Dogs gone ? (Or Hawks Roos Cats Demons Saints Tigers Bombers etc)

[Pessimistic]

The article in the afl.com quoting that the Doggies will only survive for two more years should be the most important topic discussed. Recently the Hawks, saints, tigers, Demons, North have been close to that position. The other clubs who are 'onlookers' to this have had cash flow crisis' recently (yes, even essendon) The famous 'waiting list' for memberships at the eagles has disappeared.

Why is it that when the competition is apparently swimming in money that a substantial number of clubs are drowning.

Why is it that with a two foldincrease in members in the last few years that there are still issues like this ? Weren't we told that membership was the key to survival ?

How come when our game attendances are very healthy (for every club) compared to most other football competitions, and players are relatively modestly compensated, that there is a problem ?

Surely the central administrators need to be replced with people who can get it right.

Surely this is so Obvious

 

[topdon]

I guess Pess this has been the story throughout the Wayne Jackson regeme. He has been in control of a competition that has undergone tremendous growth (and continues to grow), but as you say, clubs still find themselves in the red (when even winning a premiership doesn't guarantee a profit). This is what's fundamentally wrong with the game as it stands, and this starts from the top...the incompentant AFL Commission.

As has been brought up in another thread, the idea of all clubs having to play 95% of their salary cap, is greatly flawed. You are finding players getting payed well above market worth and some getting grossly underpaid in the pusuit of success (in Essendon's case). Players are forced into making choices..the money?...or loyalty?

The clubs should be entitled to spend what they deem an appropriate amount to spend on their players. Especially at those struggling clubs. As you say Pess...membership are just not cutting it anymore. All clubs should have this option, so if they are going though a period of poor on-field performance, their off-field perfomance doesn't suffer as much as it is now.

Football is becoming so political, i believe the members of the clubs should have voting rights on the appointment of the AFL Commission. The clubs' members are in effect 'shareholders' in the game and have i right to force change at the top. They (the commission) are getting it too easy.

What does everyone think?

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Hear Hear Topdon!!!!!! If there is one thing that I would love to see it's at least one or more commissioners elected by the club members. At least that way we might get rid of some of this conflict of interest and other corporate problems sweeping the game.

Anyway, the AFL says it wants to keep 16 teams, so long as they are properly managed. I don't think anyone could argue teams such as the Bulldogs, St. Kilda and Port Adelaide are poorly managed. Their struggle to make money or survive has nothing to do with poor management.

Some people will use the argument Victoria can't support 10 clubs etc. etc. but I for one don't subscribe to that theory. Every team is attracting decent crowds and/or has a decent membership base. Five years ago the AFL said 20,000 members would guarantee survival...most teams have that now and are still struggling.

I think there are a couple of things the AFL could do. For starters, sell Waverley for God's sake! What are they doing with it?

Now I thought Waverley should have been saved, but regardless it's too late now and by having it sitting there, it's pointless and is costing everyone money.

Also I think the AFL should cut back on the money it's spending on the "development" of the game in NSW and Queensland and concentrate more on ensuring clubs survive.

Look at all the people that were lost to the game when Fitzroy went under - losing another club would cost the AFL far more in supporters and young players than they will ever generate from NSW & QLD. I'm not saying don't spend any money there, I'm just saying the survival of the 16 existing AFL clubs should be the number 1 priority of the AFL

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Yes - its absolutely incomprehensible to me that a football competition that averages 30,000 plus at the gate is struggling financially.

Where to sheet home the blame ?

The AFL, the AFPA and the players managers are all to blame for being in an unholy conspiracy to drive up player wages far beyond that which is reasonable and which clubs can afford. Compounding this is the 95% salary cap rule which most would now acknowledge is utter insanity.

I don't have a problem with guys like Hird or Carey getting nearly a million a season, no, its whats happening at the other end of the pay scale that is really getting me worried.

The average annual salary for a AFL player is now around 107,000 per year - its pretty big money for not a helluva lot I reckon. A player of average ability who maybe would play 60 % of his games in the VFL and who would struggle for senior selection walks off with 107,000 a year - think about that ?

Its not fair and I just wish the players, the AFLPA and those greedy players' managers would take a good long look at themselves because most clubs are really struggling to meet those wages bills nowadays.

cheers

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Couldn't agree more - the AFL should just put a clamp on the salary cap effective immediately that means it only rises in line with the CPI index. Surely that isn't too hard. All these players are holding off signing deals until the AFL reveals how much the salary cap is going to rise - why should it rise by anymore than 2-3% when clubs can't afford it?

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
Couldn't agree more - the AFL should just put a clamp on the salary cap effective immediately that means it only rises in line with the CPI index. Surely that isn't too hard. All these players are holding off signing deals until the AFL reveals how much the salary cap is going to rise - why should it rise by anymore than 2-3% when clubs can't afford it?

If it doesn't rise by 10% watch the walkings from Windy Hill... that is why it must happen...

 

[Dave]

Pess, Adrian, GH, BSA well said guys, I couldn't agree more.

How can so many clubs be so close to the wall when the competition is supposedly so healthy? I think Patrick Smith's suggestion has merit. Whilst it irks me that often supporters of some clubs are subsidising others we have to remember that without those "smaller" clubs, who are we going to play every week? The AFL must ensure that all the clubs survive, and that if that means a little pain for some of the more comfortable (not just the larger vic clubs either, I mean ALL of the well offs) then so be it.

