Beyond a joke

[Macca19]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Beyond a joke

Originally posted by choppy



Yes, the AFL has a proud history of propping clubs up, Fitzroy springs to mind. But Port is not being propped up are they.

This article from The Adelaide Advertiser on 23 Novermber last year is obviously completely wrong.


PORT Adelaide has had its financial burden eased with the AFL giving the Power an extra three years to pay off its $4m licence fee.

In a deal brokered between the AFL and SANFL, the Power will now be required to pay the remaining $1.6m of its licence fee over the next five years rather than the $800,000 it was due to pay in each of the next two years.

"It will allow us to enhance our profitability over the next couple of years."

The refinancing of Port's licence will improve the club's financial situation by more than $400,000 in 2001 and 2002.

Tell Macca, How do you make those profits. By not paying your licence fees?

I wonder who the tool is? What are the facts Macca? Enlighten me. Please.

Learn your facts choppy. you can quote papers all you like but it doesnt change a thing. Port had to pay back the licence fee at $800,000 per year...which was exactly twice the amount that the Adelaide Football Club had to pay it back, that West Coast payed it back, and Brisbane...And Freo.. Port spoke to the AFL about this, and they changed it to make it fair with the other clubs that joined the AFL. It does ease the burden, and it makes it fair seeing as Adelaide and every other club paid the licence back at $400,000 per year.

 

[Macca19]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Beyond a joke

Originally posted by choppy


I thought Port played there home games at Football Park. So they don't use the corporate facilities at this ground to raise funds for the club?

Yes we do get dividends but it is less because the AFL is putting money into South Australia.

Commonwealth Grants Macca, not Commonwealth Games. I cant be bothered explaining the devolution of tax payers money from Victoria to the rest of Australia.


You originally said that North should recieve nothing and to piss of if we couldn't stand on our own. My argument is, and I believe it is still valid, that if every other club and that is just not Port receive some sort of concession some where along the line, then why does everyone jump up and down when there is a single mention that North should recieve a single concession.

Apart from some funds last year that were provided by the AFL to market some home games in Sydney and this was all spent on advertising, we did not make any profit from this, North has received nothing, no grants, no special draft concessions, nothing.

Well bugger it, if every other club gets something why not North?

I dont think i said "North should recieve nothing"...if i did then i meant, they shouldnt recieve anything extra. It should all be equal amongst the clubs.

 

[Westy Boy]

Originally posted by Crows.ok

How much more simple can we make this concept for you?

I think you've made it a little too simplistic, CrowsOK.

Firstly, I agree with most of you Crows/Port fans -- profits of rival clubs should not be directly diverted towards the poorer clubs. I’m not going to try argue on that point, as your reasoning is fairly spot on. You owe us nothing.

HOWEVER

Look at it from a different perspective. Your main argument is that you don’t want your profits leaving your club, right? Now, if this is your reasoning, and we end up folding or relocating because of that stance, do you have any idea how much more that is going to cost you? This whole argument is in terms of your club losing money that is ‘rightfully’ yours, after all.

So, from a Port or Crows point of view, how is having another interstate team emerge (at the expense of a club with 75-100 years of tradition and support) going to help you? This, if I’m not mistaken, is the basis for most of you being so dead set against this proposal. So, what good is the death of a Victorian team going to do for your club?

There are three options;

• Redirect a minor part of your dividend to help out clubs in the short-term.
  
• Have us relocate or merge
  
• Have us die altogether.

IMO, mergers aren’t an option for many club’s because of the proven backlash it creates, hence, your decision is either to lose us completely, or relocate us. Losing a club will prove far more disruptive to Port, the Crows, and the competition as a whole, in terms of attendances, loss of TV rights revenue, and exposure generally. You lose one to two matches a year. That in itself is worth more than the $50,000 sum dividend redirection mooted in the media, wouldn’t you say CrowsOK/54/Macca?

Add to this the fact that, (although I’m not certain about the exact workings of the deal), theoretically, one less match a round will result in the comp losing one eighth of the $500,000,000 TV rights over the next 5 years= Over $60, 000, 000.

Did you catch that?

In case you missed it ….


It was….. SIXTY F*CKIN MILLION DOLLARS!!!. In comparison, it kinda dwarfs the $50,000 a year suggested.

But of course, you would rather see us die, and have yourselves and the competition lose more money, just for the principal of not giving a cent to a Victorian club.

On the other hand, would you rather the richer clubs not prop us up and have us relocate? Ok. Let’s consider the relative cost (to port/crows/WC) of taking that avenue. Once again, it will prove far far more expensive, if one of us were to move a team to Southport, the Western suburbs of Sydney or Timbuktu. Your clubs will be underwriting us (having relocated) to the tune of close to 10 million dollars!! ... a year!!! . Shocking memberships and crowds wont be able to sustain a $7mil salary cap, and who knows what other expenses associated with a team in Southport.

You will still propping up North Melbourne, the Western Bulldogs, or whoever, the only difference if we aren’t to survive in Melbourne, is that it will be a larger slice of your membership will be going directly towards us. Exactly what you all have been arguing against!

