Gate sharing in melbourne ?

[Ned_Flanders]

Pool and evenly distribute all gate returns or fixture based solely on the previous year's ladder (including blockbusters)

Make your choice.

Wont work because some teams who have SFA walk ups at the gate (ie WCE and Geelong) will make out like bandits. They get all the revenue from their home games (because they are members and reserved seats who pay WCE direct), but a bigger gate share for away games.

Personally I'm a fan on changing the afl seat tax. Currently it's $2 per seat. Switch it to 10%, so as clubs are able to charge more due to blockbusters and sell outs, they contribute more. Counter to this, if a club hits a slump, memberships fall, and it loses Friday nights and blockbusters, its contribution automatically falls

 

[The_Wookie]

What is defined as gate revenue ?

Isnt this gate share a VFL thing from the 70s?

Actually gate sharing was using right up until the late 90s across all clubs, but abandoned by the AFL because it wasnt working, particularly for matches involving Melbourne clubs v interstate clubs in melbourne where clubs would barely break even on those matches after ground rental and match expenses.

personally believe the AFL as convenor of the league should pay all stadium rentals where matches are concerned out of general league income, not the clubs. Then all clubs can recieve an equal distribution back from the AFL without the need for extra funding to make up for stadium return short falls.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

Home team takes 60% of the gate revenue from their home games.

Remaining 40% is pooled for equal distribution league-wide.

A step in the right direction

 

[Tas]

This will not work as none of the big clubs will get together in this sort of arrangement with any of the smaller clubs because the smaller clubs won't have any of the drawing power to get people through the gate.

The big clubs could do it but they don't have to anyway because they most likely play each other twice a year as one home game each and therefore they get big numbers to both those games and make the same amount of money.

It is not about crowd drawing, it is about flattening out the revenue so it doesn't matter if it is a home or away game.

Ie, our last two games vs Collingwood at Docklands.
Round 2, 2011: North vs Collingwood 40,578
Round 21,2012: Collingwood vs North 44,956

There is a marginal difference overall between playing home and away, what is important is if you get it as a home game or away game. If we only play Collingwood, Essendon or Carlton once then it makes a big impact if it is a home or away game.

Another issue is that Collingwood plays most of their home games at the MCG and that the AFL will not allow us to move our bigger drawing games to the MCG because the AFL have to provide a number of games to Docklands each year that have the potential to be a sell-out and also have to meet minimum attendance levels. We never signed a contract that said we would be lumped with all of the AFL's problems meeting the Docklands demands. Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton approved the same deal that North, Dogs and Saints did yet 3 clubs are stuck with the burden and the other three are not.

That isn't any of these club's fault, it is the AFL's fault for selling Docklands to the clubs on a fantasy that hasn't come remotely close to being achieved by the stadium's managers.

The process going on now is looking for alternatives so we can address the problems within the limitations we have in place.

I think a different solution is to give equity in the Docklands stadium to the clubs that have had to endure paying it off. If we are losing about $8m per annum on lost potential revenue due to paying off Docklands then we should own equity in the stadium based on what proportion of the stadium we are paying off each game, each year. We may have accumulated say $100m in assets in terms of part ownership of Docklands. We can then sell off any part of our ownership in the asset if we do not want to be economically burdened or can't afford it.

AFL can then say when they take control of Docklands, it will be provided to AFL clubs based on overheads + 10% to clubs that play there. On average, overheads are about 25% of match day revenue nation wide, so clubs would get 65% of the gate at Docklands after hand-over and the 10% would be divided amongst the stadium owners at the end of the season. They would also earn a share of non-football events.

Rather than just have a system of bullshit handouts you actually have some control in what you want to do and it is not charity, we don't make spit at Docklands because we are paying the thing off. The fruits of the labour should go to those who pay it off.

 

[The_Wookie]

A step in the right direction

A step back to the 80s. I know theres a thread on this somewhere...and if theres not it can be found here

A brief History of Gate receipt distribution

Clubs received gate reciepts in the 1930s, as it was reported in a paper in 1997 (History of Player Recruitment, Transfer and Payment Rules in the V/AFL, Booth, 1997, pg 17) that due primarily to poor performance Norths gate receipts were poor and they couldnt afford to pay players much or bid against the richer clubs for interstate players. The paper says that only Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond were financially strong during this period.

In 1946, The Argus (April 13th – “Pooling VFL receipts“) reported that the league intended to split gate revenue in the following manner:

• All 12 league clubs would place 75% of gate receipts into a common pool which would be split at the end of the season equally by all clubs.
• Clubs would receive 60 pounds per week for ground expenses.

The VFL had a committee that decided upon the split as far back as the 60s where reciepts were the majority of a clubs income. By the 80s that had changed, there was still a VFL committee but the receipts were split amongst all clubs, at least until 1985. During this period Geelong, St Kilda, Fitzroy, Footscray, Collingwood and Sydney were all basically bankrupt despite the equalisation measures.

A paper in 1985 (Sporting Traditions, RK Stewart, 1985, pg 4) states that the VFL collected all gate receipts and used them as follows:

• $0.25 from all Adult admissions during Home and Away matches taken for the VFL ground improvement fund
• 15% for VFL administration
• 40% for the competing clubs, split 50/50
• 25% for the ground managers (ie. local councils in many cases)
• 20% remaining split equally by all clubs at the end of the season. (the paper refers to this as an equalisation fund AND IT WAS 1985!

The real answer to your question though might be when did the AFL end the 50/50 revenue sharing arrangement.

According to Ross Booth in 2005 – anyone seriously asking this question should read his paper on Economic Effects of changes to Gate sharing arrangements. In 1998, the AFL decided that revenue sharing had not worked as an equalisation measure. In fact it was likely that home clubs rarely benefited from gate reciepts once match expenses were paid out of them, especially in smaller stadiums – although they may have made money from memberships and reserved seating (which has never been split). The AFL made the call in 2000, believing that it would encourage smaller clubs to play in larger stadiums.

At the same time, the AFL wanted to double the equalisation levy – this was rejected by the clubs although it was agreed they should adjust it for inflation (from $1.10 up to $1.50 per adult ticket), and an apparent “blockbuster levy” of $25,000 be maintained.

The Book International Sports Economic Comparison (Fort, Fizel pg 335) tells us in its notes that 50/50 gate sharing was abandoned in 2000 in favour of the home team keeping all match receipts after match expenses. There are rare exceptions to that rule and only with the consent of competing clubs (ie. Melbourne v Collingwood)

 

[Kwality]

Actually gate sharing was using right up until the late 90s across all clubs, but abandoned by the AFL because it wasnt working, particularly for matches involving Melbourne clubs v interstate clubs in melbourne where clubs would barely break even on those matches after ground rental and match expenses.

personally believe the AFL as convenor of the league should pay all stadium rentals where matches are concerned out of general league income, not the clubs. Then all clubs can recieve an equal distribution back from the AFL without the need for extra funding to make up for stadium return short falls.

A positive suggestion, good idea.

So what is the downside , the Melbourne arrangement where there are different arrangements for different clubs - the AFL could over ride this TODAY using the distribution to the clubs but there would be winners & losers, & Collingwood & Essendon wouldnt cop it.
Would Geelong be able to continue its arrangement that it has worked long & hard to achieve, & is a icon example of how to get a stadium up & working.
Then there are the arrangements @ Adelaide Oval, subject to a State Govt arrangement - would the stadium fee be compared with the Melbourne arrangements?
In WA the current arrangement funds WA footy, no one knows what the new stadium will bring.

Its a minefield Wookie but I'd agree, something has to be done.