Rooboy, nice to see you're continuing your recent interest in Essendon and it's affairs. You'll have something to post about when your mob's gone *

And rise or no, there'll be no mass exodus from Windy Hill , our blokes play for the jumper & premierships, not mere dollars **








































* disclaimer. Piss take (1) for those that don't recognise it.

** disclaimer. Piss take (2) for those that don't recognise it.

 

[1AD]

Originally posted by Rooboy 96


If it doesn't rise by 10% watch the walkings from Windy Hill... that is why it must happen...

What did Bell leave for....his health ?

 

[Smokin]

Clubs are gonna have to be careful where they invest their money away from direct football operations. The last report I got from Essendon was that we had $4million apparently sitting doing nothing and we had to decide where to invest the money. (apparently windy hill is recieving a 2 million upgrade)

Most clubs have pokies and restuarants/pubs which can help the flow of cash, so I guess clubs are going to have to get creative with their investments.

Perhaps clubs should be allowed to spend what they like on players up to the salary cap limit. Perhaps they could scrap the salary cap altogether - look out then victorian clubs!!!

Also, I thought all clubs where split the receipts from the sale of Waverly, untill of course the joint was put on that protected list thing. Whats the story with that now?

 

[GOALden Hawk]

But if all teams have to pay 95% of the salary cap (and apparently nearly all are paying closer to 100%, if not more) then no 10% increase will not make any difference to Essendon. If all these players jump ship to get more money - most clubs will only be able to afford a slightly higher offer for one or two players anyway, as their salary cap problems are as bad as Essendon's.

I thought that was the whole idea of the salary cap - dilute one team's power by forcing players to either play for less money or all go to separate clubs who can afford to pay for one more star, but not 12. But if the salary cap continues to rise at 10% then it's a pointless mechanism.

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
But if all teams have to pay 95% of the salary cap (and apparently nearly all are paying closer to 100%, if not more) then no 10% increase will not make any difference to Essendon. If all these players jump ship to get more money - most clubs will only be able to afford a slightly higher offer for one or two players anyway, as their salary cap problems are as bad as Essendon's.

From how I understand it Essendon have already factored in a % increase and if this doesn't happen... the players that are not yet contracted will be offered 4 or 5 year contracts heavily weighted in the 4th and 5th years... but some players will not want this... be assured... and they are the ones that will walk...

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
I thought that was the whole idea of the salary cap - dilute one team's power by forcing players to either play for less money or all go to separate clubs who can afford to pay for one more star, but not 12. But if the salary cap continues to rise at 10% then it's a pointless mechanism.

exactly... in 1996 the Kangaroos won both reserve and senior flags... in the off-season that followed many senior Premiership players were justly rewarded with new improved contracts... but in doing this three quarters of the reserve team was delisted (to stay under the cap)... and suddenly the depth was gone... only now 5 years on is it starting to be rebuilt... I am not saying this is unfair just the way it was intended... and clubs must find ways (legal) to stay at the top...

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by 1AD


What did Bell leave for....his health ?

We all know why Mr Ding Dong left the Kangaroos... will it be a bad career move... only time will tell... But it aint starting too crash hot...

 

[James2]

Problems

An interesting topic. I mwish to make a few points..

1. Although there are clubs with financial problems, they are not nearly as bad now as they were 15 years ago. In 1984 a VFL report concluded that:

* six clubs (Fitzroy, Footscray, Collingwood, St Kilda, Sydney and Geelong) were technically bankrupt.
* in the twelve months between 1983 and 1984 the gap between club expenditure and revenue increased 900%
*at the end of 1984 all clubs debts were $7 million ahead of realisable assets.

It is true that some clubs are in a dire financial position, but it is not nearly so bad as it once was.

2. Having stated this, there are some financial issues that need to be drastically amended:

* When it is stated that the salary cap rise will be 10 %, this ignores the rise in the superannuation liability that the club has to play. To illustrate:

If the salary cap is $5.2 million, this means that each club must pay $468, 000 in superannuation.

If the salary cap rises by 10 % to $ 5.72 million, that superannuation liability becomes $514, 800. If this were to continue for five years the salary cap would be $7.61332 million. The superannunation liability (assumin it stays at 9%) will be $685,200 (approx). That is a rise of $217,000 in five years in addition to what they pay other employees. This is a significant sum yet it is never mentioned.

* In addition to players, the football administration has exploded in size. Most clubs now employ a number of coaches many of whom are well paid. Further, the growing emphasis on fitness will soon see the payments for fitness advisers blow out. Unlike the players, there is no regulation or salary cap on coaches wages.

*The budget for the football administration takes the largest slice of a clubs' expenditure. Whilst this is not suprising in itself, it is growing at rate that is unsustainable. The good thing is, that the AFL has time to fix it before we are again in a position like 1984.

2. The greatest concern is the decline in so-called grass roots football. This issue has been often discussed on this forum, to which I don't need to add, except to say that I agree with the conclusions of W. Pederson.

3. Many comments have been made about the comeptence of the AFL administration. I do not believe that they are incompetent, considering there careers, I do not think such an allegation is valid. I agree that they are too often manufacturing issues to distract attention from bad publicity, there is also a culture of "control" at AFL headquarters which needs to be changed. I certainly believe that there is a desperate need for more "football" people to be on the AFL Commission and a change to the unsightly scrap involving elections to the Commission such as occurred earlier in the year.

There is probably more but I can't think of it at the moment.

Cheers.