Cap Football Department Spending

Remove this Banner Ad

The AFL was only able to secure future ownership of Etihad through a commitment to play X number of games at the ground. The bulldogs, amongst other clubs, have provided the AFL with means to fulfill that comitment. As a consequence, we have suffered significant financial losses. We have a right to share in the wealth that the stadium ownership will provide to the AFL. I say we split the ownership up between the clubs that played home games there.
 
Wetdog said:
The AFL was only able to secure future ownership of Etihad through a commitment to play X number of games at the ground. The bulldogs, amongst other clubs, have provided the AFL with means to fulfill that comitment. As a consequence, we have suffered significant financial losses. We have a right to share in the wealth that the stadium ownership will provide to the AFL. I say we split the ownership up between the clubs that played home games there.
Click to expand...

A certain quote from the movie 'The Castle' comes to mind.
 
Wetdog said:
Your examples are poor.

North Melbourne won the 1996 and 1999 premierships in a very different market. Football club department spending has sky rocketed in the last ten years, causing the gap between the rich and poor to widen.

St Kilda of 2009 and 2010 were not in the same category as North Melbourne
and the Bulldogs. They were much more financially stable, although they look to suffer a significant financial loss this year.

Yes, the Bulldogs have competed in three preliminary finals, but never took the final step. But, ask yourself this, would have increased spending/resources in our football department (I.e at the level of a Geelong or Collingwood) improved our chances? We will never know, but it is very possible.

You keep bringing up the stadium deals. Our home stadium is Etihad, where the AFL is the main tenant and future owner. We were told by the AFL in 2000 to move to Etihad. The deal was forced upon us. The AFL should take some responsibility for the financial losses suffered as a result of this deal. Maybe, when the AFL takes overship of this multi million dollar stadium, that said ownership should be then transferred to the teams (I.e Essendon, Bulldogs, St Kilda etc) that played home games there. I look forward to having this 100 odd million dollar asset on our balance sheet.
Click to expand...

So should West Coast and Fremantle, the only AFL clubs that contribute money to developing players in WA (whilst every club contributes to the TAC Cup), have sole access to WA draftees?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Wetdog said:
Your examples are poor.

North Melbourne won the 1996 and 1999 premierships in a very different market. Football club department spending has sky rocketed in the last ten years, causing the gap between the rich and poor to widen.
Click to expand...

Alright, fair enough.

St Kilda of 2009 and 2010 were not in the same category as North Melbourne
and the Bulldogs. They were much more financially stable, although they look to suffer a significant financial loss this year.
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't be considered in the bottom quartile of clubs, but they wouldn't be far out of it. Traditionally they haven't been a strongly supported club, and it's really only on field success in the last 8 years or so that have provided the foundation for a half decent membership and sponsorship base which have provided any sort of decent revenue streams. Another example of a reasonably well run club that's drafted well and competed for a flag despite not having massive resources.

Yes, the Bulldogs have competed in three preliminary finals, but never took the final step. But, ask yourself this, would have increased spending/resources in our football department (I.e at the level of a Geelong or Collingwood) improved our chances? We will never know, but it is very possible.
Click to expand...

Absolutely it would have improved your chances. If it didn't, then clubs wouldn't be spending money on their footy department. But that's squarely the fault of the Dogs. It's up to them to raise more money so they can spend more on your footy department. Funny you bring up Geelong - you know they were on the bones of their arse 10 years ago? Good management, good drafting. It's not a secret.

By the same token, if you had of drafted an extra decent tall about 6 or 7 years ago you probably would have at least made a grand final. Perhaps we should put a cap on decent players as well? Every club is only allowed 15. Any others will be redistributed amongst the other clubs.

You realise it's a competition don't you?

You keep bringing up the stadium deals. Our home stadium is Etihad, where the AFL is the main tenant and future owner. We were told by the AFL in 2000 to move to Etihad. The deal was forced upon us. The AFL should take some responsibility for the financial losses suffered as a result of this deal. Maybe, when the AFL takes overship of this multi million dollar stadium, that said ownership should be then transferred to the teams (I.e Essendon, Bulldogs, St Kilda etc) that played home games there. I look forward to having this 100 odd million dollar asset on our balance sheet.
Click to expand...

I can't take your argument seriously whilst:
a) you draw ordinary crowds
b) you can pay a shade over $20 and park your arse on the wing
c) it's arguably the best ground in Australia
d) and you pay no rent.

If you were charging the highest prices in the league, drawing good crowds and still making losses, then I could understand your concern.

You want to know why in Perth our clubs make money and yours don't? Go and have a look what it costs to get into Subiaco. And people here pay it. You charge $22 to get in and still struggle to half fill the ground. If you could get an extra $10 per person per game, that's an extra $3 million in revenue. Solves a lot of your financial concerns doesn't it?

