Demitriou OUT!

[jo172]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/10-victorian-clubs-here-to-stay-afl/2008/09/25/1222217431839.html

10 Victorian clubs here to stay: AFL
Caroline Wilson | September 26, 2008

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.

The man needs to be locked up in a padded cell immediatley and Wayne Jackson needs to come back and install some sense.

I mean FFS the man is still living in 1986

Victorian teams subsidising West Coast and Adelaide? ****ing spare me you overpaid arseclown!

 

[King Elvis]

Imagine the uproar if he said 2 clubs would be gone in a few years though?

 

[jo172]

Imagine the uproar if he said 2 clubs would be gone in a few years though?

Would be a good, healthy uproar though.

My idea is that all Victorian clubs should have to pay the licence fees which the non-victorian clubs had to pay (adjusted of course for inflation).

See who can hack it then.

 

[Bosley]

Would be a good, healthy uproar though.

My idea is that all Victorian clubs should have to pay the licence fees which the non-victorian clubs had to pay (adjusted of course for inflation).

See who can hack it then.

Ha! Even the new clubs don't have to pay that fee. Adelaide and Port should take the AFL to court over that, surely they would get their money back?! Or the SANFL would at least.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

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.

Yes, well we should all be eternally greatfull the 10 Victorian teams paid 4 million in license feesto prop up all the non-victorian leagues.

Can't believe the CEO of the AFL can come out and make such ridiculously biased statements.

And we all expect the CEO to run a fair and equitable competition!!! Pigs will fly as well

I agree with jo172 Demetriou must go. How can clubs possibly have any confidence in the Demetriou after these sort of comments.

Totally and utterly unprofessional.

 

[baaaallllll]

Can't stand the guy, he is totally arrogant. No idea how such a tosser can be in such an important position.

 

[Zvim]

AD tried to kill us last year, he has no real love for Victorian teams, he has just been told flatly by the broadcasting stations, which all but one are based outside of Victoria, that a reduction in Victorian games will mean a big cut back in broadcasting revenue and they don't want more games in NSW or QLD where the game rates poorly.

Also, in relation to the license fee, paying $4m to buy a slice of the AFL which returns $7m+ annually and is piling up on assets which you now have an equal share in is peanuts. The license was worth $20m to $50m but nobody can afford to fork out for something like that.

Revenue has really exploded since the take off of Pay-Tv, it accounts for over a third of the broadcasting rights and the ability to on-sell those games to pay-tv is what allows the AFL to get maximum revenue from FTA.

Unfortunately, the Pay-TV demand is largely in Victoria. Would it make you feel better if he just lied? You guys listen to too many BF nuff nuffs.

 

[ok.crows]

Also, in relation to the license fee, paying $4m to buy a slice of the AFL which returns $7m+ annually and is piling up on assets which you now have an equal share in is peanuts. The license was worth $20m to $50m but nobody can afford to fork out for something like that.

So how on earth did North Melbourne pay their $50m for a license then ... oh wait.

 

[Zvim]

So how on earth did North Melbourne pay their $50m for a license then ... oh wait.

A share of the VFL license in 1925 wasn't worth spit, VFL returned nothing to clubs back then. Clubs were invited to move from the VFA to the VFL to expand the VFL and generate more revenue.

The financial revolution for sporting clubs has been the growing popularity of pay-tv, it happened to be around the time the SA and WA teams were introduced, it is at best a coincidence unless the SANFL invented pay-tv.

As to the subsidising part. A large proportion of our games are exclusive to Foxtel. They target our away games so the only way we get to see all of our games is to fly interstate or purchase Foxtel subscriptions.

Subsequently Foxtel has a very good takeup of Foxtel in Victoria compared to SA or WA where the AFL protects your market by not allowing exclusive coverage of interstate games to Foxtel. You all get to see the Crows on FTA every week but that is potential revenue which is sourced from Victoria that is not sourced from other mature markets.

Be careful what you ask for because if you want the same deal Victorians get then be prepared to be bent over by the AFL. Be thankful they don't build a 100k stadium in SA, force you to pay it off for them while you make no money there because you are getting extorted by a third party who funded the project and you can't get 80% of capacity every match and nobody buys premium membership anymore because they can walk in and get good seating.

It is so fantastic being one of us.

 

[DaveW]

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.

He's surely taking the piss.

The man needs to be locked up in a padded cell immediatley and Wayne Jackson needs to come back and install some sense.

