Eddie makes sense

[BUBBALOUIS]

Despite the fact that i dont follow one of the 'big' clubs, i found that Eddie McGuires arguments on his return from England quite compelling when discussing why gate sharing equalisation should not be brought back.

Clubs need to be responsible for there own futures, if a club is in financial difficulty, why not spend to only 95% of your salary cap and hire 3 instead of 5 assistant coaches, as Eddie pointed out that would save a club $700,000 without raising a sweat!!

Whilst im 100% behind all of the current clubs survival, i shake my head when i hear Freemantle will be losing over half a million this year yet are still able to poach a coach with a rported lure of $800,000 a year!

Collingwood apparantly used these cost saving measures when Eddie first becamePresident. Hawthorn as has been reported before run there administration at @ 1 million leaner than all other clubs!

Perhaps clubs dont want to be accountable, what they really want is others to do the hard yards for them so they can spend bigger on coaches etc?

 

[Seth]

Very true Bubba. I always said that St Kilda will be in trouble within 2 years as soon as they spent all this money. Like any person or any business, sometimes you have to tighten the belt a little and go a litle backwards before coming forwards. Collingwood remember had a loss in 99 but now have come back through cost cutting and sensible spending.

These clubs have to be accountable and stop putting the hand out when things don't go their way. I am the first one that hopes that all clubs survive but they have to start accounting for their actions off the field. I was very critical of the way Collingwood used to be but at least with some good mamangent now they have now got their act together off field.

 

[Darky]

I think St.Kilda would be guilty of overspending - paying 100% of its salary cap on a very ordinary list, and paying an exorbitant amount for a high profile coach - and this is bad management, something which most clubs do experience at some point.

I understand that gate-sharing can act as a quick fix in such circumstances and obviouolsy that isn't what it's aim is.

Unfortunately the lopsided draw and fixture do not provide the level playing field the "Big 4" claim they want (while still requesting a return game against all others in the "Big 4" !), - gate-sharing hopefully goes some way to even this out, and this should be its only purpose.

Anyone advocating a level playing field can start with scrapping the now-cemented Essendon vs Collingwood fixture on Anzac day as it guarantees both clubs a Home game against its highest drawing rival, something which other clubs (except Carlton and Richmond of course) don't often get.

 

[GOALden Hawk]

That's right Darky....all very well for Eddie to be saying clubs need to be more accountable, when he happily knows his club will get their guaranteed 2 matches against Essendon, Collingwood and Richmond year in year out.

I agree with his points regarding the football department and assistant coaches, apparently this is the main reason Hawthorn are expecting a profit this year.

However, some of his comments were pretty poor I thought. Here are some below:

It gets annoying the first reaction every time is to say equalisation.``

Well clearly gate equalisation isn't working so can you blame clubs for bringing it up?


Let`s not suck the life out of a Collingwood that has fought back from near oblivion,`

Oh please, Eddie using the scare tactics there. Does he really believe that if the equalisation policy is changed Collingwood is going to suddenly become financially vulnerable? He said himself most of the money for this year for the Magpies came from reduced spending and better marketing.

We`ve come through the tough times and now we should be rewarded, not have our profits be further cut by clubs.`

Should be rewarded? What does he expect? A medal?

He said the fact Collingwood and Essendon and Collingwood and Carlton had gate-sharing and marketing deals was evidence clubs could work together.

And here's the clincher. He claims the deals by the big 3 is evidence that clubs could work together. Yet he is forgetting one important fact. That system works because they know they will be playing each other twice each season! Of course they can share gate receipts when they know they will play each other twice EVERY year.

Could say, the Bulldogs and Essendon do this? Of course not, because there is no such guarantee. Just say they play each other twice one year, and one game draws a big crowd and the other doesn't. Do you think the home team of the game with the big crowd will go "No worries, we'll just share the gate receipts for the year". Of course not, because they don't know if they will be playing each once or twice the following season.