Don’t be mistaken. It’s not as ‘simple’ as it seems, and you wont go through the process unscathed. A chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link, and I can assure you that it will be a much weaker link (drain on the competition) for a far longer period of time, if we’re playing out of Southport.

So what would you rather?

• Missing $50,000 of a dividend from the AFL, redirected towards the salary cap of a struggling club for the next few years.
  
• Every club paying anything up to $1 million per year, to pay for almost all expenses until that team can find it’s feet in an unresponsive market (approx 20 years if the Sydney move is anything to go by).
  
• The competition losing millions and millions in TV rights and the clubs losing quite a substantial percentage of their gate receipts if we cease to exist altogether.

You choose.

Another point. It's not as if the poorer clubs have huge losses, year in, year out. We are viable. Supporter bases are growing.... even in Victoria. Clubs like Richmond were struggling to survive less than a decade ago, and with a strong campaign (and I would imagine the help of the AFL, rival clubs and supporters) to get them through those difficult times, are now a powerhouse and invaluable to the competition. Hawthorn had only 12-13000 members in 95, we only had 8,000! Our home attendances have almost doubled from our Whitten Oval days…. What’s to say that surges in terms of memberships and attendances like the examples above, can’t happen again? But for that to happen, the clubs actually have to be alive.

Clubs should be 'propped up', from time to time, from the AFL or from whatever other source which is realistically available. If it was clearly a "you don't make a profit for two years- you're out!" stance, we simply wouldn't have a competition. Almost every single team has returned a loss at some time or another.... some of the powerhouses included.

Although I believe we should be given help at times of need, as should ANY club that falls into that situation, I don’t believe that it should be an ongoing thing. If we can’t survive on our own long term, and require millions in assistance, year after year, by all means, we should die by our sword. All I’m asking, is that we’re given the best chance to increase revenues, improve our membership long term, thus, have the means to survive on our own. This may require some assistance.

There will be a check in place that 'rescue' funds aren't abused, which should alieve some fears that the clubs will become too reliant on 'propping up'.

From the AFL commission's proposal: no support of any sort will go to clubs that have not identified their problems, set in place practical long-term strategies and put qualified people in place to carry them out.

It's pretty much saying that, if we don't have a long term viability, we're not gonna get any help. Sounds fair enough to me.

Please give one good reason why Kangaroos/Bulldogs should be rescued at anyones expense

Because it will cost you a shltload more money if we aren't.

 

[Crow54]

Sorry, WestyBoy Bogan, your post is too long/complicated for me to take it all in.

What I will say is that if there are less Victorian clubs, maybe if they drop out or better still move interstate, then it means the competition will be more even.

As it stands now, the Victorian clubs only travel at the most 6 times a year, where-as non-Victorian clubs travel 10 or 11.

The argument that we do better playing in a different state because we are used to travelling is absolute codswallop.

The wear and tear on bodies has been proven - the estimated playing life of a Western Australian player will be shorter than a pampered Victorian player.

That's one of my issues here.

 

[elt]

Poor form Crows54.

You started the thread discussing the issue on a purely financial basis. When Westy (great post btw) provided a detailed, coherent response addressing your concerns you don't even have the decency to digest it before making a comment.

As for the draw and travelling inconsistencies, they are interesting points but unfortunately completely irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

I honestly think the AFL has made amny a rod for their backs with the new media deal. The consortium will want their pound of flesh for the money and they will have no choice but to keep all the current clubs for the next five years. It could turn out to be a dangerous precedent.

 

[Pessimistic]

It's probably worth me re-stating that the great manchester united have been bailed out by the manchester council on at least two occasions.

We can't have a competition swimming in money if clubs are going under

 

[Groucho]

Fantastic post Westy! It is very hard to get through to a lot of people that their alternatives ("let them die", "relocate") are actually going to cost THEIR teams more money than simply diverting some cash to ensure ongoing viability of ALL teams.

 

[choppy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Beyond a joke

Originally posted by Macca19


Learn your facts choppy. you can quote papers all you like but it doesnt change a thing. Port had to pay back the licence fee at $800,000 per year...which was exactly twice the amount that the Adelaide Football Club had to pay it back, that West Coast payed it back, and Brisbane...And Freo.. Port spoke to the AFL about this, and they changed it to make it fair with the other clubs that joined the AFL. It does ease the burden, and it makes it fair seeing as Adelaide and every other club paid the licence back at $400,000 per year.

The facts are that Port agreed to these conditions when they came into the AFL. It was only when you have got into financial difficulties you asked for and recieved concessions.

By not paying back the $800K this year and next year; but by paying it over 5 years (ie 320K a year) you have in effect recieved a special $480K dividend this year to help you out of a temporary financial problem.

That was the crux of Dawsons arguement that some clubs should get some concessions to help them through a few years of financial difficulty. Remember North has made a profit 8 out of the last 10 years and will break even this year. We are not a annual financial basket case that is maliciously spread by certain media commentators.

You and crows started the topic on the basis that no club should get any special concessions when you are the ones allready receiving the concessions.

One final point. North have recieved nothing. Port allready has. Those are the facts.

