Cats plea to AFL for financial help (Age)

[Rob]

Reading through the article Geelong have a shortfall of more than $1 million, 500k is a result of membership downgrades, so there's still 500k+ from elsewhere. Other areas mentioned are crowd numbers and gaming profits. COOK states Geelong focused more on football at the expensive of managing their stadium and gaming venues, which Geelong reckon will be fixed with outside operators to manage the ground and venues.

Changes to crowd numbers isn't something a club can control, but not putting the time into managing the stadium and gaming venues is their fault and mismanagement. The 'pies lost millions on poor pub investments, yet didn't seek a handout despite their failure causing massive losses.

That's what I don't understand - surely Geelong would either have the cash reserves to cover what, in reality, is a piddling amount, or at least have the debt facilities available to them. Going to the league (i.e other clubs) should be a last resort, not a first point of call.

 

[1892]

That's what I don't understand - surely Geelong would either have the cash reserves to cover what, in reality, is a piddling amount, or at least have the debt facilities available to them. Going to the league (i.e other clubs) should be a last resort, not a first point of call.

Geelong supporters would know better, but it seems they've pumped a huge amount into upgrading Kardinia Park. They already have high debt repayments on that, but as you say you'd think they could rejig or borrow more.

 

[Mofra]

Geelong wouldn't see any money from a extra game. We don't own the ground the City of Greater Geelong does.
We just pay money for it to be upgraded.

As operator, I thought there was an in principle revenue-sharing arrangement 75% Dogs / 25% Geelong for the proposed two games against interstate teams we requested from the AFL?
It's all moot as the AFL knocked that one down pretty quickly.

 

[telsor]

As operator, I thought there was an in principle revenue-sharing arrangement 75% Dogs / 25% Geelong for the proposed two games against interstate teams we requested from the AFL?
It's all moot as the AFL knocked that one down pretty quickly.

AFL needs so many games played at MCG & Etihad...add in the current number of games sold interstate (which the AFL likes for the 'national coverage') and there aren't a lot 'spare' to play at Geelong. Not to mention, the non-vic clubs want to play more games in Melb due to the GF being played here (MCG particularly, but Docklands is better than nothing), so everyone moving their 'interstate' games out doesn't work very well.

 

[Mofra]

AFL needs so many games played at MCG & Etihad...add in the current number of games sold interstate (which the AFL likes for the 'national coverage') and there aren't a lot 'spare' to play at Geelong. Not to mention, the non-vic clubs want to play more games in Melb due to the GF being played here (MCG particularly, but Docklands is better than nothing), so everyone moving their 'interstate' games out doesn't work very well.

True - except for the fact that the AFL will have us play home games at Ballarat from 2017 (2 games, potentially 3 per season).
There is a push to play many games at Etihad though to pay it off as quickly as possible and end the unequal stadium deal that leaves some clubs out in the cold (Richmond's commissioned KPMG study details the inequities quite well).

 

[Kwality]

True - except for the fact that the AFL will have us play home games at Ballarat from 2017 (2 games, potentially 3 per season).
There is a push to play many games at Etihad though to pay it off as quickly as possible and end the unequal stadium deal that leaves some clubs out in the cold (Richmond's commissioned KPMG study details the inequities quite well).

So is the Ballarat deal a Bulldogs initiative, an AFL deal or will blame be used as & where needed?

 

[Kwality]

AFL needs so many games played at MCG & Etihad...add in the current number of games sold interstate (which the AFL likes for the 'national coverage') and there aren't a lot 'spare' to play at Geelong. Not to mention, the non-vic clubs want to play more games in Melb due to the GF being played here (MCG particularly, but Docklands is better than nothing), so everyone moving their 'interstate' games out doesn't work very well.

Supply exceeds demand ... consider double headers at Etihad.

 

[telsor]

Supply exceeds demand ... consider double headers at Etihad.

Average attendance in Melbourne is higher than in Perth, does supply exceed demand there too?

 

[Kwality]

Average attendance in Melbourne is higher than in Perth, does supply exceed demand there too?

How often are there sell outs in each of the markets referred to? Geelong & Perth are regularly sell outs.

Did you exclude car parking spaces?

 

[telsor]

How often are there sell outs in each of the markets referred to? Geelong & Perth are regularly sell outs.