Why Wayne Jackson?

He did NOTHING for the national expansion of the competition. One of the first things he did was to kill off the merger incentives. It's still the same 10-6 split that it was in Jackson's first year in 1997.

 

[Geoffa32]

All good reasons why there are too many teams in Victoria.

When a side only makes the finals three times in 28 years do they deserve to be in the elite comp??

When a club cant stand up on its own, should they be given handouts. Its a business not community footy.

 

[Waspy79]

Can't stand the guy, he is totally arrogant. No idea how such a tosser can be in such an important position.

This Power supporter agrees. Unfortunately the league expansion will be at the expense of current clubs and to me looks a bit like Demetriou trying to leave his mark on the game. We all know western sydney is a no-go.

 

[Zvim]

All good reasons why there are too many teams in Victoria.

When a side only makes the finals three times in 28 years do they deserve to be in the elite comp??

When a club cant stand up on its own, should they be given handouts. Its a business not community footy.

So if for whatever reason the Crows hit on some hard time and for a period they couldn't survive without assistance you would be happy to see them killed off?

 

[unstable punt]

Ha! Even the new clubs don't have to pay that fee. Adelaide and Port should take the AFL to court over that, surely they would get their money back?! Or the SANFL would at least.

give the money back and then you lot can go straight back to SANFL, remember this is the VFL you tossers were invited in

 

[Crow-mo]

its a stupid statement, that even Vlad cannot really believe.

it is a plain, and publicly known fact that the VFL clubs were by and large bankrupt and this was one of the main drivers of the national comp. John Elliot and Co. met in 1984 to breakaway, and drop the underperforming clubs.

This was averted, but the problem remained.

they sold the Sydney Swans to a broke Geoffery Edelstone who ended up hocking the license at cash converters.

The bears were a clumsy attempt to break into an emerging market. Reuben Pelerman subsidised the huge losses of the bears, not the VFL clubs. how can someone broke contribute money to someone else?

WC & Adelaide provided huge cash inflows, as did Freo & Port.


this is disingenous tripe, but what is worse is I don't think Vlad believes himself. the same clubs struggling for cash now, were struggling then. the expansion teams saved the VFL not vice versa.

 

[Zvim]

its a stupid statement, that even Vlad cannot really believe.

it is a plain, and publicly known fact that the VFL clubs were by and large bankrupt and this was one of the main drivers of the national comp. John Elliot and Co. met in 1984 to breakaway, and drop the underperforming clubs.

There wasn't a lot of income from broadcasting back in the VFL days, most of the income came from gate receipts and there was an income equalization policy where gate was shared at the time which was the reason for some clubs considering other options.

BTW, Elliot has gone bankrupt, drove CUB into the ground and almost killed Carlton so he isn't the visionary I would prop up in support an argument.

Pay-TV changed the whole sport scene on a global level, it wasn't just AFL/VFL that was impacted. It is both a good and bad thing, good in that it drives a lot of money into the sport but bad because it can also be damaging if left to dominate a sport.

This was averted, but the problem remained.

they sold the Sydney Swans to a broke Geoffery Edelstone who ended up hocking the license at cash converters.

The bears were a clumsy attempt to break into an emerging market. Reuben Pelerman subsidised the huge losses of the bears, not the VFL clubs. how can someone broke contribute money to someone else?

Those markets have been pushed in the past and quite ironically are being pushed again for expansion into the two largest advertising markets outside of Victoria.

You will always run into issues when going into non-football markets, I expect things with GC and WS wont be a smooth ride either.

You would hope they make better choices with the benefit of hindsight and experience.

WC & Adelaide provided huge cash inflows, as did Freo & Port.

SA and WA bring in broadcasting revenue, not sure how "huge" it is. Ratings for non-SA and WA based games isn't strong so that is 40 (4 of those having a high level of interest) of the 176 games based in SA and WA. There is no live and exclusive pay-tv games in SA or WA and Pay-TV represent a third of our broadcasting revenue.

I would love someone from C7, C10 and Foxtel to quantify exactly what each state means to them and where the revenue is derived from, but they wont make that kind of information public.

There would need to be a significant change in broadcasting rules in SA and WA for games there to even be comparable to Vic games and part of that is losing a large slab of your games to Foxtel in terms of live and exclusive coverage. It is the only way they will get a higher uptake in SA and WA.