 

[Crows.ok]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Beyond a joke

Originally posted by choppy


The facts are that Port agreed to these conditions when they came into the AFL. It was only when you have got into financial difficulties you asked for and recieved concessions.

By not paying back the $800K this year and next year; but by paying it over 5 years (ie 320K a year) you have in effect recieved a special $480K dividend this year to help you out of a temporary financial problem.

That was the crux of Dawsons arguement that some clubs should get some concessions to help them through a few years of financial difficulty. Remember North has made a profit 8 out of the last 10 years and will break even this year. We are not a annual financial basket case that is maliciously spread by certain media commentators.

You and crows started the topic on the basis that no club should get any special concessions when you are the ones allready receiving the concessions.

One final point. North have recieved nothing. Port allready has. Those are the facts.

Laughable.

Choppy is claiming here Port have received something when in fact its simply permission to pay a fee at the same rate as have other clubs before them. A fee by the way which Kangaroos were never charged.

And he then has the cheek to claim Kangaroos have received nothing.

Sounds like politician speak to me.

 

[Crows.ok]

Still doesn't tell us why Vic clubs should not do the work to save themselves

In response to Westy Boy:

Pretty fair post, here is the counter viewpoint for you to consider.

I think you've made it a little too simplistic, CrowsOK.

Firstly, I agree with most of you Crows/Port fans -- profits of rival clubs should not be directly diverted towards the poorer clubs. I’m not going to try argue on that point, as your reasoning is fairly spot on. You owe us nothing.

HOWEVER

Look at it from a different perspective. Your main argument is that you don’t want your profits leaving your club, right? Now, if this is your reasoning, and we end up folding or relocating because of that stance, do you have any idea how much more that is going to cost you? This whole argument is in terms of your club losing money that is ‘rightfully’ yours, after all.

Westy Boy, now this is at least reasonable discussion, and you make a good case, but you ignore an important viable alternative, and also you have the wrong idea about profits going to the SA clubs - basically it doesn't. There is no agenda here to see other clubs die, but equally there is no reason that the funding to keep struggling Vic clubs afloat should come out of SA footy fans pockets without anything for it in return.

I think you too have made this a little too simplistic. There is a certain amount of funds which 'turn over' in SA due to football. It is not a question of profit. The SANFL is a non-profit co-operative of nine member-owned sporting clubs, themselves non-profit organisations. The revenue that Crows and Power generate through gate returns comes almost entirely from SA footy fans. The two clubs retain a small percentage of the total revenue for things like training facilities, etc. The rest of the revenue is returned to SANFL. SANFL distribute it to nine local clubs, who use it to pay their costs. The SANFL provides the venue at which the two SA based AFL clubs play. SANFL clubs provide a game for the additional players on the AFL clubs list. They also develop junior players, whom all AFL clubs can recruit from.

In all this there is essentially no 'profit'. There is just a revenue stream, raised and turned over in SA, employing and training many people along the way. There are no shareholders or profit-takers like there would be I imagine with the Kangaroos, which is privately owned.

Where do the Kangaroos get off wanting a slice of this? Why should they take SA jobs and SA funds from the SA footy public? Do the Kangaroos put money back into football development, to the tune of over $1m per year?

I think you miss the point, here, Westy Boy. SA (footy public) already has some footy funds sucked off to Victoria. Why should yet more SA funds be re-directed to prop up teams in Victoria, for no return? What possible justification would you have for this?

So, from a Port or Crows point of view, how is having another interstate team emerge (at the expense of a club with 75-100 years of tradition and support) going to help you? This, if I’m not mistaken, is the basis for most of you being so dead set against this proposal. So, what good is the death of a Victorian team going to do for your club?

Death of a Victorian team: Arguably perhaps generate less shared revenue (mostly the TV revenue), yes, but then again there is one less team to share the revenue amongst. If another team arises to take the dead teams place, that too is fine as long as the new team is not based in Victoria (where there are too many teams compared to the level of footy fan support, causing the drain on resources).

Relocation of a Victorian team: If relocated to this state, more local games that the people of SA can attend, as is fair for the contribution they make overall. If relocated elsewhere, then less games in Victoria, and hence less of a drain on the overall revenue pool.

There is another possible outcome with existing Victorian clubs surviving - that does not involve stealing more money from SA. See later.

the clubs losing quite a substantial percentage of their gate receipts if we cease to exist altogether.

This is a claim which is repeated often, but which I find hard to believe. Are you saying that fans of dead clubs would simply stop following footy? If so footy fans in Victoria must be made of pretty fragile stuff. The SA footy public after all has switched allegiance from a set of ten SANFL sides to two AFL sides with the advent of the national competition. Why should it be so impossible for some Vic fans to support a different club, should one of the existing clubs die?

There are three options

Actually, there is another option which is consistently completely ignored by Victorian fans. The fourth option would be for clubs like Kangaroos or Bulldogs to play one or more of their home games at Footy Park against Crows or Power or both, where there would be a gate of 40,000 or 30,000 SA fans following the local side. It wouldn't matter financially to the Vic club that the fans are following the opposition - the Vic club would take the gate. After discounting higher expenses for hosting the game interstate, compared with having this same home game in Victoria, there would perhaps be 15,000 extra paying bums on seats, which at only $20 a pop works out to $300K extra revenue for each game.