Deals between clubs can only work if they know the AFL will schedule them to play twice every season. As long as the draw is compromised with 16 teams and 22 rounds, the AFL can't guarantee everyone this and that's why the gate receipt policy HAS TO change.

 

[elt]

You're right. Eddie does make sense.

It is best to use your life lines, because you never will be back in that chair again.

 

[september_joffa]

The collingwood football club 2 years ago was more than one million dollars in debt it is now looking at a profit 2 years ago the collingwood football club were wooden spooners now we look as though we are going to play in a finals series for what seems like an eternity.

The collingwood football club did not go crying to the AFL

The collingwood football club did not go crying to other football clubs.

The collingwood football club in true collingwood style worked its a.r.s.e off to get where it is now and proudly with out any help from anyone.

Well done collingwood!!

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

Look guys dont get me wrong i think the draw is grossly unfair! Were i DO agree with Eddie is why should the Saints for example cry poor when they have the highest paid coach in the biz and an expensive support crew, why should we help Freemantle if there gonna poach a coach from another League club for @ $800k oer annum, etc etc etc

If we give these clubs more cash, what incentive is there for them to be better managers of there finances? What incentive to chase new sponsorships? Just leave it to the others theyll pick up the slack 'coz we need 16 teams?

If Hawthorn could get themselves outta the **** during a period where the club was less than successful, why cant others?

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Originally posted by BUBBALOUIS
Look guys dont get me wrong i think the draw is grossly unfair! Were i DO agree with Eddie is why should the Saints for example cry poor when they have the highest paid coach in the biz and an expensive support crew, why should we help Freemantle if there gonna poach a coach from another League club for @ $800k oer annum, etc etc etc

If we give these clubs more cash, what incentive is there for them to be better managers of there finances? What incentive to chase new sponsorships? Just leave it to the others theyll pick up the slack 'coz we need 16 teams?

If Hawthorn could get themselves outta the **** during a period where the club was less than successful, why cant others?

No, I agree with you and I agree with those points Eddie made. My anger is at the gate receipt policy and presidents like Eddie and Clinton Casey saying it shouldn't change because they KNOW they receive a better draw than anyone else from the AFL.

 

[StrengthThroughLoyalty]

Originally posted by Seth
Very true Bubba. I always said that St Kilda will be in trouble within 2 years as soon as they spent all this money. Like any person or any business, sometimes you have to tighten the belt a little and go a litle backwards before coming forwards. Collingwood remember had a loss in 99 but now have come back through cost cutting and sensible spending.

These clubs have to be accountable and stop putting the hand out when things don't go their way. I am the first one that hopes that all clubs survive but they have to start accounting for their actions off the field. I was very critical of the way Collingwood used to be but at least with some good mamangent now they have now got their act together off field.

anyone in business knows in order to make money you have to spend it. st kilda made a decision at the end of last year that they would endeavour to get the best people available and the cost would be covered by an increase in membership. what else could they do? simply tightening the belt and cutting costs would have left us with no new players, a second rate coach, less members and a disallusioned supporter base with nothing to look forward to.

well st kilda had the highest percentage membership increase in the league, 17000 to 22500. we budgeted at the start of the year for a loss of $250,000.00. the fact that this has happened is not a surprise, it was anticipated. with this loss the club will still be in the black due to a prudent financial regime from andrew plympton and his board.

all the st kilda hierarchy are asking for is to be able to compete financially on a level playing field. if the afl are going to contrive the draw to allow the big 4 to play each other twice then every other melbourne club who is financially disadvantaged by this should be compensated by a fairer distribution of the gate receipts.

eddie is looking out for collingwoods interests only, fair enough as long as he stops the charade of caring for clubs not in the big 4. he puts his collingwood presidents hat on and puts forward the case to allow the big 4 to get bigger at the expense of the other teams and the competition and then changes hats on the footy show and asks all supporters of the saints/roos/ dogs to get behind the board and financially support the side, what a f*cken hypocrite.

agree with everything you have said goaldenhawk.