Sorry, your problem aint your stadium deal. I can see you're desperate to blame someone else though. Bad fixturing perhaps?
 
Rob said:
Absolutely it would have improved your chances. If it didn't, then clubs wouldn't be spending money on their footy department. But that's squarely the fault of the Dogs. It's up to them to raise more money so they can spend more on your footy department. Funny you bring up Geelong - you know they were on the bones of their arse 10 years ago? Good management, good drafting. It's not a secret.

By the same token, if you had of drafted an extra decent tall about 6 or 7 years ago you probably would have at least made a grand final. Perhaps we should put a cap on decent players as well? Every club is only allowed 15. Any others will be redistributed amongst the other clubs.
Click to expand...

We have recruited well. As you said it yourself, we've played in three preliminary finals. You don't do that with a mug team. And our administration and management has been stable for the good part of 15 years. I wouldn't let the internal squabbles of the past 3 months detract from the general stability of the club over the past decade and a half.

Should have we drafted another "decent" tall? Probably. It all goes back to list decisions, coaching resources, recruiting and development staff etc. Was it lack of resources (i.e. recruiting staff to indentify that tall)? or bad list management? Who knows. You could argue about it until the cows come home.

As with Geelong, yes, good drafting (awesome father/sons always help too) and management has catapulted the club into the "power house" status.

But consider this. When Geelong draw 25 thousand to KP they make half a million dollars on gate receipts. When the Bulldogs draw equal numbers to Etihad, we make a small loss or break even. This is in a stadium where the AFL commissioned us to play, where they are the main tenant and where they (and all the clubs, including Fremantle) stands to benefit once the transfer of ownership is made in 2025 or whenever the year is.

If we made 5.5 million a year (11 home games at half a million a pop) from gate receipts, instead of a loss, our management would all of a sudden look a lot better now wouldn't it? Now, of course these are all rough figures but the point remains the same. Geelong make a killing off gate receipts on low attendances. We get murdered by Etihad, but have no choice to play anywhere else because the AFL needs to meet the match quota at the ground.

Rob said:
I can't take your argument seriously whilst:
a) you draw ordinary crowds
b) you can pay a shade over $20 and park your arse on the wing
c) it's arguably the best ground in Australia
d) and you pay no rent.

If you were charging the highest prices in the league, drawing good crowds and still making losses, then I could understand your concern.

You want to know why in Perth our clubs make money and yours don't? Go and have a look what it costs to get into Subiaco. And people here pay it. You charge $22 to get in and still struggle to half fill the ground. If you could get an extra $10 per person per game, that's an extra $3 million in revenue. Solves a lot of your financial concerns doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Please refer to the K.Park reference above. If they can profit heavily from 25k attendances, so should everybody else. At the end of the day, NM and Bulldogs probably belong at a boutique suburban stadium with operating costs similar to KP. Showgrounds might have been a good option. It won't happen though, because the AFL is heavily invested in Etihad.

The answer isn't increasing ticket prices by $10. You will only turn people, and in particular working class families from the western suburbs, away from the football.

It's not about paying rent, it's the operating costs of the stadium. I don't know why they are so high, but essentially the ground is only financially viable for much higher crowds than we draw.

Anyway, we obviously disagree on a lot of points. Let's agree to disagree. Enjoy the off season. I recon you've pulled a very good coach (I suggested we go after him on the bulldogs board, but was shot down by most of my fellow supporters) and have a decent list. With some luck and hard work, you should be finals bound next year.
 
Don't really understand why Collingwood, West Coast, Carlton and Essendon are getting extra funding.

I was under the impression that all of these clubs were doing rather well financially, Collingwood especially.
 
headache1 said:
Don't really understand why Collingwood, West Coast, Carlton and Essendon are getting extra funding.

I was under the impression that all of these clubs were doing rather well financially, Collingwood especially.
Click to expand...

It's the "Stop Eddie from bitching publicly" subsidy.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Slattery_20 said:
With the way the AFL/small clubs have justified these deals - reasons like # games on prime time, club still in debt, needs to invest in sub-standard facilities - they can't reasonably knock us/Pies back.
Click to expand...

On what plain of reality was that ever likely to occur?

The AFL are just admitting that they have been shafting the small clubs for years. The small clubs should actually put in a claim for back pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The AFL is set to spend $1 billion across the next decade in an effort to fast-track more people signing up to play footy.
Replies
15
Views
1K
Macca180
Macca180
TennisFan76
Salary Cap cheating
Replies
0
Views
458
TennisFan76
TennisFan76
The_Wookie
AFL announces major increase in community football investment
Replies
3
Views
551
Kwality
K

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top