On the other hand, would you rather the richer clubs not prop us up and have us relocate?

Actually, I prefer the unmentioned other option (apart from relocating your Vic club to some other state, or dieing) which is simply to relocate one or two home games to a place where a substantial audience for your unprofitable games can be found. That audience exists in SA as the followers of Crows or Power. They would attend a Kangaroos v Crows (or Power) game, but not if it is held in Victoria.

Because it will cost you a shltload more money if we aren't.

It would cost SA footy followers money to attend if there were one or two extra games at Footy Park. That money would all go (as gate returns at a Bulldog or Kangaroos home game) to the Vic club, and make a significant revenue boost. The SA footy public would be quite willing to pay to attend extra games hosted locally. Most significantly, this option does not require the Vic club to relocate.

Just shift one or two of your home games (against SA sides) to SA where the big audience for that game can get to see the game. Your club gets the take from a big gate, and survivies! In SA, we get a couple of additional AFL games scheduled here every season. Everybody wins.

It is so friggin obvious, I could shake people sometimes.

So why don't you do this, instead of just trying to siphon money out of SA for no gain to the footy public here?

In general it is my observation that Vics are pretty damn quick to think up ideas where someone else gives up something for the benefit of Vics, but when its the Vics who have to give up something (in this case a home game in Vic), then we will hear the squeals.

 

[choppy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Beyond a joke

Originally posted by Crows.ok


Laughable.

Choppy is claiming here Port have received something when in fact its simply permission to pay a fee at the same rate as have other clubs before them. A fee by the way which Kangaroos were never charged.

And he then has the cheek to claim Kangaroos have received nothing.

Sounds like politician speak to me.

The fact is when Port entered the competition, for the privilege they agreed to pay 800K in 2001 and 2002. Now those payments are only $320K.

They are getting a $480K concession from the AFL this year. The $320K they will be paying in 2005 in relative terms will be absolute chicken feed.

This is on top of the 500,000 dollar handout they received from the AFL to build thier training facilities.

It is obvious they will not even have to pay the licence fee. Port Power in 2002 will be the Sydney Swans of 1992 (when thier 2 million dollar fee was waived).

 

[Crows.ok]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Beyond a joke

Originally posted by choppy


The fact is when Port entered the competition, for the privilege they agreed to pay 800K in 2001 and 2002. Now those payments are only $320K.

They are getting a $480K concession from the AFL this year. The $320K they will be paying in 2005 in relative terms will be absolute chicken feed.

This is on top of the 500,000 dollar handout they received from the AFL to build thier training facilities.

It is obvious they will not even have to pay the licence fee. Port Power in 2002 will be the Sydney Swans of 1992 (when thier 2 million dollar fee was waived).

You are a bit slow on the uptake, aren't you Choppy. Even if Port were excused the remainder of the fee from here, they still will not have received anything, and in fact will still have given more than Kangaroos.

That is the nature of a fee, boyo. You don't get it, you pay it.

Come back when you have actually got a point, matey!

 

[choppy]

Re: Still doesn't tell us why Vic clubs should not do the work to save themselves

Originally posted by Crows.ok

Actually, there is another option which is consistently completely ignored by Victorian fans. The fourth option would be for clubs like Kangaroos or Bulldogs to play one or more of their home games at Footy Park against Crows or Power or both, where there would be a gate of 40,000 or 30,000 SA fans following the local side. It wouldn't matter financially to the Vic club that the fans are following the opposition - the Vic club would take the gate. After discounting higher expenses for hosting the game interstate, compared with having this same home game in Victoria, there would perhaps be 15,000 extra paying bums on seats, which at only $20 a pop works out to $300K extra revenue for each game.



Actually, I prefer the unmentioned other option (apart from relocating your Vic club to some other state, or dieing) which is simply to relocate one or two home games to a place where a substantial audience for your unprofitable games can be found. That audience exists in SA as the followers of Crows or Power. They would attend a Kangaroos v Crows (or Power) game, but not if it is held in Victoria.

It would cost SA footy followers money to attend if there were one or two extra games at Footy Park. That money would all go (as gate returns at a Bulldog or Kangaroos home game) to the Vic club, and make a significant revenue boost. The SA footy public would be quite willing to pay to attend extra games hosted locally. Most significantly, this option does not require the Vic club to relocate.

Just shift one or two of your home games (against SA sides) to SA where the big audience for that game can get to see the game. Your club gets the take from a big gate, and survivies! In SA, we get a couple of additional AFL games scheduled here every season. Everybody wins.

It is so friggin obvious, I could shake people sometimes.

Crowsman,

Shake me please. I have to admit that the above sounds a reasonable idea. In fact I can see advantages in it for North. I would think we would make more money from playing two home games in Adelaide against Port and Adelaide with a 30 to 35K crowd then playing four in Canberra and Sydney with bugger all attending. This would then mean we could also see North twice more in Melbourne.