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

Originally posted by StrengthThroughLoyalty


anyone in business knows in order to make money you have to spend it. st kilda made a decision at the end of last year that they would endeavour to get the best people available and the cost would be covered by an increase in membership. what else could they do? simply tightening the belt and cutting costs would have left us with no new players, a second rate coach, less members and a disallusioned supporter base with nothing to look forward to.

well st kilda had the highest percentage membership increase in the league, 17000 to 22500. we budgeted at the start of the year for a loss of $250,000.00. the fact that this has happened is not a surprise, it was anticipated. with this loss the club will still be in the black due to a prudent financial regime from andrew plympton and his board.

all the st kilda hierarchy are asking for is to be able to compete financially on a level playing field. if the afl are going to contrive the draw to allow the big 4 to play each other twice then every other melbourne club who is financially disadvantaged by this should be compensated by a fairer distribution of the gate receipts.

eddie is looking out for collingwoods interests only, fair enough as long as he stops the charade of caring for clubs not in the big 4. he puts his collingwood presidents hat on and puts forward the case to allow the big 4 to get bigger at the expense of the other teams and the competition and then changes hats on the footy show and asks all supporters of the saints/roos/ dogs to get behind the board and financially support the side, what a f*cken hypocrite.

agree with everything you have said goaldenhawk.

STL i think StKilda's approach is a high risk one, which ultimately MAY prove successful, what if your high paid recruits continue to be injury prone? What if Malcolm Blight decides after 2 seasons hes had enough of coaching again? Where to then, should the AFL then be expected to bail you out 'coz your strategy didnt work? Dont get me wrong i hope you are successful and the strategy works, but its not a guarantee is it?

You also ask what else could we do? Well Geelong were in a similar position 3 years ago, they recruited kids with ability, cut down there expenditure on assistant coaches etc and went for a highly recommended but NOT Expensive coach. The year he was appointed they lost there captain Leigh Colbert. So there is other ways of being successful other than splashing big bucks around

 

[september_joffa]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
That's right Darky....all very well for Eddie to be saying clubs need to be more accountable, when he happily knows his club will get their guaranteed 2 matches against Essendon, Collingwood and Richmond year in year out.

I agree with his points regarding the football department and assistant coaches, apparently this is the main reason Hawthorn are expecting a profit this year.

However, some of his comments were pretty poor I thought. Here are some below:

It gets annoying the first reaction every time is to say equalisation.``

Well clearly gate equalisation isn't working so can you blame clubs for bringing it up?

Your a joke so now eddie organises the fixtures does he //

WELL THUCK ME FOR BEING SO SILLY COS I DID NOT KNOW THAT!!

I sort of believed it was the greedy AFL who decided that collingwood should play the essendons the carltons and the richmonds twice.

All great clubs all hard games...wow i only wish we could play them once gee look at the amount of finals series we may have missed out on

gee some clubs are lucky to play carlton richmond and essendon once take away the returned clashes and thats gotta be a walk up 3 wins somewhere along the line.


Let`s not suck the life out of a Collingwood that has fought back from near oblivion,`

Oh please, Eddie using the scare tactics there. Does he really believe that if the equalisation policy is changed Collingwood is going to suddenly become financially vulnerable? He said himself most of the money for this year for the Magpies came from reduced spending and better marketing.

We`ve come through the tough times and now we should be rewarded, not have our profits be further cut by clubs.`

Should be rewarded? What does he expect? A medal?

He said the fact Collingwood and Essendon and Collingwood and Carlton had gate-sharing and marketing deals was evidence clubs could work together.

And here's the clincher. He claims the deals by the big 3 is evidence that clubs could work together. Yet he is forgetting one important fact. That system works because they know they will be playing each other twice each season! Of course they can share gate receipts when they know they will play each other twice EVERY year.