Did you exclude car parking spaces?

So if we moved all games to punt road oval (capacity <10K), you'd think we no longer had a supply/demand problem?

 

[Kwality]

So if we moved all games to punt road oval (capacity <10K), you'd think we no longer had a supply/demand problem?

Would the demand exceed the supply?

 

[theflea]

True - except for the fact that the AFL will have us play home games at Ballarat from 2017 (2 games, potentially 3 per season).
There is a push to play many games at Etihad though to pay it off as quickly as possible and end the unequal stadium deal that leaves some clubs out in the cold (Richmond's commissioned KPMG study details the inequities quite well).

Have you got link to this study?

 

[aCunningPlan]

So if we moved all games to punt road oval (capacity <10K), you'd think we no longer had a supply/demand problem?

There are supply/demand issues in Geelong and Perth, they are fixing the excess in demand by increasing their stadium capacities. In Melbourne there looks to be an excess of supply, which could be fixed with one or two mergers.

 

[Kwality]

There are supply/demand issues in Geelong and Perth, they are fixing the excess in demand by increasing their stadium capacities. In Melbourne there looks to be an excess of supply, which could be fixed with one or two mergers.

Its not just stadium capacity that dictates the excess of supply, the number of games at any venue / at home is an obvious driver.

The Hawks business model with 4 games in Tas should be a lesson to all.

 

[madmug]

There are supply/demand issues in Geelong and Perth, they are fixing the excess in demand by increasing their stadium capacities. In Melbourne there looks to be an excess of supply, which could be fixed with one or two mergers.

Well thats not likely, is it. I mean they would rather drain the whole competition than face reality.

South Melbourne was the first club to see the writing on the wall. Their future is assured as the Swans. Fitzroy tried to be adventurous but the VFL/AFL itself killed them off. Indeed if they had been assisted at that time & not been met with glazed eyes, they could well have been the club Hawthorn is. Or even moved totally to be the Tassie Lions. That could have been the start to solving a lot of the leagues problems due to the VFL desire that the football world stand still for them.

Its not just stadium capacity that dictates the excess of supply, the number of games at any venue / at home is an obvious driver.

The Hawks business model with 4 games in Tas should be a lesson to all.

What is that lesson? Sell games somewhere else because you cant make it in the overcrowded & expensive Melbourne market? Why not Tasmania, ACT & WA3?

 

[Hawkk]

Well thats not likely, is it. I mean they would rather drain the whole competition than face reality.

South Melbourne was the first club to see the writing on the wall. Their future is assured as the Swans. Fitzroy tried to be adventurous but the VFL/AFL itself killed them off. Indeed if they had been assisted at that time & not been met with glazed eyes, they could well have been the club Hawthorn is. Or even moved totally to be the Tassie Lions. That could have been the start to solving a lot of the leagues problems due to the VFL desire that the football world stand still for them.

South Melbourne and Fitzroy struggled for 40-50 years leading up to their demise. Hawthorn is the club they are today due to getting the 1970's / 1980's bounce (which was only generated on the back of 8 flags, 12 GF's in 20 years). Hopefully we'll get another delayed bounce in the 2020's but like North Melbourne in the 1990's nothing is guaranteed...

In 1983 (5 years after the 1978 flag, at the start of their 1980's run) the Hawks drew 20,288 to their 22 home and away games...back then the VFL average was 24,376 and North Melbourne (20,942), Fitzroy (20,596) and Footscray (20,411) outdrew Hawthorn (who only outdrew Sydney (14,355), St Kilda (19,065) and Geelong (20,245)). In the years after 1983 the Hawks were 7th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 5th and 6th for drawing power. In fact despite making 7 consecutive GF's the Hawks failed to outdraw the VFL average in 5 of 7 years (their largest season average was 21,407 in 1988, their lowest was 18,597 in 1987)

Fast forward to 2015 and the Hawks have drawn 42,839 to 16 home and away games (inc. 3 games in Tasmania - 14,542 a match). Today the AFL average is 32,939 and the Hawks sit 4th (out of 18 clubs) for attendances. In the past 8 seasons they've beaten the AFL average in each of the last 8 seasons... +4399 in '08 (5/16), +4368 in '09 (4/16), +5007 in '10 (5/16), +4386 in '11 (5/17), +9000 in '12 (4/18), +8250 in '13 (5/18), +8876 in '14 (3/18) and +9900 in '15 (4/18)