There would also have to be much higher ratings of non-local games to drive the value of your market up. Why do you think the Crows are desperate to get more games broadcast into prime time in Victoria, because it means significantly higher ratings numbers which translates to more exposure for sponsors and maximum sponsorship dollars.

SA and WA clubs do not favour support of clubs because they don't want clubs to survive in Victoria, it is a conflict of interest for them. More clubs here means less opportunity here and that means less revenue if you are not on TV here.

Your CEO would love to sacrifice $100m in revenue for the AFL of which he wont see $1m in revenue for the Crows in favour of seeing few teams and the opportunity to raise sponsorship revenue by $3m. It is the problem when you have entities in the AFL that have their primary concern with making as large a profit as possible rather than what is best for the AFL and the heritage of the football.

Crows CEO wants a fire sale because he sees more money in it for the Crows, no other reason. If we killed Melbourne this year we would lose significantly more revenue than it cost to keep them alive and fix their problems. AFL has to consider what is best for all clubs, the heritage and the future. Clubs just worry about what is in it for them.

It is the same greed that saw Geelong almost voted out of the VFL. North blocked that vote. Were we wrong to do so?

I have yet to see a problem in football that couldn't be fixed.

this is disingenous tripe, but what is worse is I don't think Vlad believes himself. the same clubs struggling for cash now, were struggling then. the expansion teams saved the VFL not vice versa.

He tried to kill us last year and he played for us as a player, the man has no morals or loyalties. If he could knife 4 of us and not lose any revenue he would do it in a heartbeat because more clubs makes his life harder to juggle all of his responsibilities.

It is just an economic reality. What needs to come out to support clubs given an unfair deal is microscopic compared to what they generate for the AFL, this has been highlighted before in the media.

If AFL returned more to all 16 clubs rather than hold back hundreds of millions to pump into speculative markets or the clubs had been given a fairer deal then they wouldn't need to make special payments.

AFL just has to correct some problems they created and the financial issue would go away.

 

[Crow-mo]

There wasn't a lot of income from broadcasting back in the VFL days, most of the income came from gate receipts and there was an income equalization policy where gate was shared at the time which was the reason for some clubs considering other options.

no, most had terrible surbuban stadiums that were not viable.

BTW, Elliot has gone bankrupt, drove CUB into the ground and almost killed Carlton so he isn't the visionary I would prop up in support an argument.

hey I was giving a straight statement of historical fact, everything else you imported is just you.

Pay-TV changed the whole sport scene on a global level, it wasn't just AFL/VFL that was impacted. It is both a good and bad thing, good in that it drives a lot of money into the sport but bad because it can also be damaging if left to dominate a sport.

Those markets have been pushed in the past and quite ironically are being pushed again for expansion into the two largest advertising markets outside of Victoria.

yes, and the relevance is?

You will always run into issues when going into non-football markets, I expect things with GC and WS wont be a smooth ride either.

You would hope they make better choices with the benefit of hindsight and experience.

the point isn't the bumpy ride, its whether you will eventually arrive somewhere you want to be. you can tolerate turbulence, if its a destination worth going to.


[qote]
SA and WA bring in broadcasting revenue, not sure how "huge" it is. Ratings for non-SA and WA based games isn't strong so that is 40 (4 of those having a high level of interest) of the 176 games based in SA and WA. There is no live and exclusive pay-tv games in SA or WA and Pay-TV represent a third of our broadcasting revenue.

I would love someone from C7, C10 and Foxtel to quantify exactly what each state means to them and where the revenue is derived from, but they wont make that kind of information public.

[/quote]

aaaaaah so that's the angle you're driving at.

poorly supported teams have poor support at the gate and on the tube. there is nothing regional about it. what has been made abundently clear, many times over, is that not all fixtures are valued equally and each teams worth is NOT 1/16 to the broadcast deals. you can make your own conclusions on that.

There would need to be a significant change in broadcasting rules in SA and WA for games there to even be comparable to Vic games and part of that is losing a large slab of your games to Foxtel in terms of live and exclusive coverage. It is the only way they will get a higher uptake in SA and WA.

nonsense. there is nothing 'desirable' about vic games, there is plenty desirable about certain fixtures, with certain participating teams.

this regional bias does not exist.