Credit where Credit is due, good idea. The North administration are however trying to build a supporter base, rather than relying on attendances from other clubs hence there foray into Sydney and Canberra.

 

[Port01]

Choppy, the money from the AFL used for the training facilities EVERY club got, not just Port.
It was the money each club got from channel 7's 'right to bid last for the rights'.
Just because Port used it to aid in their facilities doesn't mean they are favoured, when each club got the same amount.

Interstate clubs already have higher overheads, and in the case of the Perth and SA clubs (dont know about the other two) the majority of their profits are fed back to lower levels of football.

I personally am not against the AFL giving a few hundred k away to help a struggling club, and lowering ALL dividends accordingly.

Singling out a couple of clubs to lose money though is stupidity.

Either every club supports the strugglers, or none do.

 

[Michele]

Wacca 19,

Choppy, chopped you up and Westy blew you away!

You have absolutely no concept of the overall picture of football as a BUSINESS - none.

The less teams in the competition, particularly in Victoria, the 'heartland', the less money will be generated overall.

Do you believe if North, Geelong, St Kilda, Melbourne and WB go under, that the supporters of those teams will follow other teams.
Thousands upon thousands of members and supporters will NOT follow another team, so where will all the extra income be generated from. TV rights@! Those supporters will be lost to football - so why watch something that doesn't interest them? The children of those supporters will also be lost to football.

Start culling the so-called weaker clubs and you 'elitists' will end up with a weaker competition.

Michele

NMFC 1869

btw Choppy stated correctly - Port were given extra time to pay for their license. Get YOUR facts right.

 

[Westy Boy]

Look away now: - Longest post in Bigfooty history coming up

OK Crows OK,

you have the wrong idea about profits going to the SA clubs

I wasn’t discussing the way in which your profits are appropriated in my previous post, CrowsOK, although I do think that most of what you said was fair enough. One thing I do disagree with though, is this:

It is not a question of profit.

Are you saying that since you have an arrangement to give profits to the SANFL, they shouldn’t be regarded as profits?. Somehow that’s supposed to make the Crows more ‘special’? I realise that the club plays a pivotal role in South Australian football, and money shouldn’t be stripped away from that cause. However, propping up wont take funds out of your profits per se, but instead, a reduction in your dividend. Much the same that you argue the license fee discussion -- it's money that you never had in your hands in the first place to lose. Pedantic, I know, but still relevant.

Anyway, your profit structure (and to whom it is allocated), shouldn’t affect your AFL operations (or this argument) one bit. What this discussion is about, is what will be more likely to affect the amount of profits in the first place, not where it is distributed to, afterwards.

Do you think because of the fact that your profits go towards the SANFL, you will somehow be immune from reduced revenues/gate receipts (from having a bye twice a year) if we cease to exist altogether? It doesn’t work that way.

Or similarly, if we relocate or die, do you think that, just because your post operations profits are distributed to the SANFL, that the AFL wont ask you to contribute to keeping us afloat in our new location? If we, or a new team in Southport need 10 million to continue there, the funds will be coming from clubs like yours, no matter where the money was intended to go in the first place (SANFL). They will reduce your dividend if they have a burden to take care of in Southport ….. affecting your profits and in turn, the contribution towards the SANFL! The burden is far less in this situation we have now.

The whole point of the post was to argue that, realistically, ‘helping’ existing clubs is a far less expensive exercise for all involved, in comparison to the other alternatives – i.e. what will cost you more. You mentioned the SANFL employees who will lose their jobs if you prop us up … well, how many more SANFL employee’s will lose their jobs if you’re forced to pay ten times the amount required to prop us up here and now, to keep us viable in Timbuktu in 5 years time? Heaps more! Irrespective of how your profits are split up, you will be losing more money if we don’t survive. This will affect your success, and as such, paying more to us will result in less profits, which in turn, will filter through to the SANFL.

Why should yet more SA funds be re-directed to prop up teams in Victoria, for no return? What possible justification would you have for this?

I totally agree with you, when you say that singling out the South Australian clubs to be the only ones propping us up, is wrong. I have never disputed that. What I saw for the crows, just as easily applies to a team such as Essendon. It is better to have the clubs that can afford it, collectively, receiving a little less in their dividend to to prop struggling clubs up now in Melbourne, than directly paying a lot more in the future, interstate.

Secondly, there is no justification. Obviously, it is not an ideal situation, and we shouldn’t be in it. We are paying for early lack of success, supporters and money and possibly inept management earlier in the century as you suggest-- but people inside the club right now are doing their best to rectify the situation, and given the resources they have to work with, are performing miracles. I know that doesn't justify it, but it explains it to an extent. If there was any other, cheaper, easier method (which keeps us in Melbourne) to get us out of this trouble, we would be the first to jump at the chance!

My justification will be from an emotional viewpoint and what my club means to me—you don’t want to hear about that—it’s rubbish to you. Hence, the only way I can justify propping up is to do it in what is, financially, a logical choice for Port, Adelaide and indeed clubs such as WC and Essendon. I wasn’t giving an opinion on whether propping up is right or wrong (as in a perfect environment it shouldn’t need to happen), but instead discussing it from your perspective, the consequences for your teams, and indeed the AFL. This is the only way you’ll listen -- $$$$$$$$

Are you saying that fans of dead clubs would simply stop following footy? If so footy fans in Victoria must be made of pretty fragile stuff.