Could say, the Bulldogs and Essendon do this? Of course not, because there is no such guarantee. Just say they play each other twice one year, and one game draws a big crowd and the other doesn't. Do you think the home team of the game with the big crowd will go "No worries, we'll just share the gate receipts for the year". Of course not, because they don't know if they will be playing each once or twice the following season.

Deals between clubs can only work if they know the AFL will schedule them to play twice every season. As long as the draw is compromised with 16 teams and 22 rounds, the AFL can't guarantee everyone this and that's why the gate receipt policy HAS TO change.

 

[StrengthThroughLoyalty]

Originally posted by BUBBALOUIS


STL i think StKilda's approach is a high risk one, which ultimately MAY prove successful, what if your high paid recruits continue to be injury prone? What if Malcolm Blight decides after 2 seasons hes had enough of coaching again? Where to then, should the AFL then be expected to bail you out 'coz your strategy didnt work? Dont get me wrong i hope you are successful and the strategy works, but its not a guarantee is it?

You also ask what else could we do? Well Geelong were in a similar position 3 years ago, they recruited kids with ability, cut down there expenditure on assistant coaches etc and went for a highly recommended but NOT Expensive coach. The year he was appointed they lost there captain Leigh Colbert. So there is other ways of being successful other than splashing big bucks around

bubba there are no guarantess with any stratagies but i believe the highest risk approach for us would have been to do nothing. we now have the people in place that are capable of delivering success, with an ounce of luck.

geelong are b/w 4 to 6m in debt because they spent money on grandstands, they probably won't make the finals this year, and went to their supporters last year to raise money, how is that being successful? st kilda are in the black and still will be at the end of this season despite winning 5 games out of about 45.

i will repeat again, st kilda are not wanting a hand out or to be bailed out all we want is to be able to compete financially on a level playing field. not the one contrived by the afl and greedily supported by the presidents of the big 4.

 

[Voice of Reason]

Eddie - now there's a conflict of interest

If you look at the practical effect of doing what Eddie says, amazingly it benefits Collingwood. Largely at the expense of the poorer Victorian clubs, who supposedly according to other posts, Collingwood have always helped out.

St Kilda's supposedly high risk strategy was IMO the most sensible one at the time it was launched. They were stone motherless last on the oval and had to do something. They tried to get the best coach and some decent players and invested in their future after years of trying to run on a cost-cutters basis. I don't think there's much evidence of waste or mismanagement at St Kilda is there?

The Roos are trying to secure their future too by developing an interstate market and supporter base.

Both the above two clubs should be helped by the AFL to continue to improve their situation by sensible planned investment.

I find it ironic that an interstater like me actually has the interests of Victorian clubs more at heart than Eddie or John Elliott for that matter. Perhaps that's because I care about the game and not just my club or my wallet.

 

[ck_nd]

september_joffa shared his wisdom:

The collingwood football club 2 years ago was more than one million dollars in debt it is now looking at a profit 2 years ago the collingwood football club were wooden spooners now we look as though we are going to play in a finals series for what seems like an eternity.

well said Joffa, maybe it's time that those "give it to me on a silver spoon" type clubs pull their finger out and do a bit of hard work... like it never killed anyone at Collingwood!

Go Pies!

Carol

 

[Same Old's]

Carol,

You must remember that Collingwood got where it is today (at least on the playing field) by getting high draft picks as a result of finishing near the lower parts of the ladder.

That's a result of equalisation.

 

[Diatribe]

Originally posted by Seth
Collingwood remember had a loss in 99 but now have come back through cost cutting and sensible spending.

collingwood actually paid Tony Shaw to coach? LOL

 

[Fat Red]

If Collingwood with their huge membership etc can still make a loss in 999 then doesn't that show that the smaller clubs aren't necessarily poorly managed?
If anything, Collingwood are the ones with the history of poor management--but luckily have enough fans that as soon as someone half-competent is in charge they can turn it around.