There would also have to be much higher ratings of non-local games to drive the value of your market up. Why do you think the Crows are desperate to get more games broadcast into prime time in Victoria, because it means significantly higher ratings numbers which translates to more exposure for sponsors and maximum sponsorship dollars.

broadcasting primetime into ANYWHERE will draw higher ratings, this is a circular self evident statement.

lets be clear here, a non rating fixture between 2 poorly supported victorian teams does not rate anywhere, it does not have mystical extra value because they are victorian poorly supported teams.

SA and WA clubs do not favour support of clubs because they don't want clubs to survive in Victoria, it is a conflict of interest for them. More clubs here means less opportunity here and that means less revenue if you are not on TV here.

not significantly so. the demise of any club would be replaced by targeted, more viable alternative clubs. it moves us closer to a properly designated, and drawn up map of competing clubs. maintaining a few basketcase victorian clubs has no benefit to the league, and does not prop up the broadcasting agreement. that's just dorothy and toto style wishful thinking.

you have to remember Victoria is not actually THAT large. you're trying to assign it manhatten or mumbai type proportions. which doesn't become true no matter how many times you try.

Your CEO would love to sacrifice $100m in revenue for the AFL of which he wont see $1m in revenue for the Crows in favour of seeing few teams and the opportunity to raise sponsorship revenue by $3m. It is the problem when you have entities in the AFL that have their primary concern with making as large a profit as possible rather than what is best for the AFL and the heritage of the football.

your problem is when you want to invent motivations, and use trite over-emotive concepts like heritage rather than real measurable things. its deliberate, obvious and ineffective.

Q. what is heritage if over time it does not eventually translate to support?
A. your imagination

Crows CEO wants a fire sale because he sees more money in it for the Crows, no other reason. If we killed Melbourne this year we would lose significantly more revenue than it cost to keep them alive and fix their problems. AFL has to consider what is best for all clubs, the heritage and the future. Clubs just worry about what is in it for them.

if you have some evidence of this, let me know. but save the propaganda for people who can't think for themselves or see through plainly self interested spin.

It is the same greed that saw Geelong almost voted out of the VFL. North blocked that vote. Were we wrong to do so?

so you think they owe you now do you?

I have yet to see a problem in football that couldn't be fixed.

is that with one or both eyes open?

He tried to kill us last year and he played for us as a player, the man has no morals or loyalties. If he could knife 4 of us and not lose any revenue he would do it in a heartbeat because more clubs makes his life harder to juggle all of his responsibilities.

nonsense. he wanted rid of you, because everyone wanted rid of you. most still do.

your place would be taken by someone else, who would require more of his time and increase his responsibilities.

It is just an economic reality. What needs to come out to support clubs given an unfair deal is microscopic compared to what they generate for the AFL, this has been highlighted before in the media.

well seeing as most of what "they generate for the AFL" is not verified, and seems more a product of wishful optimism, I am not sure you should be using the term "economic reality" in the same sentence.

If AFL returned more to all 16 clubs rather than hold back hundreds of millions to pump into speculative markets or the clubs had been given a fairer deal then they wouldn't need to make special payments.

AFL just has to correct some problems they created and the financial issue would go away.

this "fair deal" nonsense has also been debunked so many times its not funny. you'd getting better fixturing, and tv scheduling if you had enough support. you don't.

the only fair deal, is that you get what you deserve fixturing wise, and what you don't deserve back in an ex gratia payment.

you are charity recipients, not the hard done by. and until you can develop a decent amount of support, all the excuses, spin, and self pity won't change anything.

stop feeling sorry for yourself, and fix your club. fix it, or **** off.

 

[Carnthe]

the point isn't the bumpy ride, its whether you will eventually arrive somewhere you want to be. you can tolerate turbulence, if its a destination worth going to.

There would be those that say its all about the ride. We're all going to the same place, just going different ways to get there.

 

[15_year_member]

I agree with you crows boys - Demetriou is spouting a load of crap here. Victorian teams can't even prop up themsleves, let alone anyone else. The thing that upsets me about your club and mone is why we don't get more voacl and aggressive with Demetriou and co and force confrontation with them. They walk all over us all the time and we just cop it. I want to add a few points to this debate.

- Demetriou was the not the first choice of the AFL commission for CEO, Brian Cook was. Demetriou got the job as the Vic clubs led by Coll and Carlton vetoed Cook's appointment on the grounds that he wasn't "pro-victorian enough". So Demetriou only has his job courtesy of the Vic clubs it is not surprising he does their bidding for them. The Vic voting block also got an AFL commissioner - Terry O'Connor QC - sacked from commission a few years ago for the same reasons. This served as a warning to the rest of the commission tha they would also be targeted if they were seen as being the ring leader of any initiatives the Vic clubs didn't like.