Once again, with all due respect, you know nothing about the culture of footy fans in Victoria. I’ll make a bet that 80-90% of Victorian supporters would NEVER support another AFL club if theirs was to die altogether. I would call it passion, love and loyalty as opposed to being fragile. 20,000 members and 200,000 fans lost to the game. Period. Do not argue on this point, as I already know you’ll disagree strongly, and it will be pointless.

Mergers and relocations would be a different story altogether, as people react differently and will still see a resemblance of their team in the new entity. But you qualified it in your post -- people’s reaction to their club ceasing to exist altogether.

Actually, there is another option which is consistently completely ignored by Victorian fans. The fourth option would be for clubs like Kangaroos or Bulldogs to play one or more of their home games at Footy Park against Crows or Power or both, where there would be a gate of 40,000 or 30,000 SA fans following the local side.

I wasn’t looking at ideas/means by which we can survive either— but I could go on for hours on that topic alone. On your proposal:

Personally, if it meant my club surviving, I would not have a problem with it, at all. Losing one or two games, does not faze me, as long as we are still based in Melbourne for the majority of the season. It’s not ideal, but neither is our situation. We already do it, in Sydney, where we have a contract to play one home match there every year (this years was played only last weekend, as a matter of fact). This has proven profitable, and a very good result considering that the equivalent match would incur a loss, if played at Colonial. As you’ve already stated, it seems logical that the same financial result would be reached in Adelaide (and we’ve also won our last 3 H&A matches there, so an easy win will be handy too. ).

However, despite the apparent ‘convenience’ of doing that, there are, and will be problems in pursuing it. Namely, the AFL – and they of course, would have the last word on fixtures and where they take place. They do not see the benefit in playing extra matches in a ‘developed market’, which is exactly what Adelaide is. Developing and conquering Brisbane, Sydney and in the future, Southport and Canberra, are their immediate and long term goals. To keep in line with this, they have and will provide incentives for North and the Bulldogs to play the occasional matches there, whereas in Adelaide, they wont. Hence, I don’t see them or us, exactly jumping at the idea.

Secondly – (I’m probably clutching at straws here) As it stands now, the fixturing is organised to have only one game a week scheduled at the stadium, no more, no less. I’m probably wrong, but the grounds’ management want this situation to remain, whereby two matches aren’t pencilled in for the same weekend, due to reasons such as wear and tear etc. In fairness, this would probably be an easy enough obstacle to overcome.

The SA Cricket Association (?) also stepped in to ‘lure’ Vic teams, on the premise that they play at Adelaide Oval. This is almost impossible, as there is a contract in place stipulating that all AFL matches in Adelaide must be played at Football Park. The unfortunate thing is that the SACA were offering quite attractive terms to clubs like us and North, and I doubt that an agreement with the Crows/Port/SANFL would be as financially inviting.

I’ll disagree on the possible turn out -- Firstly, even your home matches against us don’t attract all that great a crowd. Then there’s weather, relative teams position on the ladder ..etc. if everything was to go against us, at worst, we could even struggle to get a crowd of 15-20,000 people, which would inevitably incur a loss – and we’ve lost our home ground advantage to do it!

Secondly, if I’m not mistaken, the Crows and Port sell out their available memberships, therefore the match would be a pay at the gate scenario. Some members wont be happy, as they haven’t had to do that for years, and other supporters would be opposed to paying an additional $20-$40, on top of their season ticket. Another factor could see fans being so opposed to seeing b]their[/b] money going towards helping Victorian teams, that they choose to not attend the game out of spite!

it is my observation that Vics are pretty damn quick to think up ideas where someone else gives up something for the benefit of Vics

I am not a hypocrite. If the Bulldogs were a ‘rich’ club, and Adelaide or Essendon a struggling club – my stance on propping up would be exactly the same – i.e. having an Adelaide/Essendon die in the current AFL environment, would prove far more costly for my club than losing out on a $50,000 dividend from time to time. Club allegiances aside, it’s common sense. Pure and simple.

Anyway, I gotta get back to my uni assignment for a subject I’ve failed 4 times: Concise Writing For The Web 101

Crows54,

Too complicated?

You struggle understanding words?

 

[KickItAnywhere34]

So Crows OK - shared revenue is on the agenda - what you are saying is that if Port make a profit of $500,000 they give it to the AFL to hand out to everyone but Port - what rot !!!
Imagine Collingwood or Carlton making a profit of that much and having to give it out to everyone but themselves, it doesn;'t happen you idiot - its like saying oh I got paid today but i'm going to give it all back to my employer so they can help the strugglers in the company.

