL has to keep it together til the next TV deal in 2017. That means 18 clubs. That means a decent standard from 18 clubs. If Melbourne were unable to sack the coach, as would have occurred unless the AFL paid out, then it would have continued for at least another 12 months. The supporters would turn off for the most part. Your club is a fine example, despite the crowd size differences. Richmond starts winning, all of a sudden they start cracking 65-70,000 people showing up. All the bandwagoners jump back on. It's the same to an extent with Melbourne. Start them winning again, truly winning, and a lot of people will come back. But the flipside is keep them losing like they are now and even the diehards will turn off. People go 'man up, support your team', but with a few exceptions (Richmond supporters) noone actually really knows what it's like to go through this kind of non-competitiveness.

 

[KennyHunter9]

Great deal by the Dees:

1. Tank, hand over $500K
2. Get Jesse Hogan and $5M in return

Masterful. Dr Evil would be proud.

 

[The_Wookie]

Fair call on the first, I consider it the usual dividend payments plus any bonuses they give all club that year - but excluding any special distributions they have to compensate for poor deals/crowds/fixtures/facilities etc.

Even at $1.7m more, this is understandable for the dogs - new facilities being build, shocking stadium deal, small supporter base in a low income area, and an underfunded footy dept. The money is used to try and bring the dogs to equity with the other teams.

The Dees $3m isn't for this though, its to pay a fine, and to pay for early termination of high cost contracts. This isn't about maintaining equity, its about avoiding the impact of poor management decisions.

Your club wore the cost of those, so did mine, and plenty of others. I don't get why the Dees get a leave pass

My club almost went broke and had to take a loan from the AFl that it is still paying back (albeit interest free). Your club literally just got debt free on the back of another members fundraising. Melbourne literally just got debt free off that too, and is asset poor.

The Dees arent getting a leave pass, the AFL is dictating personnel changes at the club at the moment in exchange for carfefully scrutinised financial support. its unlikely they'll get draft picks, according to Damien Barrett yesterday on the sunday footy show.

 

[a_fighting_fury]

Getting a little condescending their snake Any RFC supporter who contributed still has strong memories of 1990, and we knew the FTF was needed to avoid our club falling into another massive hole (debt was going nowhere in a hurry, facilities were rank, footy spend was s**t).

I don't think the Dees are completely stuffed though. On field, no doubt, but as I've been saying, their off field KPI's ain't at deaths door. They can take on some debt, their attendances haven't collapsed (kangas and dogs would love their numbers), they get a blockbuster home game each year, and now have a very good deal for their home games at the MCG.

I think everyone is panicking on the short term problems, but they can be overcome.

Whats next? If the AFL fine EFC $2m, and in 2014 the dons attendances plummet on the depleted side thanks to suspensions, do the AFL give them $3m to pay out Hird and cover the fine too?[/quote]

Hell no, we don't want to be setting those types of precedents!

 

[bombermick]

Fair enough for the Dees to get some $$$ to fix themselves up, getting a proper coach and development staff etc. As well as a decent board. But, if we're still having this convo about the Dees in 2 years then there comes a point where the AFL has to leave them to their own devices.

 

[MightyHawks]

That is patently obvious. if you were you wouldn't have posted the same old tired basless crap in your previous post.



What you are asking me to do is to "open my eyes" and see how YOU see things.




This stance has just been 100% ratified by the AFL's current assistance for the Melbourne Football Club.

Educate yourself. Think rationally and not emotionally. I won't be bothering to indulge your ignorant fantasies again..

The AFL is in the spin business - they aren't stupid enough to tell us what they really think publicly about anything really

Are you 10 years old?

 

[LouisCK]

Dear Louis

The reason that $9 million won't help you is it's a temporary fix and tells your supporters that the AFL will step in whenever things get bad and everything will be alright

Who says its temporary? What if its a permanent once off cost?

Or what if we end up getting it off the AFL every few years?

You know as much about it as anyone else i.e. zero.