- It is well known that the main sticking point with the pay TV component was Foxtel demanding more SA and WA games and less Vic games. This is the central compenent of their business plan. SA and WA games are where all the ratings are. They are not asking for more home games of Melb and the Bulldogs etc, trust me. Their contibution is not 1/16th of TV rights. If nobody turns up to the games why would anybody bother watching them on TV. WA and SA teams on their own are probably worth half the TV rights.

- Look at how long it takes Demetriou to do something about inequalities that affect interstate teams. The grossly unfair Father/Son rule that has made it virtually impossible for SA or WA teams to have anybody qualify for them vrs Vic teams like Geelong who have had 8 players through this scheme. Also the MCG agreement where we had to play "home finals" in melbourne to satisfy an AFL contract with MCG. It took about 10 years for the AFL and Demetriou to sort that out. All it was ever going to take was adequate financial compo for the MCG's lost games, but as it wasn't affecting any Vic teams the AFL did nothing for more than a decade. The AFL didn't want to pay up to create a level playing field. But if a struggling Vic team comes knocking on the door with their hand out the AFL gets the cheque book out in 5 seconds flat. Apparently the financial blackhol ethat is many Vic clubs are a more worthwhile cause.

- The differing treatment given to my club vrs the power melb clubs with behavioural problems. I am not defending my club or suggesting that we didn't deserve the criticisma and "please explain" that we got from the commission. But why are are collingwood and hawthorn not getting the same treatment? The AFL and Demetriou have not had the balls to utter one word of criticism at either of these 2 clubs even though their records with player incidents are nearly as bad as ours. They get protected, we get hung out to dry.

Deetriou is a puppet of the powerful meobourne clubs and the voting block of 10 teams that they control.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Would be a good, healthy uproar though.

My idea is that all Victorian clubs should have to pay the licence fees which the non-victorian clubs had to pay (adjusted of course for inflation).

See who can hack it then.

Erm, why exactly?

I like you guys, i wish we had your money and I'm by no means a parochial anti-interstate Vic type, but you guys did come and join OUR competition.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Ha! Even the new clubs don't have to pay that fee. Adelaide and Port should take the AFL to court over that, surely they would get their money back?! Or the SANFL would at least.

Now there you guys have a genuine case.

Why should the new expansion teams not have to pay?

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

All good reasons why there are too many teams in Victoria.

When a side only makes the finals three times in 28 years do they deserve to be in the elite comp??

When a club cant stand up on its own, should they be given handouts. Its a business not community footy.

LOL.

Is it footy first or a business first mate? Seriously, what did we all sit down and watch last weekend? two of the finest accounting teams in the crunch numbers or two teams of 22 footballers play football.

I can appreciate you guys are frustrated over being shafted with the license fee, and must get frustrated that not every club is mega rich, but that's how it is.

FWIW my club is certainly doing everything possible to get out of that situation. Our plan is not to be taking any AFL money in three years time and given all we have done in developing the game - yes, its true - that's not much to ask.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

the same clubs struggling for cash now, were struggling then. the expansion teams saved the VFL not vice versa.

Not true. False. The clubs struggling were Collingwood and Richmond. Collingwood were trading insolvent for a while. Richmond were out rattling tins (something we;ve never done). Same with St Kilda. All these clubs are now OK.

My club for one was actually fairly stable at the time. Melbourne was OK too if memory serves.

 

[Crow-mo]

Not true. False. The clubs struggling were Collingwood and Richmond. Collingwood were trading insolvent for a while. Richmond were out rattling tins (something we;ve never done). Same with St Kilda. All these clubs are now OK.

My club for one was actually fairly stable at the time. Melbourne was OK too if memory serves.

lets put it this way...

that all sounds like someone making it up from memory

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

lets put it this way...

that all sounds like someone making it up from memory

Seriously. Look at the history mate. In the expansions period, Collingwood was broke. They were trading insolvent. Richmond was broke - ever hear of the Save Our Skins campaign? St Kilda were broke too. These were the big Melbourne clubs that were desperate for cash.

North were financially OK during this period. So were Melbourne. Footscray were not rich either and even poor old Fitzroy was bumbling along.