As I said the dividend each club receives is SEPERATE to their own INDIVIDUAL CLUB PROFIT and is derived from gate receipts , merchandise , AFL fines, AFL sponsorship etc.
I am sooo sorry that you are being forced to put your money into the local development in SA , but you have to remember that all the Victorian clubs do the same for their VFL teams and the local competitions over here in VIC.
BUT THE BIGGEST POINT OF ALL IS THAT UP UNTIL THE END OF 1999 GATE RECEIPT SHARING WAS IN PLACE AND WAS A FAR MORE EQUITABLE SYSTEM FOR ALL CLUBS TO AT LEAST BE GUARANTEED A CERTAIN AMOUNT. SINCE GATE SHARING WAS ABOLISHED IN 2000 WE HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE IN CLUBS WHO ARE STRUGGLING - AND THAT IS FACT.

Everything WESTY and Choppy have said has put you on the back foot so pull your head in and go take an economics lecture so you can understand - Profit v Dividend and how it applies in the AFL.

 

[Crows.ok]

So, Westy Boy, a long long post, and not without some merit, but in the end paraphrasing outrageously (and taking a bit of poetic license) it essentially says to me:

Well, looking at it Power & Crows do well & truly have the moral high ground over this Mark Dawson silliness. But CrowsOk you don't understand what sooks we are over here in Vic about having to support a different side should one of the existing Vic clubs die, however we don't mind at all if your local SA competition is all but destroyed by the national competition and you all have to switch support to another club. Yes you are right you don't owe us a living, but if you don't give us more moolah it is going to cost you in the end, because we say so. Your alternative idea has some potential, but I can think of at least two minor red-tape issues to hinder it, so instead why don't you just give us the money so we don't have to fund anything ourselves?

Yeah, I thought so, in the end your conclusion would be - Vics shouldn't have to pay for themselves. Funny, that. I wonder how I knew that was where your thinking would get to?

So, is that it in a nutshell? Sorry Westy Boy, not terribly convincing in my view, but hey you may get some support from the Roos fans scurrying around vainly trying to justify their clubs attempted thievery.

By the way, your main point about "it will cost you if we go under", this reminds me soooo much of Pascals wager it is not funny. Please understand, my main arguement is not that I think Kangaroos or Bulldogs should go under, but rather that if Victorians want to retain their already excessive number of clubs in the national competition, then it must be Victorian funds and/or other valuables (such as hosting games) that suppport that. Not SA funds.

 

[Crows.ok]

Pardon?

KIA34 you make no sense here whatsoever!

Gate receipts DO NOT go into shared revenue. Gate receipts now go to the club which has the home game. This change was brought in by the AFL at the behest of Vic clubs. It was those clubs (and Freo) at the end of 1999 that said it was not fair, and got it changed to the current system. Not Adelaide. Adelaide went along with the system both before and after 1999. So now you are whinging again? Unbelievable.

Just consider gate receipts at home games for a moment: at Crows and Power home games, nearly all of the crowd are Crows or Power fans. At kangaroos home games quite often Kangaroos fans are in the minority! (When Kangaroos play an interstate club at home then sure, the majority of attendees are Roos fans, but this happens relatively rarely). So by this analysis Kangaroos are doing fairly well out of "home club gets the gate", because (compared particularly with Adelaide & Power, but even compared with other Vic clubs) there are in proportion a lot of fans of opposition clubs paying at the gate at Roos home games!

"merchandise , AFL fines, AFL sponsorship" do indeed go into shared revenue, along with the biggy, TV rights. In what way do Adelaide and Port contribute any less here in generating shared revenue than any other club? Especially consider these two points: Adelaide, then Port, head the merchandising sales, AFAIK. Victoria has just over 50% of the total TV audience, yet has 62.5% of the participating clubs, and hence receives 62.5% of the shared revenue! KIA34, Adelaide and Port arguably both generate more than the 1/16th share of shared revenue that comes back to them.

I agree with you that this statement: "if Port make a profit of $500,000 they give it to the AFL to hand out to everyone but Port" is rot. So where the f*ck did you get it from? Its nothing like anything I have said. Learn to read, mate.

Since Port are PAYING a fee (the only club doing this at the moment), they are GETTING - nothing. Not even in effect getting the 1/16th share of that fee that comes back to them, since they put it in in the first bloody place!

You say: "that all the Victorian clubs do the same for their VFL teams and the local competitions over here in VIC". The actual point here is that it is AFL SHARED REVENUE that funds Victorian U18s. ALL AFL clubs contribute to shared revenue, not just the Victorian clubs. AFL shared revenue funds junior development programs in NSW, QLD, Vic, and AFAIK Tas & NT as well, but not in SA or WA. This is the point, mate! Justify that and remain sane!

KIA34 you are seriously wrong here. Westy Boy is quite reasonable, and in the end he agrees with me! Power and Crows alone should not be the ones to assist Kangaroos, as Mark Dawson would have it. Westy Boy concurs!!!

Choppy has not made a single attempted point of his stick.

 

[Westy Boy]

Oh for God's sake, didn't you read a word I said? You brang up your profit structure, and the playing a home game in Adealide -- I discussed it -- and you almost completely ignore it in your reply! Impossible.