In my proposal of giving $50ea linked to Melbourne increasing their reserved seat memberships, Melbourne actually make an extra $200ea from those memberships, so if you could encourage 5000 people to shift from ordinary memberships to reserved seats, the AFL would give Melbourne $250,000 as a bonus but Melbourne would generate an extra million $ if those people re-sign every year!

Your proposal is dumb. Really dumb.

 

[The_Wookie]

Fair enough for the Dees to get some $$$ to fix themselves up, getting a proper coach and development staff etc. As well as a decent board. But, if we're still having this convo about the Dees in 2 years then there comes a point where the AFL has to leave them to their own devices.

The AFl has supplied 47.4 million to 13 clubs (excluding both WA clubs, Adelaide, Geelong, Gold Coast and GWS) specifically to address the shortcmings in administration. That has to last until 2014. At the end of which the AFL will re-evaluate the process, and determine who gets what share of the 37 million disequal funding that remains for 2015 and 2016. Demetriou has already said there are no guarantees at the end of 2016. As I said earlier, I expect a new CEO and Chairman by the end of this tv deal, and time and policies will change.

 

[ziad]

Point of order. Unless they recently redrafted their constitution, this is flat out wrong. Unlike other clubs who are wholly owned subsidaries of a state league, and will be - in the not too distant future - literally AFL house franchises.

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.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The AFL is in the spin business - they aren't stupid enough to tell us what they really think publicly about anything really

Are you 10 years old?

I have no interest in indulging the same tired old crap. Please go away.

 

[MaddAdam]

Its all timing related imo.

If we hit this crisis in three years time, we'd be legitimately more of a problem for the AFL.

If we hadn't had said no to the GC you'd be the Greater Western Sydney Demons next year./

 

[Ned_Flanders]

It's money now or money later. The AFL has to keep it together til the next TV deal in 2017. That means 18 clubs. That means a decent standard from 18 clubs. If Melbourne were unable to sack the coach, as would have occurred unless the AFL paid out, then it would have continued for at least another 12 months. The supporters would turn off for the most part. Your club is a fine example, despite the crowd size differences. Richmond starts winning, all of a sudden they start cracking 65-70,000 people showing up. All the bandwagoners jump back on. It's the same to an extent with Melbourne. Start them winning again, truly winning, and a lot of people will come back. But the flipside is keep them losing like they are now and even the diehards will turn off. People go 'man up, support your team', but with a few exceptions (Richmond supporters) noone actually really knows what it's like to go through this kind of non-competitiveness.

This is the mistake RFC made for 25 years though. Every restructure we had was based upon being able to pay the bills when all was good.

After seeing this fail again and again and again and again, our board finally bought a clue and realized they had to budget and plan on being a dud side with attendances/membership/sponsorship effected according.

If the Dees can only work when successful, how are they sustainable in the long term?

 

[bombermick]

The AFl has supplied 47.4 million to 13 clubs (excluding both WA clubs, Adelaide, Geelong, Gold Coast and GWS) specifically to address the shortcmings in administration. That has to last until 2014. At the end of which the AFL will re-evaluate the process, and determine who gets what share of the 37 million disequal funding that remains for 2015 and 2016. Demetriou has already said there are no guarantees at the end of 2016. As I said earlier, I expect a new CEO and Chairman by the end of this tv deal, and time and policies will change.

Big difference between that disequal funding (which hopefully won't be needed once the AFL owns the Dome) and the special help Melbourne need and are asking for. Happy to prop up the Dogs and the Roos (for now), but not Melbourne if they continue to be a basketcase.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

My club almost went broke and had to take a loan from the AFl that it is still paying back (albeit interest free). Your club literally just got debt free on the back of another members fundraising. Melbourne literally just got debt free off that too, and is asset poor.

The Dees arent getting a leave pass, the AFL is dictating personnel changes at the club at the moment in exchange for carfefully scrutinised financial support. its unlikely they'll get draft picks, according to Damien Barrett yesterday on the sunday footy show.

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?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Happy to prop up the Dogs and the Roos (for now), but not Melbourne if they continue to be a basketcase.

Most generous.

I don't know were we would be without your 0.00000000000000000000000001 cent contribution.