Like Collingwood in the 1930's, Essendon in the 1950's and Richmond in the 1970's the only way clubs can achieve significant growth off field is on the basis of sustained on field success. Unfortunately for the Melbourne's, North Melbourne's, St Kilda's and W Bulldogs's this is an impossible dream given the AFL's equalization mantra (which does nothing but maintain the status quo*)

*Geelong and Hawthorn were able to capitalize on the compromised drafts through 2009-2012 that delayed their inevitable demise...it's happening to Geelong this year, it'll happen to Hawthorn in 2016 or 2017

This is the heart of the equalization debate. For 120 years we've had big clubs and small clubs, its inevitable that the same clubs will struggle more than the bigger clubs long term unless a smaller club can achieve sustained and ongoing on field success...

 

[madmug]

South Melbourne and Fitzroy struggled for 40-50 years leading up to their demise. Hawthorn is the club they are today due to getting the 1970's / 1980's bounce (which was only generated on the back of 8 flags, 12 GF's in 20 years). Hopefully we'll get another delayed bounce in the 2020's but like North Melbourne in the 1990's nothing is guaranteed...

..

I was more thinking of how financial the hawks were when they almost amalgamated with Melbourne. Clearly the pressure was on at that time. a number of clubs are under the pump right now.

 

[Hawkk]

I was more thinking of how financial the hawks were when they almost amalgamated with Melbourne. Clearly the pressure was on at that time. a number of clubs are under the pump right now.

Clubs are only under the pump at the moment because of a broken stadium deal the AFL has with Ethiad.

There are very few grounds around the world that have the BE that Ethiad has...especially when you consider it gets used up to 50 times a year for different fixtures and events.

Fix the stadium deal and no existing AFL club in Melbourne should struggle given their revenues...sure they might not excel (unless they have continued on field success) but they should be able to survive.

Some clubs are big, others are small. We are no different then any other organic competition anywhere in the world.

 

[madmug]

Clubs are only under the pump at the moment because of a broken stadium deal the AFL has with Ethiad.

There are very few grounds around the world that have the BE that Ethiad has...especially when you consider it gets used up to 50 times a year for different fixtures and events.

Fix the stadium deal and no existing AFL club in Melbourne should struggle given their revenues...sure they might not excel (unless they have continued on field success) but they should be able to survive.

Some clubs are big, others are small. We are no different then any other organic competition anywhere in the world.

Comparable to who? The NRL perhaps.Both leagues have 10 clubs in one city.

 

[Hawkk]

Comparable to who? The NRL perhaps.Both leagues have 10 clubs in one city.

Perhaps but Sydney isn't a like for like comparison. Most of the clubs are based in the regions and have much more regionalised support bases.

I was thinking about London in the UK but across separate divisions.

The Melbourne club business model is based around supporters attending home and away games

 

[Rob]

Clubs are only under the pump at the moment because of a broken stadium deal the AFL has with Ethiad.

There are very few grounds around the world that have the BE that Ethiad has...especially when you consider it gets used up to 50 times a year for different fixtures and events.

So what is the break even? In $$$ terms, i.e what does it actually cost to stage an AFL match there? No-one seems to be able to answer what is fundamentally an incredibly simple question.

 

[Hawkk]

So what is the break even? In $$$ terms, i.e what does it actually cost to stage an AFL match there? No-one seems to be able to answer what is fundamentally an incredibly simple question.

Given that no one outside the big 3 (Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon) has a stadium deal with the MCG or Ethiad it should be relatively straight forward really

 

[Rob]

Given that no one outside the big 3 (Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon) has a stadium deal with the MCG or Ethiad it should be relatively straight forward really

So you don't know?

How can you say it's a terrible deal and the cause of all Victorian club financial woes then?

 

[Hawkk]

So you don't know?

How can you say it's a terrible deal and the cause of all Victorian club financial woes then?

Just relaying what has been said in the press. Fair point though...

 

[Rob]

Just relaying what has been said in the press. Fair point though...

It's usually said by club representatives, who have a vested interest in blaming external factors for their problems. Doing otherwise would be blaming their own administration.