• It shouldn't be left to the SA funds alone!
• I (and the club) would most probably be happy to play a game in Adelaide- but given the AFL's stance - their sactioning the match isn't a given. Also, without a 'guarantee' from someone like your cricket association (which is impossible because it wont be allowed at Adelaide Oval), playing a game there, realistically, could end up being a financial disaster if the Crows supporters prove to be fickle and vindictive and a poor crowd turns up. Is that better for our plight? Disulliosioning our current members (not necessarily me), is that going to help us? Is that going to stop us from being 'a drain'? You may disregard a few of these factors as red tape, but they are still obstacles which can't be ignored.
• The crows structure which deems your profits go towards the SANFL is irellevant. But since you mention it .... you said that the SANFL will be ruined if it isn't for your profits. So ... you're in effect propping them up ? No ..... but you're dead against organisations being inept and unable to stand on their own two feet, aren't you? Surely not!
• Ridicule and ignore the fact that if we die, you and the competition will lose $50,000,000 in TV rights, exposure and 2 h&A matches, all you want..... your club will be the one paying, your SANFL will be hurting more .... but you would rather ignore these facts, wouldn't you? If the health of the SANFL is what you are truly worried about ..... you aren't choosing the logical option which will hurt them the least.

Vics shouldn't have to pay for themselves. Funny, that. I wonder how I knew that was where your thinking would get to?

Where the hell did I say that?? Don't put words into my mouth. We are trying to pay for ourselves... we should be paying for ourselves! For f*cks sake, i agree with you!!! But stating what would be happening in a 'perfect world', doesn't solve the problem. Propping up will give us the best chance of surviving on our own in the future-- just as it did other clubs whom are now flourishing. What part of that don't you understand? North has alot of young supporters coming through from it's success over the past decade (like hawthorn's is coming through from it's respective success in the 80's), and we have an, relatively unexpolited, ever growing support base in whole Western region of melbourne... which long term, will be more than enough to support an AFL team.

I largely agree with you in terms that it isn't fair that you have to pay -- you shouldn't have to! But we have to somehow deal with situations, and in this one in particular, it is of the most benefit to most if propping up occurs.

You think we enjoy being like this? You think that we get some kind of smugness from being reliant on you? You think that we aren't working our arses off? You think I'm happy to have my club's future in the hands of the AFL? Do you think that if there was another viable solution, we wouldn't take it?

Having us die for the sake of receiving an additional $50,000 is not a logical solution, for your club or for mine, and neither is destroing clubs just for the sake of having less teams in Victoria.

 

[Crows.ok]

Originally posted by Westy Boy
Where the hell did I say that?? Don't put words into my mouth. We are trying to pay for ourselves... we should be paying for ourselves! For f*cks sake, i agree with you!!! But stating what would be happening in a 'perfect world', doesn't solve the problem. Propping up will give us the best chance of surviving on our own in the future-- just as it did other clubs whom are now flourishing. What part of that don't you understand? North has alot of young supporters coming through from it's success over the past decade (like hawthorn's is coming through from it's respective success in the 80's), and we have an, relatively unexpolited, ever growing support base in whole Western region of melbourne... which long term, will be more than enough to support an AFL team.

I largely agree with you in terms that it isn't fair that you have to pay -- you shouldn't have to! But we have to somehow deal with situations, and in this one in particular, it is of the most benefit to most if propping up occurs.

You think we enjoy being like this? You think that we get some kind of smugness from being reliant on you? You think that we aren't working our arses off? You think I'm happy to have my club's future in the hands of the AFL? Do you think that if there was another viable solution, we wouldn't take it?

Having us die for the sake of receiving an additional $50,000 is not a logical solution, for your club or for mine, and neither is destroing clubs just for the sake of having less teams in Victoria.

No, I agree with you in part Westy Boy, I'm sorry for getting a little carried away here, but the original suggestion, that Power & Crows alone take a pay cut to get Kangaroos out of the poo rankles still.

I suppose it is fine if clubs in Melbourne stay afloat (ignoring for the moment that the national competition has all but extincted clubs here in SA such as Norwood with even longer traditions than those you are trying to preserve).

In fact, maybe the Melbourne AFL clubs should all band together and partially underwrite one another in a sort of slush fund. If that is the sort of thing you all want to do over there, fine.

Just don't expect any money from SA to go towards keeping an excessive number of teams playing in Melbourne. That is like asking us to pay for choking ourselves!

I re-iterate: "Please understand, my main arguement is not that I think Kangaroos or Bulldogs should go under, but rather that if Victorians want to retain their already excessive number of clubs in the national competition, then it must be Victorian funds and/or other valuables (such as hosting games) that suppport that. Not SA funds."

 

[Port01]

The current gate receipt situation is in place because Vic clubs didnt like getting less out of going to SA/WA than the SA/WA clubs got out of going to Melbourne (a direct result of there being a greater proportion of season ticket holders in SA/WA).

Don't use it as an example of how the AFL is screwing the Vic clubs, when they initiated the whole thing in the first place.

No-one will fold until the AFL gets a better offer. It is that simple. Shared revenue will be used to prop them up if necessary (which reduces the dividend to ALL clubs, including the one being propped up).

The SANFL (license holder of the two SA clubs), should not have to pay solely to prop up VFL traditional clubs at the expense of their own traditional clubs, that is the basis of this thread.